How collective is collective efficacy? The importance of consensus in judgments about community cohesion and willingness to intervene
How collective is collective efficacy? The importance of consensus in judgments about community cohesion and willingness to intervene
Existing studies have generally measured collective efficacy by combining survey respondents’ ratings of their local area into an overall summary for each neighborhood. Naturally, this results in a substantive focus on the variation in average levels of collective efficacy between neighborhoods. In this paper, we focus on the variation in consensus of collective efficacy judgments. To account for differential consensus amongst neighborhoods, we use a mixed-effects location scale model, with variability in the consensus of judgments treated as an additional neighborhood-level random effect. Our results show that neighborhoods in London differ, not just in their average levels of collective efficacy, but also in the extent to which residents agree with one another in their assessments. In accord with findings for US cities, our results show consensus in collective efficacy assessments is affected by the ethnic composition of neighborhoods. Additionally, we show that heterogeneity in collective efficacy assessments is consequential, with higher levels of criminal victimization, worry about crime, and risk avoidance behavior in areas where collective efficacy consensus is low.
collective efficacy, mixed-effects location scale model, neighborhood effects, multilevel model, consensus effects
608-637
Brunton-Smith, Ian
336a9a84-7f27-4897-a045-18b200f3d115
Sturgis, Patrick
b9f6b40c-50d2-4117-805a-577b501d0b3c
Leckie, George
f43160a2-f379-4c38-b6b3-db5235181b33
13 August 2018
Brunton-Smith, Ian
336a9a84-7f27-4897-a045-18b200f3d115
Sturgis, Patrick
b9f6b40c-50d2-4117-805a-577b501d0b3c
Leckie, George
f43160a2-f379-4c38-b6b3-db5235181b33
Brunton-Smith, Ian, Sturgis, Patrick and Leckie, George
(2018)
How collective is collective efficacy? The importance of consensus in judgments about community cohesion and willingness to intervene.
Criminology, 56 (3), .
(doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12180).
Abstract
Existing studies have generally measured collective efficacy by combining survey respondents’ ratings of their local area into an overall summary for each neighborhood. Naturally, this results in a substantive focus on the variation in average levels of collective efficacy between neighborhoods. In this paper, we focus on the variation in consensus of collective efficacy judgments. To account for differential consensus amongst neighborhoods, we use a mixed-effects location scale model, with variability in the consensus of judgments treated as an additional neighborhood-level random effect. Our results show that neighborhoods in London differ, not just in their average levels of collective efficacy, but also in the extent to which residents agree with one another in their assessments. In accord with findings for US cities, our results show consensus in collective efficacy assessments is affected by the ethnic composition of neighborhoods. Additionally, we show that heterogeneity in collective efficacy assessments is consequential, with higher levels of criminal victimization, worry about crime, and risk avoidance behavior in areas where collective efficacy consensus is low.
Text
Ms 2017-078 RevisedfinalMarch18forPURE
- Accepted Manuscript
Text
BRUNTON-SMITH_et_al-2017-Criminology
- Version of Record
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 26 March 2018
e-pub ahead of print date: 18 May 2018
Published date: 13 August 2018
Keywords:
collective efficacy, mixed-effects location scale model, neighborhood effects, multilevel model, consensus effects
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 418410
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/418410
ISSN: 0011-1384
PURE UUID: 24ca1cfb-644d-426b-a77a-8cbd3b47460f
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 07 Mar 2018 17:30
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 06:19
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Ian Brunton-Smith
Author:
Patrick Sturgis
Author:
George Leckie
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics