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 language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 131-144 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | Criminal Justice Studies |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Aug 2012 |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Article
}
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
VL - 25
SP - 131
EP - 144
JO - Criminal Justice Studies
JF - Criminal Justice Studies
SN - 1478-601X
IS - 2
ER -