Outline

1. Theoretical Framework

2. Project Structure

3. Experiments

   • Lost Letter
   • Mailbox Experiment
   • Littering Intervention
   • Litter Clean-Up

4. Synthesis

5. Appendix

Broken Windows

Wilson & Kelling (1982) describe a system where community disorder (1) increases crime by signalling low social control to offenders and (2) decreases actual social control by reducing willingness to use public spaces.

Broken Windows

Wilson & Kelling (1982) describe a system where community disorder (1) increases crime by signalling low social control to offenders and (2) decreases actual social control by reducing willingness to use public spaces.

Collective Efficacy

Sampson & Raudenbush (1999) contend that disorder and crime are both manifestations of low collective efficacy—the community's capacity for informal social control.

Collective Efficacy

Sampson & Raudenbush (1999) contend that disorder and crime are both manifestations of low collective efficacy—the community's capacity for informal social control.

Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg (2008)

Used disorder manipulations and recorded norm violation with field experiments in Grongingen, the Netherlands. Multiple interventions show a consistent positive relationship.

Keizer, Lindenberg, & Steg (2008)

Used disorder manipulations and recorded norm violation with field experiments in Grongingen, the Netherlands. Multiple interventions show a consistent positive relationship.

Sampson & Raudenbush (1999)

Simultaneous equations of crime, disorder, and collective efficacy in Chicago neighborhoods, using survey-measured collective efficacy and a novel objective measure of disorder: Video of block faces coded by researchers.

Sampson & Raudenbush (1999)

Simultaneous equations of crime, disorder, and collective efficacy in Chicago neighborhoods, using survey-measured collective efficacy and a novel objective measure of disorder: Video of block faces coded by researchers.

Key Question

How do we reconcile these results?

Key Question

How do we reconcile these results?

But first, an aside...

Prosocial Behavior and Risk

Our focus is on crime—which always has risks—but both Broken Windows and Collective Efficacy are also theories of prosocial behavior.

Prosocial Behavior and Risk

Our focus is on crime—which always has risks—but both Broken Windows and Collective Efficacy are also theories of prosocial behavior.

Broken windows implies disorder attenuates prosocial behavior through fear of crime and subsequent withdrawal from community life.

Prosocial Behavior and Risk

Our focus is on crime—which always has risks—but both Broken Windows and Collective Efficacy are also theories of prosocial behavior.

Broken windows implies disorder attenuates prosocial behavior through fear of crime and subsequent withdrawal from community life.

Collective efficacy predicts many prosocial behaviors:¹

• Returning lost letters
• Voting
• Providing CPR
• Sanctioning norm-violators

[1] Sampson (2012)

Prosocial Behavior and Risk

Our focus is on crime—which always has risks—but both Broken Windows and Collective Efficacy are also theories of prosocial behavior.

Broken windows implies disorder attenuates prosocial behavior through fear of crime and subsequent withdrawal from community life.

Collective efficacy predicts many prosocial behaviors:¹

• Returning lost letters
• Voting
• Providing CPR
• Sanctioning norm-violators

[1] Sampson (2012)

Engaging in social control—sanctioning—is a risky prosocial behavior.

Prosocial Behavior and Risk

Our focus is on crime—which always has risks—but both Broken Windows and Collective Efficacy are also theories of prosocial behavior.

Broken windows implies disorder attenuates prosocial behavior through fear of crime and subsequent withdrawal from community life.

Collective efficacy predicts many prosocial behaviors:¹

• Returning lost letters
• Voting
• Providing CPR
• Sanctioning norm-violators

[1] Sampson (2012)

Engaging in social control—sanctioning—is a risky prosocial behavior.

Prosocial action does not always feature risk but risks and costs of prosocial behavior are underappreciated elements.

Research Questions

Our goal is testing the micro-level mechanisms that underlie Broken Windows and Collective Efficacy.

Research Questions

Our goal is testing the micro-level mechanisms that underlie Broken Windows and Collective Efficacy.

Does disorder increase norm-violations and crime as suggested by Broken Windows?

• Does disorder also inhibit prosocial behavior?

Research Questions

Our goal is testing the micro-level mechanisms that underlie Broken Windows and Collective Efficacy.

Does disorder increase norm-violations and crime as suggested by Broken Windows?

• Does disorder also inhibit prosocial behavior?

Or is this relationship spurious once collective efficacy is controlled, as suggested by Sampson?

• Is activation of collective efficacy conditional on context?
• Does disorder moderate collective efficacy?
• Does collective efficacy limit exposure to disorder via clean-up?

