Unstructured Socializing, Collective Efficacy, and Violent Behavior Among Urban Youth*

Abstract

Relying on extensions of routine activities and social disorganization theories, we examine whether 1) neighborhood social characteristics shape opportunities for the development of unstructured socializing with peers among adolescents, 2) whether unstructured socializing leads to an increase in violent behavior within urban communities, and 3) whether neighborhood collective efficacy modifies the impact of unstructured socializing on violence. The study outlined in this article uses three waves of data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods Community Survey and Longitudinal Cohort Study. Results from multilevel linear models suggest that neighborhood collective efficacy supports the development of unstructured socializing with peers. Multilevel Rasch models of violent behavior indicate that, consistent with previous research, unstructured socializing is a powerful predictor of violence. Collective efficacy exerts an independent influence on violent behavior and attenuates the effect of unstructured socializing on this outcome.

Unpacking the Influence of Neighborhood Context and Antisocial Propensity on Violent Victimization of Children and Adolescents in Chicago

“…Research shows that collective efficacy can explain the correlation between neighborhood social disorder and crime (Sampson et al, 2001), and collective efficacy has been associated with antisocial and aggressive behavior among youth. Children living in neighborhoods with more collective efficacy are less likely to engage in violence (Berg & Loeber, 2011;Maimon & Browning, 2010;Sampson, Morenoff, & Raudenbush, 2005). In sum, violence and other social ills tend to cluster and persist in neighborhoods where trust and cohesion is low among residents and informal social control is lacking.…”

“…Similar to prior research (Maimon & Browning, 2010;Osgood & Haynie, 2005) peer delinquency is measured using eleven -items from the Deviance of Peers instrument administered at wave 1 to children and adolescents to obtain information regarding the portion of their peers engaging in a variety of delinquent behaviors (see appendix B for individual items). For example, respondents were asked "during the past year, how many of the people you spend time with" have "stolen something worth more than $5 but less than $500", "gone into or tried to do into a building to steal something", "hit someone with the idea of hurting them", and "attacked someone with a weapon with the idea of seriously hurting them".…”

“…Family attachment and support has been repeatedly shown to be a predictor of violence and victimization, and it has also been related to children and adolescents' self-control development (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Following Maimon and Browning (2010), a family attachment and support measure was constructed using six-items from the Provision of Social family: "I know my family will always be there for me", "my family tells me they think I am valuable", "my family has confidence in me", "my family helps me find solutions to problems", "I know my family will always stand by me", and "sometime I am not sure I can rely on family" (reverse coded). The measure was standardized with higher scores indicating more family attachment and support.…”

“…Vulnerability to violence is influenced by the context in which individuals reside, the activities they choose to engage in, and the individual characteristics that make them different from each other (Gibson, Morris, & Beaver, 2009;Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2003;Maimon & Browning, 2010;Mayer & Jencks, 1989;Schreck et al, 2002;Sharkey, 2006;Wilcox-Rountree, Land, & Miethe, 1994). Historically, situational and contextual theories have had the largest influence on explaining personal and violent victimization (Cohen & Felson, 1979;Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1978).…”

Radicalization as a Functional Aspect of Crime

“…The theory also explains the effect of how the involvement of siblings and parents in crime can influence an individual to participate in violence and crime (Bannister et al, 2010). Wikstrom et al and others (Wikstron, 2012;2010;Maimon andBrowning, 2010, Miller, 2013)) described situational characteristics that provide the circumstances for offending by adolescents as consisting of presence of peers, absence of adults, involvement in unsupervised activities, presence in a public place and use of alcohol or drugs. These models have some common characteristics to the routine activities theory that argues that crime occurs where there is convergence of potential offenders and suitable targets without guardians (Felson, 1979).…”