破窗效应、非正式社会控制与犯罪:实证研究中的因果关系评估》。

IF 6.3 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Annual Review of Criminology Pub Date : 2020-01-01 Epub Date: 2019-10-07 DOI:10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041541
Charles C Lanfear, Ross L Matsueda, Lindsey R Beach
{"title":"破窗效应、非正式社会控制与犯罪:实证研究中的因果关系评估》。","authors":"Charles C Lanfear, Ross L Matsueda, Lindsey R Beach","doi":"10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041541","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An important criminological controversy concerns the proper causal relationships between disorder, informal social control, and crime. The broken windows thesis posits that neighborhood disorder increases crime directly and indirectly by undermining neighborhood informal social control. Theories of collective efficacy argue that the association between neighborhood disorder and crime is spurious because of the confounding variable informal social control. We review the recent empirical research on this question, which uses disparate methods, including field experiments and different models for observational data. To evaluate the causal claims made in these studies, we use a potential outcomes framework of causality. We conclude that, although there is some evidence for both broken windows and informal control theories, there is little consensus in the present research literature. Furthermore, at present, most studies do not establish causality in a strong way.</p>","PeriodicalId":51759,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Criminology","volume":"3 ","pages":"97-120"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8059646/pdf/nihms-1686796.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Broken Windows, Informal Social Control, and Crime: Assessing Causality in Empirical Studies.\",\"authors\":\"Charles C Lanfear, Ross L Matsueda, Lindsey R Beach\",\"doi\":\"10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041541\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>An important criminological controversy concerns the proper causal relationships between disorder, informal social control, and crime. The broken windows thesis posits that neighborhood disorder increases crime directly and indirectly by undermining neighborhood informal social control. Theories of collective efficacy argue that the association between neighborhood disorder and crime is spurious because of the confounding variable informal social control. We review the recent empirical research on this question, which uses disparate methods, including field experiments and different models for observational data. To evaluate the causal claims made in these studies, we use a potential outcomes framework of causality. We conclude that, although there is some evidence for both broken windows and informal control theories, there is little consensus in the present research literature. Furthermore, at present, most studies do not establish causality in a strong way.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual Review of Criminology\",\"volume\":\"3 \",\"pages\":\"97-120\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8059646/pdf/nihms-1686796.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual Review of Criminology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041541\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/10/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual Review of Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011419-041541","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/10/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

犯罪学的一个重要争议涉及混乱、非正式社会控制和犯罪之间的适当因果关系。破窗理论认为,邻里失序直接或间接地破坏了邻里的非正式社会控制,从而增加了犯罪。集体效能理论则认为,由于非正式社会控制这一混杂变量的存在,邻里混乱与犯罪之间的关联是虚假的。我们回顾了近期有关这一问题的实证研究,这些研究采用了不同的方法,包括实地实验和不同的观察数据模型。为了评估这些研究的因果关系,我们使用了潜在结果的因果关系框架。我们得出的结论是,尽管破窗理论和非正式控制理论都有一些证据,但目前的研究文献几乎没有达成共识。此外,目前大多数研究都没有强有力地确定因果关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Broken Windows, Informal Social Control, and Crime: Assessing Causality in Empirical Studies.

An important criminological controversy concerns the proper causal relationships between disorder, informal social control, and crime. The broken windows thesis posits that neighborhood disorder increases crime directly and indirectly by undermining neighborhood informal social control. Theories of collective efficacy argue that the association between neighborhood disorder and crime is spurious because of the confounding variable informal social control. We review the recent empirical research on this question, which uses disparate methods, including field experiments and different models for observational data. To evaluate the causal claims made in these studies, we use a potential outcomes framework of causality. We conclude that, although there is some evidence for both broken windows and informal control theories, there is little consensus in the present research literature. Furthermore, at present, most studies do not establish causality in a strong way.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annual Review of Criminology
Annual Review of Criminology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
2.90%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: The Annual Review of Criminology provides comprehensive reviews of significant developments in the multidisciplinary field of criminology, defined as the study of both the nature of criminal behavior and societal reactions to crime.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信