Research Questions

Our goal is testing the micro-level mechanisms that underlie Broken Windows and Collective Efficacy.

Does disorder increase norm-violations and crime as suggested by Broken Windows?

• Does disorder also inhibit prosocial behavior?

Or is this relationship spurious once collective efficacy is controlled, as suggested by Sampson?

• Is activation of collective efficacy conditional on context?
• Does disorder moderate collective efficacy?
• Does collective efficacy limit exposure to disorder via clean-up?

Experiments and Goals

1. Lost Letter

   • Obtain updated measure of collective efficacy.

Experiments and Goals

1. Lost Letter

   • Obtain updated measure of collective efficacy.

2. Mailbox Experiment

   • Test causal effect of disorder on crime and norm-violation (A).

Experiments and Goals

1. Lost Letter

   • Obtain updated measure of collective efficacy.

2. Mailbox Experiment

   • Test causal effect of disorder on crime and norm-violation (A).

3. Littering Intervention

   • Test causal effect of disorder on sanctioning (B).
   • Test causal effect of interpersonal context on sanctioning.
   • Measure association of collective efficacy with sanctioning.

Experiments and Goals

1. Lost Letter

   • Obtain updated measure of collective efficacy.

2. Mailbox Experiment

   • Test causal effect of disorder on crime and norm-violation (A).

3. Littering Intervention

   • Test causal effect of disorder on sanctioning (B).
   • Test causal effect of interpersonal context on sanctioning.
   • Measure association of collective efficacy with sanctioning.

4. Litter Clean-Up

   • Measure assocation of collective efficacy with disorder removal (D).

Experiment Diagram

Lost Letter: Method

2,938 letters were dropped on Seattle sidewalks for passersby to encounter.

Lost Letter: Method

2,938 letters were dropped on Seattle sidewalks for passersby to encounter.

24 letters—8 per addressee—were dropped in each census tract:

• Charles F. Landers Sr. (Personal)
• Friends of Black Lives Matter (BLM)
• American Neo-Nazi Party (Nazi)

Lost Letter: Method

2,938 letters were dropped on Seattle sidewalks for passersby to encounter.

24 letters—8 per addressee—were dropped in each census tract:

• Charles F. Landers Sr. (Personal)
• Friends of Black Lives Matter (BLM)
• American Neo-Nazi Party (Nazi)

Mailed letters were received at a PO Box monitored by the research team.

Lost Letter: Method

2,938 letters were dropped on Seattle sidewalks for passersby to encounter.

24 letters—8 per addressee—were dropped in each census tract:

• Charles F. Landers Sr. (Personal)
• Friends of Black Lives Matter (BLM)
• American Neo-Nazi Party (Nazi)

Mailed letters were received at a PO Box monitored by the research team.

Letter ID numbers combine with hand-recorded drop locations to permit geotagging of letter returns.¹

[1] Letter condition, area type (e.g. residential), and postmark date were also recorded. Addresses have also now been linked to election precincts (See Appendix).

Lost Letter: Model

Lost Letter: Model

Lost Letter: Model

Lost Letter: Results

Key Findings:

• Personal (0.346) and BLM (0.318) returns correlated with 2002-2003 collective efficacy.

Lost Letter: Results

Key Findings:

• Personal (0.346) and BLM (0.318) returns correlated with 2002-2003 collective efficacy.

• Nazi letter returns uncorrelated with CE (.034) and less common.

Lost Letter: Results

Key Findings:

• Personal (0.346) and BLM (0.318) returns correlated with 2002-2003 collective efficacy.

• Nazi letter returns uncorrelated with CE (.034) and less common.

• Return rates of Personal and BLM letters should provide a valid updated collective efficacy indicator.

Lost Letter: Results

Key Findings:

• Personal (0.346) and BLM (0.318) returns correlated with 2002-2003 collective efficacy.

• Nazi letter returns uncorrelated with CE (.034) and less common.

• Return rates of Personal and BLM letters should provide a valid updated collective efficacy indicator.

Mailbox: Method

• A letter containing a visible $5 bill is left near mailbox for passersby to encounter.

Mailbox: Method

• A letter containing a visible $5 bill is left near mailbox for passersby to encounter.

• Litter and a sign board with graffiti are introduced to manipulate disorder.

Mailbox: Method

• A letter containing a visible $5 bill is left near mailbox for passersby to encounter.

• Litter and a sign board with graffiti are introduced to manipulate disorder.

