1 / 17

How collective is collective efficacy? The importance of consensus effects

How collective is collective efficacy? The importance of consensus effects. Ian Brunton-Smith, University of Surrey. Banff International Research Station – Mathematical Criminology and Security. 18-22 March 2019. Outline. Neighborhood effects and collective efficacy research

tlois
Download Presentation

How collective is collective efficacy? The importance of consensus effects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How collective is collective efficacy? The importance of consensus effects Ian Brunton-Smith, University of Surrey Banff International Research Station – Mathematical Criminology and Security. 18-22 March 2019

  2. Outline • Neighborhood effects and collective efficacy research • Re-assessing CE – the importance of consensus • Opportunities for new CE research?

  3. Neighborhood effects • Ongoing interest in the role of neighborhood context in generating/inhibiting criminality • Importance of structural and social features of the neighborhood • e.g. deprivation, population mobility, ethnic diversity, urbanicity, age structure, social cohesion/capital, disorder

  4. Neighborhood effects • Ongoing interest in the role of neighborhood context in generating/inhibiting criminality • Social disorganisation (e.g. Shaw and McKay) • Consistently high delinquency in areas with high residential instability and ethnic diversity, reflecting weak institutions of social control • Broken windows/signs of disorder (e.g. Wilson and Kelling) • Physical/social signs of disorder signal to potential offenders a lack of control • Collective efficacy (e.g. Sampson) • Networks, values and norms of reciprocity that combine to enable individuals/communities to intervene to suppress deviant behavior

  5. Collective efficacy ‘social cohesion among neighbors combined with their willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good’(Sampson et al., 1997: 918)

  6. Collective efficacy ‘social cohesion among neighbors combined with their willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good’(Sampson et al., 1997: 918) e.g. Cohesion • People in this neighborhood can be trusted. • People act with courtesy to each other in public spaces in this area. • You can see from the public space here in the area that people take pride in their environment. Informal social control/willingness to intervene • If any of the children or young people around here are causing trouble, local people will tell them off. • The people who live here can be relied upon to call the police if someone is acting suspiciously. • If I sensed trouble whilst in this area, I could get help from people who live here.

  7. Collective? efficacy Metropolitan Police Public Attitude Survey (n=46,000)

  8. Collective? efficacy • Residents’ interpretations of the neighborhood structural properties that influence CE assessments are shaped by subjectivities and local context • E.g. Same signifiers (e.g. graffiti, abandoned cars) interpreted differently based on beliefs about ethnic composition and social status (Sampson, 2009) • Expect heterogeneity in judgments between residents from the same area • Judging the likely actions of others is inherently difficult (Hipp, 2016) • Amount/quality of information available to residents differs and with sparse information residents turn to cognitive shortcuts and heuristics (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974) • People have differing conceptions/multiple neighborhoods

  9. Measuring consensus Area 1 Area 2 Collective efficacy Mean function: Level-1 variance function:

  10. Consensus across neighborhoods Mean CE CE consensus • Significant variability in the amount of within cluster variance • Some overlap between mean and consensus • Consensus differs between types of resident/area - socio-economic status; home ownership; immigrant population

  11. Effects on experience and perceptions? • Importance of shared expectations of the actions of others (latent capacity for action) • “it matters what I think others think” (Sampson, 2013: 20)

  12. Effects on experience and perceptions? • Importance of shared expectations of the actions of others (latent capacity for action) • “it matters what I think others think” (Sampson, 2013: 20)

  13. Opportunities for new CE research? • Role of CE is dependent on residential consensus • Mechanistic models for understanding the formation/dynamics of consensus?

  14. Opportunities for new CE research? • Role of CE is dependent on residential consensus • Mechanistic models for understanding the formation/dynamics of consensus? • Dynamics of CE and impacts of external events? • 100,000 respondents, approx. 40 per day • Terror attacks as exogenous shocks shifting CE?

  15. Opportunities for new CE research? Controls: Para/Olympics; Diamond Jubilee; Grenfell; London riots; Royal wedding

  16. Opportunities for new CE research? • Role of CE is dependent on residential consensus • Mechanistic models for understanding the formation/dynamics of consensus? • Dynamics of CE and impacts of external events? • Emergence of CE? – ABMs (Wang and Hu, 2011) • Other ways to operationalise CE? Networks... • Impact on crime predictions? • Diffusion of CE across areas? • Boundary effects? E.g. contested spaces (Legewie and Schaeffer, 2016) • Non-spatial community networks?

  17. Thank You

More Related