Misperceived Neighborhood Values and Informal Social Control

Abstract

Social disorganization theory explains the effects of neighborhood structure and culture on crime and delinquency. Within this perspective, the role of neighborhood informal social control is argued to be an important protective factor against many social problems. While a growing body of research supports the importance of informal social control, we still have limited understanding of its development. Of the research that does exist in this area, most examines structural processes supporting informal social control, while cultural aspects of communities have only rarely been examined. We further develop this limited body of research by drawing on the prevention literature that focuses on social norms and their misperceptions. Specifically, this study examines the role of pluralistic ignorance regarding neighborhood values on the likelihood of informal social control. The results are discussed in relation to social norms theory and their relevance for crime‐prevention strategies.

Keywords:

• informal social control
• pluralistic ignorance
• social norms
• community values
• social disorganization theory

Notes

1. While several scholars have argued against Kornhauser’s view of culture, and in particular her devastating critique of cultural deviance theories (Matsueda, 1988; Sampson & Bean, 2006), work that has been done in a cultural disorganization framework, rather than a subcultural framework tends to rely on her interpretation. Subcultural approaches, such as the subculture of violence, argue that values supportive of criminal behavior exist in certain neighborhoods and thus, crime is actually normative in these neighborhoods (e.g., Anderson, 1999). Unfortunately, the current data do not allow us to adequately examine a subcultural approach in which non‐conventional values are held within neighborhoods, and the extent to which these are accurately or inaccurately perceived. However, the data from this study do suggest that the majority of respondents in this study do agree with the conventional values assessed here. Other recent theoretical discussions of the role of culture in criminal behavior, including Sampson and Bean’s (2006), offering compelling ideas about the role of “culture in action” but are difficult to assess empirically.

2. Throughout the text the terms neighborhood and community are used interchangeably and equivalently with block groups.

3. The cooperation rate is based on the percent of eligible respondents contacted. Cases of unknown eligibility (busy signals, disconnects, and no answers) and ineligibility (no longer living at that address) were excluded from this calculation as defined by the American Association for Public Opinion Research (1998). For telephone interviews, attempts with no answers were tried at least 20 times and some were tried as many as 30 times. Disconnects were treated as temporary and retried after two weeks. For face‐to‐face interviews, interviewers made up to five attempts to find someone at home.

4. We examine the impact of the exogenous neighborhood structural variables on our mediating variable, misperceived values, as the first of three steps to determine mediation. As Baron and Kenny (1986) point out there are three criteria to be met to determine whether a variable is a mediator. First, the exogenous variable must account for a significant amount of variation in the mediating variable. Second, the mediating variable must significantly effect the dependent variable. Third, the effect between the exogenous variable and the dependent variable must be significantly decreased by the mediating variable.

5. Due to a sampling strategy that involved over‐sampling high drug use neighborhoods, we also estimated a model which included a measure of drug activity, in this case, drug arrests. Results were unchanged (available from the first author upon request).

6. Supplemental analyses included a measure for weakened values and found both misperceptions of values and weakened values to significantly reduce informal social control. (Results available from the second author by request.)