1. How collective is collective efficacy
How collective is collective efficacy? The importance of consensus effects
Ian Brunton-Smith, University of Surrey
Banff International Research Station – Mathematical Criminology and Security 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 Mean function: Level-1 variance function:
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?
Incidents assessed independently
Incidents assessed simultaneously B
S.E
With controls
Time
0.000
Lee Rigby (May )
0.133*
0.028
0.124*
Time*Attack1
Westminster bridge attack (March )
-0.092*
0.031
-0.068
0.065
Time*Attack2
0.001
0.002
Ariana Grande explosion (May )
-0.133*
0.038
-0.132
0.119
Time*Attack3
0.027
0.020
London stabbing (June )
-0.150*
0.040
-0.270*
0.162
Time*Attack4
-0.027
Parsons Green (Sept )
-0.190*
-0.128*
0.057
Time*Attack5
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