• Researchers record whether participants mail, steal, or ignore the envelope.¹

[1] Perceived sex, age, and group size of participants were also recorded to adjust for compositional differences of tracts.

Mailbox: Method

• A letter containing a visible $5 bill is left near mailbox for passersby to encounter.

• Litter and a sign board with graffiti are introduced to manipulate disorder.

• Researchers record whether participants mail, steal, or ignore the envelope.¹

[1] Perceived sex, age, and group size of participants were also recorded to adjust for compositional differences of tracts.

• We conducted 405 trials with 3,671 participants in 20 Seattle census tracts.

Mailbox: Model

Mailbox: Model

Mailbox: Model

Mailbox: Model

Mailbox: Results

Key Findings:

• Disorder has no impact on theft.¹

[1] There is no significant positive relationship in any location.

Mailbox: Results

Key Findings:

• Disorder has no impact on theft.¹

[1] There is no significant positive relationship in any location.

• Disorder reduces the likelihood of mailing—resulting in the letter remaining on the ground longer.

Mailbox: Results

Key Findings:

• Disorder has no impact on theft.¹

[1] There is no significant positive relationship in any location.

• Disorder reduces the likelihood of mailing—resulting in the letter remaining on the ground longer.

• Collective efficacy is associated with lower theft, but not more mailing.

Littering Intervention: Method

A confederate walks down the street and flagrantly litters near a trash can in view of passersby.

Littering Intervention: Method

A confederate walks down the street and flagrantly litters near a trash can in view of passersby.

Researchers record whether the confederate is sanctioned—a risky prosocial behavior—or the litter is disposed of by a participant—a low-risk prosocial behavior.

Littering Intervention: Method

A confederate walks down the street and flagrantly litters near a trash can in view of passersby.

Researchers record whether the confederate is sanctioned—a risky prosocial behavior—or the litter is disposed of by a participant—a low-risk prosocial behavior.

Litter and a sign board with graffiti are introduced to manipulate disorder.

Littering Intervention: Method

A confederate walks down the street and flagrantly litters near a trash can in view of passersby.

Researchers record whether the confederate is sanctioned—a risky prosocial behavior—or the litter is disposed of by a participant—a low-risk prosocial behavior.

Litter and a sign board with graffiti are introduced to manipulate disorder.

Replicated with three confederates of varying sex and race to manipulate interpersonal context which may influence evaluations of risk:¹

• Black Male
• White Male
• White Female

[1] Sex and race also interact with normative expectations.

Littering Intervention: Method

A confederate walks down the street and flagrantly litters near a trash can in view of passersby.

Researchers record whether the confederate is sanctioned—a risky prosocial behavior—or the litter is disposed of by a participant—a low-risk prosocial behavior.

Litter and a sign board with graffiti are introduced to manipulate disorder.

Replicated with three confederates of varying sex and race to manipulate interpersonal context which may influence evaluations of risk:¹

• Black Male
• White Male
• White Female

[1] Sex and race also interact with normative expectations. We conducted 576 trials in 12 Seattle census tracts.

Littering Intervention: Model

Littering Intervention: Model

Littering Intervention: Model

Littering Intervention: Model

Results: Sanctions

Key Findings:

• No unconditional effect of disorder on sanctions—a risky prosocial action.
  • Disorder interacts with confederate race/gender.

Results: Sanctions

Key Findings:

• No unconditional effect of disorder on sanctions—a risky prosocial action.
  • Disorder interacts with confederate race/gender.
• Collective efficacy and letter returns did not predict sanctioning (M).

Results: Sanctions

Key Findings:

• No unconditional effect of disorder on sanctions—a risky prosocial action.
  • Disorder interacts with confederate race/gender.
• Collective efficacy and letter returns did not predict sanctioning (M).
• Sanctioning varies widely by confederate in both quantity and content.
  • White female received more aggressive sanctions, usually from men.
  • Black male received passive sanctions only from women.
  • White male received balanced sanctions.

Results: Throwing Away

We also evaluated if our interventions impacted throwing away the dropped litter—a low risk, non-confrontational prosocial action.

Results: Throwing Away

We also evaluated if our interventions impacted throwing away the dropped litter—a low risk, non-confrontational prosocial action.

Key Findings:

• Disorder treatment reduces throwing away.

  • This effect also conditional on confederate characteristics.

Results: Throwing Away

We also evaluated if our interventions impacted throwing away the dropped litter—a low risk, non-confrontational prosocial action.

Key Findings:

• Disorder treatment reduces throwing away.

