A risk-based model of public perceptions of crime and disorder

John P. Crank, Dawn M. Irlbeck, Andrew L. Giacomazzi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Incivilities research and related 'broken windows' crime control policies are based on the notion that citizens causally distinguish between crime and disorder. Subjective measures of crime and disorder, however, have (1) failed to supportive evidence of the two as distinctly separate constructs and (2) have shown divergent findings in different research frames. This paper argues that the public does not differentiate among these concepts - or in community conditions associated with criminogenic outcomes - in the same way that researchers have. Instead, the subjective interpretation of specific risks and their concrete circumstances by community members is a pragmatic assessment of associated conditions, and varies according to local community dynamics. However, these concepts share a central organizing principle and logic, that of perceived risk. We first assess the underlying structure of citizens' perceptions of perceived risks, assessing the latent structure of 24 measures of perceived risk. We then assess, using a second-order factor analysis, whether a unifying risk concept ties together the first-order factors in a meaningful way.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)131-144
Number of pages14
JournalCriminal Justice Studies
Volume25
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2012

Fingerprint

offense
citizen
community
factor analysis
pragmatics
interpretation
evidence

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Law

Cite this

A risk-based model of public perceptions of crime and disorder. / Crank, John P.; Irlbeck, Dawn M.; Giacomazzi, Andrew L.

In: Criminal Justice Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2, 08.2012, p. 131-144.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Crank, John P. ; Irlbeck, Dawn M. ; Giacomazzi, Andrew L. / A risk-based model of public perceptions of crime and disorder. In: Criminal Justice Studies. 2012 ; Vol. 25, No. 2. pp. 131-144.
@article{f2b4d5797f7b41e9b56e17fc9e5951ed,
title = "A risk-based model of public perceptions of crime and disorder",
abstract = "Incivilities research and related 'broken windows' crime control policies are based on the notion that citizens causally distinguish between crime and disorder. Subjective measures of crime and disorder, however, have (1) failed to supportive evidence of the two as distinctly separate constructs and (2) have shown divergent findings in different research frames. This paper argues that the public does not differentiate among these concepts - or in community conditions associated with criminogenic outcomes - in the same way that researchers have. Instead, the subjective interpretation of specific risks and their concrete circumstances by community members is a pragmatic assessment of associated conditions, and varies according to local community dynamics. However, these concepts share a central organizing principle and logic, that of perceived risk. We first assess the underlying structure of citizens' perceptions of perceived risks, assessing the latent structure of 24 measures of perceived risk. We then assess, using a second-order factor analysis, whether a unifying risk concept ties together the first-order factors in a meaningful way.",
author = "Crank, {John P.} and Irlbeck, {Dawn M.} and Giacomazzi, {Andrew L.}",
year = "2012",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1080/1478601X.2012.699732",
language = "English",
volume = "25",
pages = "131--144",
journal = "Criminal Justice Studies",
issn = "1478-601X",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A risk-based model of public perceptions of crime and disorder

AU - Crank, John P.

AU - Irlbeck, Dawn M.

AU - Giacomazzi, Andrew L.

PY - 2012/8

Y1 - 2012/8

N2 - Incivilities research and related 'broken windows' crime control policies are based on the notion that citizens causally distinguish between crime and disorder. Subjective measures of crime and disorder, however, have (1) failed to supportive evidence of the two as distinctly separate constructs and (2) have shown divergent findings in different research frames. This paper argues that the public does not differentiate among these concepts - or in community conditions associated with criminogenic outcomes - in the same way that researchers have. Instead, the subjective interpretation of specific risks and their concrete circumstances by community members is a pragmatic assessment of associated conditions, and varies according to local community dynamics. However, these concepts share a central organizing principle and logic, that of perceived risk. We first assess the underlying structure of citizens' perceptions of perceived risks, assessing the latent structure of 24 measures of perceived risk. We then assess, using a second-order factor analysis, whether a unifying risk concept ties together the first-order factors in a meaningful way.

AB - Incivilities research and related 'broken windows' crime control policies are based on the notion that citizens causally distinguish between crime and disorder. Subjective measures of crime and disorder, however, have (1) failed to supportive evidence of the two as distinctly separate constructs and (2) have shown divergent findings in different research frames. This paper argues that the public does not differentiate among these concepts - or in community conditions associated with criminogenic outcomes - in the same way that researchers have. Instead, the subjective interpretation of specific risks and their concrete circumstances by community members is a pragmatic assessment of associated conditions, and varies according to local community dynamics. However, these concepts share a central organizing principle and logic, that of perceived risk. We first assess the underlying structure of citizens' perceptions of perceived risks, assessing the latent structure of 24 measures of perceived risk. We then assess, using a second-order factor analysis, whether a unifying risk concept ties together the first-order factors in a meaningful way.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864688273&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864688273&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/1478601X.2012.699732

DO - 10.1080/1478601X.2012.699732

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84864688273

VL - 25

SP - 131

EP - 144

JO - Criminal Justice Studies

JF - Criminal Justice Studies

SN - 1478-601X

IS - 2

ER -