Lecture 9 – Collective Efficacy

What is the Sampson and Groves (1989) study about?

Tested Shaw and McKay’s Social Disorganization Theory using data from the 1982 British Crime Survey.

What was the survey population in the Sampson and Groves study?

Over 10,000 residents across 238 communities.

What structural characteristics did Sampson and Groves examine?

Socioeconomic status (SES), ethnic heterogeneity, residential mobility, and family disruption.

How does lower SES impact crime rates?

Leads to fewer resources and opportunities, increasing crime rates.

What is the relationship between ethnic heterogeneity and crime?

Diverse neighborhoods experience weaker social cohesion, leading to higher crime.

How does residential mobility affect crime?

Frequent movement disrupts social ties and shared values, increasing crime.

What effect does family disruption have on crime?

Weakens informal social controls, contributing to higher crime.

What are the key variables for measuring social disorganization?

1. Local friendship networks

2. Unsupervised teenage peer groups

3. Organizational participation.

How do strong local friendship networks impact crime?

They reduce crime by increasing social control.

What is the correlation between unsupervised teenage peer groups and crime?

Larger groups indicate weak social control and correlate with higher crime.

What statistical method did Sampson and Groves use?

Regression analysis.

What is the Z-score formula used for?

Measures how far a raw value is from the mean, adjusted for standard deviation.

What conclusion did Sampson and Groves draw about urban areas?

More urbanized areas tend to have weaker friendship networks, contributing to higher crime.

What question did Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls (1997) explore?

Why do some neighborhoods experience more crime than others with similar socioeconomic conditions?

What is the key argument of collective efficacy?

Crime is due to a lack of collective efficacy—social cohesion and informal social control.

What is collective efficacy defined as?

A community’s ability to control undesirable behavior through trust, solidarity, and informal social control.

What are the components of collective efficacy?

Social cohesion 2) Social control.

What methodology did Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls use?

Surveyed residents to analyze crime at the community level.

How does concentrated disadvantage affect collective efficacy?

Poverty and family disruption reduce collective efficacy, making crime more likely.

What is the impact of collective efficacy in strong communities?

Residents care for children and monitor spaces, reducing crime.

What did Hipp and Wickes (2017) find about collective efficacy?

Does not directly affect crime but interacts with concentrated disadvantage over time.

What did Hipp and Wickes say about building collective efficacy?

Takes time and requires long-term efforts.

What were Danielsson (2021) findings on collective efficacy in Finland?

Reduced violent crime in private spaces but not in public.

How does concentrated disadvantage relate to crime in private spaces?

More prone in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

What policy strategies can strengthen collective efficacy?

Encourage community involvement like neighborhood watches.

How do playgrounds and shared spaces reduce crime?

Foster neighbor interactions, increasing social cohesion.

What is the main takeaway about collective efficacy from long-term studies?

Building collective efficacy is a gradual process.

Why is organizational participation important