  • This effect also conditional on confederate characteristics.

• Collective efficacy and letter returns do not predict throwing away.

Litter Clean-Up: Method

Litter Clean-Up: Method

Litter Clean-Up: Method

Litter Clean-Up: Method

Litter Clean-Up: Results

• The experiment was abandoned after a small number of trials.

Litter Clean-Up: Results

• The experiment was abandoned after a small number of trials.

• In Ravenna, residents reported the magazine racks on Nextdoor as an "eyesore".

Litter Clean-Up: Results

• The experiment was abandoned after a small number of trials.

• In Ravenna, residents reported the magazine racks on Nextdoor as an "eyesore".

• Two magazine racks had locks cut and were removed.

Litter Clean-Up: Results

• The experiment was abandoned after a small number of trials.

• In Ravenna, residents reported the magazine racks on Nextdoor as an "eyesore".

• Two magazine racks had locks cut and were removed.

• Thus we were unable to continue experiment because of collective efficacy in an affluent neighborhood.

Litter Clean-Up: Results

• The experiment was abandoned after a small number of trials.

• In Ravenna, residents reported the magazine racks on Nextdoor as an "eyesore".

• Two magazine racks had locks cut and were removed.

• Thus we were unable to continue experiment because of collective efficacy in an affluent neighborhood.

• In contrast, one rack was left for an entire year in Capitol Hill without issue.

Synthesis 1

Synthesis 2

Synthesis 3

Prosocial Behavior

Future research

We know relatively little about the activation of prosocial behavior, particularly sanctioning.

Prosocial Behavior

Future research

We know relatively little about the activation of prosocial behavior, particularly sanctioning.

This study suggests contexts of prosocial behavior are important but neglected considerations for neighborhood theories of crime.

Prosocial Behavior

Future research

We know relatively little about the activation of prosocial behavior, particularly sanctioning.

This study suggests contexts of prosocial behavior are important but neglected considerations for neighborhood theories of crime.

• Collective efficacy is correlated with the presence of risk factors—such as retaliation from the sanctioned.

Prosocial Behavior

Future research

We know relatively little about the activation of prosocial behavior, particularly sanctioning.

This study suggests contexts of prosocial behavior are important but neglected considerations for neighborhood theories of crime.

• Collective efficacy is correlated with the presence of risk factors—such as retaliation from the sanctioned.

• Disorder may be a signal for risks or other costs.

Prosocial Behavior

Future research

We know relatively little about the activation of prosocial behavior, particularly sanctioning.

This study suggests contexts of prosocial behavior are important but neglected considerations for neighborhood theories of crime.

• Collective efficacy is correlated with the presence of risk factors—such as retaliation from the sanctioned.

• Disorder may be a signal for risks or other costs.

• Disorder may signal that interventions will have limited benefit.

Prosocial Behavior

Future research

We know relatively little about the activation of prosocial behavior, particularly sanctioning.

This study suggests contexts of prosocial behavior are important but neglected considerations for neighborhood theories of crime.

• Collective efficacy is correlated with the presence of risk factors—such as retaliation from the sanctioned.

• Disorder may be a signal for risks or other costs.

• Disorder may signal that interventions will have limited benefit.

• Context may cause general statements of prosocial intentions to differ sharply from actual behavior (see St. Jean 2007).

Acknowledgements

Our findings are the result of over 2000 person-hours of field work over four summers. This project was made possible by the participation of graduate student researchers, grant funding, and institutional resources on campus.

Sampling

Lost Letter Elections

Mailbox Models

Two Mailbox Multinomial Models

LitterCam Disorder

LitterCam Equipment

Litter Clean-Up: Alternative

We supposed the speed of return of lost letters was correlated with clean-up time of trash.

As a pilot, in selected trats, 24 pieces of litter were dropped in the same locations as lost letters and then checked three times over the course of a day.

Neither timing nor a binary measure of clean-up were found to be associated with either lost letter returns or overall collective efficacy.

Sampson & Raudenbush Replication

We replicated Sampson & Raudenbush (1999) but with an instruments for disorder and collective efficacy from Miethe (1990) to examine reciprocal effects.

• Disorder in 2002-2003 instrumented by 1990 disorder.

• Collective Efficacy in 2002-2003 instrumented by 1990 social cohesion, reciprocated exchange, and intergenerational closure.

Key Findings:

• Disorder predicts crime in both high and low crime neighborhoods.

• Collective efficacy only predicts crime in low crime neighborhoods.

• Disorder and collective efficacy have bidirectional negative relationship.