degree to which the crime was unexpected. Greater
harm, greater potential harm, and greater unexpected-
ness lead to higher ratings of seriousness and to more
arousal and distress.
After determining the seriousness of the crime, the
victim must then decide what to do. Victims have four
options. First, they can seek a private solution, such as
seeking compensation from or retaliating against the
offender if he or she is known or, in some cases, from
third parties who may have been negligent in failing to
take actions that would have prevented the crime from
occurring. Second, victims can cognitively reevaluate
the situation, by either reconsidering whether the event
really was a crime or by reevaluating its seriousness.
The most common form of cognitive reevaluation is for
victims to blame themselves for the crime, at least in
part. Third, victims may report the crime to the police
based on their judgment after their weighing of the
costs and benefits that reporting is likely to reduce their
distress from being unfairly treated and being vulnera-
ble to future victimizations. Finally, some victims
might choose to do nothing, in the belief that nothing
can reduce the injustice and make them feel safe.Importance of Social Influence
Studies in the 1970s designed to determine why there
was such a long delay before the police arrived at a
crime scene came to the conclusion that the delay was
due not to the police taking a long time but to victims
talking to relatives, friends, and strangers before calling
the police. These discussions with others make sense in
that, for most people, being the victim of a crime is an
unusual event and victims are likely to turn to others for
help in understanding and coping with the crime.
According to social comparison theory, individuals
are likely to rely on others for information and advice
concerning perceptions and judgments that have no
objective standard. That reliance on others is particu-
larly likely when the individuals are aroused (as in an
emergency situation) and are unsure of what to do.
Consistent with this theory, crime victims often talk
with others, generally friends and relatives, before
deciding whether or not to call the police. And inter-
view studies with rape, burglary, robbery, and theft
victims indicate that these others are likely to give vic-
tims advice.
These other individuals can influence victims’ judg-
ments about whether an event is a crime, how serious
the crime is, and whether the crime should be reported.Their influence comes from providing victims with
information about the crime and the criminal justice
system, from applying normative pressure concerning
what they (and the group that they belong to) believe to
be appropriate, and from providing support (or some-
times nonsupport) in the form of sympathy, emotional
support, and tangible help. Furthermore, experimental
research by Martin Greenberg and Barry Ruback indi-
cates that victims are likely to follow that advice, even
if it comes from a stranger. Their experimental research
found that victims would be especially likely to call the
police if the bystander gave specific advice to call the
police (rather than diffuse advice to do something), was
physically present when the call to the police was
made, and offered to be of help in the future.
Investigations of norms among several ethnic
groups in the United States suggests that victims are
more likely to be advised to call the police if they are
female, if they are older, and if they have not been
drinking. Females are more likely than males to
advise calling the police. In addition, research across
countries suggests that the closer the relationship
between the offender and the victim, the less likely
people are to advise reporting.Bystander Reporting
In most cases, it is the victim who reports the crime to
the police. However, bystanders sometimes report, and
work by Bibb Latane and John Darley indicated that the
more the number of bystanders present the less likely
any one of them is to report the crime. According to
their research, the presence of others can affect whether
an individual bystander notices the incident, interprets
it as an emergency, assumes personal responsibility,
and then reports the event to the police. The presence of
others can lead to pluralistic ignorance,if for example,
everyone believes that someone else has already
reported the crime, and to diffusion of responsibility,if
people realize that they have some blame for not report-
ing but that this blame is shared by everyone else who
also did not report. Bystanders are often reluctant to
report because of a fear of looking foolish. Also,
bystanders may be reluctant to report crimes involving
domestic situations because of their belief that personal
relationships should be kept private.
For most crimes, bystanders who do not report are
not subject to legal sanction. The one exception is for
crimes of child abuse. All states mandate that when, in
the course of their employment or professional practice,Reporting Crimes and Victimization——— 687R-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 687