نگاهی نو به پنجره های شکسته: ادراک افراد از اختلال اجتماعی چه چیزی را شکل می دهد؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|37400||2014||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||10470 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 42, Issue 1, January–February 2014, Pages 26–35
Abstract Purpose This study compares perceptual and observational measures of social disorder to examine the influence of observable levels of disorder in shaping residents’ perceptions of social problems on their street. Methods This study uses regression models utilizing data from a survey of residents, systematic social observations and police calls for service to explore the formation of perceptions of social disorder.
.Introduction As illustrated by the quote above, and prominently noted in Robert Sampson’s Presidential Address to the American Society of Criminology (2013), the social world is largely subjective and individual perception plays a dominant role in shaping how people view the world around them. Not surprisingly then, the study of perception has a long history in the social sciences. The most notable examples arguably come from labeling theory, starting with Cooley’s (1902) discussion of the “looking glass self” to the more modern work on “symbolic interactionism” which focuses explicitly on how individuals perceive their interactions with others (Matsueda, 1992). Examples even extend into criminal justice policy and theory with work on deterrence finding that the perceived certainty of punishment has the strongest impact on behavior (see Nagin, 1998 for a thorough review), and research on procedural justice showing that individuals’ opinions of the system are shaped more by their perception of how they were treated by criminal justice officials than by the actual outcomes of their interactions (Sherman, 1993 and Tyler, 2004). The broken windows thesis (Wilson & Kelling, 1982) is a popular policy-relevant theory that is directly related to the importance of understanding perceptions of crime. Building off an earlier social-psychological experiment by Zimbardo (1969), Wilson and Kelling suggest that visible symbols of disorder start a cycle of decline that leaves neighborhoods vulnerable to criminal invasion. They suggest that there are two related perceptual pathways to this process. First, residents perceive accumulating social and physical disorder problems (minor social ills like loitering or public drinking, and physical dilapidation such as litter or graffiti) and become fearful and withdraw from the community—thus lowering informal social controls. Second, potential offenders also perceive this accumulating disorder and conclude that social controls are weak and step up their offending in the area as they conclude their chances of detection and apprehension in such areas are lower than in more orderly neighborhoods. Despite being a theory clearly dominated by perceptions of disorder, the broken windows thesis has not always been tested as such. Studies have varied in whether they use measures of residents’ perceptions of disorder, researchers’ systematic social observations, or official records related to disorder incidents. Studies also differ in the specific items used to construct the disorder measures, which has led to confusion over what exactly is meant by the term disorder (see Kubrin, 2008), Finally, a number of studies fail to recognize the categorical difference between physical and social disorder, and combine the two measures into one general measure of disorder. This lack of conceptual clarity and consistency in how disorder is measured has important implications for our understanding of the broken windows thesis and policing strategies based on the idea in two main ways. First, the results of studies testing the broken windows thesis are mixed, as are the findings of studies examining the effectiveness of broken windows policing. One reason behind this could be the lack of a clear definition of what disorder is and how it should best be measured (Kubrin, 2008). One would not expect consistent results across studies when the key variable is measured very differently from one study to the next--particularly when the differences are as broad as whether perceptual or observational measures are used. Second, the perceptual nature of disorder has practical implications for policy. If disorder is really a social construct, as has been suggested by some scholars, then having policies based on the broken windows thesis may lead to discrimination as the behaviors of the lower class, and the physical conditions of poor neighborhoods, are more likely to be defined as disorderly by those with political power (see Harcourt, 2001, Herbert, 2001 and Sampson, 2004). The risks of such negative impacts are especially heightened if resident perceptions of disorder differ greatly from those of outsiders such as researchers or police who are defining disorder problems. This is particularly troublesome as many police tactics based on the broken windows model lead to zero tolerance policies (see Dennis & Mallon, 1998) that can increase racial disparities in stops, searches, citations and arrests as evidenced by the ongoing uproar over the New York City Police Department’s stop-and-frisk program. Such programs could clearly have major negative impacts for police legitimacy (see Tyler, 2004). These two criticisms of research on broken windows can be tied to the fact that many studies and broken windows inspired interventions depart from the perceptual nature of the theory. It is clear from Wilson and Kelling’s original paper that what really matters is whether residents (and offenders) perceive an act or physical condition to be disorderly, fear-inspiring and/or whether it provide signals (see Bottoms, 2009 and Innes, 2004) to residents that the area is not safe (or to offenders that it is a good place to operate with relative impunity). Moreover, recent work suggests that what is perceived as disorder by residents may not match what is coded as disorder by outsiders to the area, such as researchers conducting systematic social observations. This is because perceptions of disorder do not simply reflect observable indicators of disorder. Notably, studies have found that not all disorders send out the same signals (Innes, 2004). How disorder is perceived varies by the preconceived behavioral expectations a person has for an area (Millie, 2008). It has also been found that the racial composition of an area also has a strong conditional effect on individual perceptions after controlling for observable levels of disorder (Sampson, 2009, Sampson, 2012 and Sampson and Raudenbush, 2004). In other words, some studies find support for the notion that disorder is a social construct (see Harcourt, 2001) rather than a concrete social or physical condition that is perceived consistently across individuals in a similar manner. Thus a key challenge in the study of disorder is how researchers conceptualize and measure the phenomenon. The methodological issues cover a broad spectrum, including concerns over what behaviors and physical conditions should be included in measures, as well as whether all these issues should be examined separately or combined into an omnibus disorder measure. However, the paramount issue in our view is whether perceptual or observational measures are used in research. Given the above discussion, it is unlikely that perceptual and observational measures of disorder would perfectly correlate even when both data were collected from the same microplace unit of analysis (i.e. street segments). Thus the outcome of a study could be impacted by a researcher’s choice of which type of measure to employ. The current study aims to provide some methodological clarity for disorder researchers by directly examining how perceptual survey measures of social disorder relate to systematic social observations of social and physical disorder collected by researchers.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Findings Individual Characteristics The descriptive statistics in Table 1a and Table 1b show that our subjects are generally middle-aged, long-term residents who should know their residential areas pretty well. The average age of our respondents is about 40 years old, 53% of respondents are females, 39% of them live with children who are under 18 years old, and 36% of them are black. Many of them are long-time residents of the street—on average they have lived in their current residence for more than 11 years, and approximately 30% of the respondents own their homes. When asked about their annual household income, 16.7% made less than 10,000, 26% made between 10,000 and 25,000, 33% made between 25,000 and 40,000, 12.2% made between 40,000 and 60,000, and 11.8% made over 60,000. Thus most of the households are working or middle class families. This is also supported by researcher ratings of the SES of the segments that were coded during the physical observations. A little under 1% of segments were rated as “ghetto lower class area,” a strong majority (77.2%) were rated as “lower-working class area,” 17.3% were coded as “middle class area” and 5.7% were coded as “mixed, mostly wealthy area.” Moreover, the majority of the respondents reported being content with their living environment. When asked to rate their block as a place to live, 15.7% said their block was a poor place to live, 43.3% said it was a fair place to live, 33.1% thought it was a good place to live, and 8.0% of residents rated it an excellent place to live. Perhaps this explains the long-term residency observed in the sample. Additionally, there is not a significant association between people’s household income level and their rating of their block. Not only did the respondents report being satisfied with their block, they also believed that crime problems tended to come from outside. When asked on the survey about who they believed tended to break into homes, get into fights, and sell drugs on their blocks, about 50% of the respondents believed these acts were committed by people who lived in the same neighborhoods but not on the same block. The second most common response category was “people who live in other parts of Jersey City.” Across the crime categories, only 7% to 16% of respondents suspected that people who caused problems also lived on the same block (see Fig. 1). The patterns show that residents drew clear distinctions between their block and the larger neighborhood, which supports the use of street blocks as an appropriate unit to analyze individuals’ perceptions of their residential environments. Where Residents Think Criminals Offending on their Block Come From. Fig. 1. Where Residents Think Criminals Offending on their Block Come From. Figure options Lastly, the direct victimization rate among our sample is about 18%, while approximately 20% of respondents knew someone on their block who was victimized. As the study sites were crime hot spots, these rates are slightly higher than the victimization rates published by NCVS in the year of 2006 (Rand and Catalano, 2007). However, they are not too different from the victimization rates found in college samples, which also tend to have higher victimization rates than general population (Cohen and Felson, 1979, Daigle et al., 2008, Fisher et al., 2008, Miethe et al., 1987 and Yang and Wyckoff, 2010).