Comparing the Explanatory Effects Between Social Ties and Collective Efficacy on Predicting Neighborhood Crime Rates

碩士 === 國立中正大學 === 犯罪防治研究所 === 101 === In the past thirty years, the systemic model (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993) and the collective efficacy model (Sampson et al., 1997) have dominated modern social disorganization tradition. However, the biggest difference between the two is the importance of social...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Juan, Meichin, 阮美瑾
Other Authors: Yang, Sueming
Format: Others
Language:zh-TW
Published: 2013
Online Access:http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/51984083739416730553
id ndltd-TW-101CCU00102010
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-TW-101CCU001020102015-10-13T22:01:31Z http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/51984083739416730553 Comparing the Explanatory Effects Between Social Ties and Collective Efficacy on Predicting Neighborhood Crime Rates 社會連繫與集體效能對社區犯罪影響之比較研究 Juan, Meichin 阮美瑾 碩士 國立中正大學 犯罪防治研究所 101 In the past thirty years, the systemic model (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993) and the collective efficacy model (Sampson et al., 1997) have dominated modern social disorganization tradition. However, the biggest difference between the two is the importance of social ties. Particularly, Sampson and his colleague believe that functional relationships matter more than relational ties in preventing crime; while Bursik and Grasmick argue that the different levels of social ties are important in reducing crime The current study examines these two types of interpersonal network to see which one serves as a better social control mechanism to prevent crime. I used three different datasets for the study. Survey data from ICPSR Project Number 9741, “Testing Theories of Criminality and Victimization in Seattle, 1960-1990.”, a survey of Seattle criminal victimization conducted in 1990 by Terance D. Miethe. , 1990 census information collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, and crime incident data from 1991 to 1993 collected by Seattle Police Department. To test my model, Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) was used to examine how crime, social structural factors affect individual levels of collective efficacy and social ties. Multiple regression model was then used to explain neighborhood crime rates. In sum, the study found that: 1. As predicted by social disorganization theory, places with high levels of concentrated disadvantage also tend to have more crime problems. 2. As for the comparison between social ties and collective efficacy, social ties and collective efficacy are found to be no significantly related to crime. This finding is very different from all prior literature, thus, some more analyses were conducted to investigate the phenomenon. Keyword:social disorganization, social ties, collective efficacy Yang, Sueming 楊曙銘 2013 學位論文 ; thesis 62 zh-TW
collection NDLTD
language zh-TW
format Others
sources NDLTD
description 碩士 === 國立中正大學 === 犯罪防治研究所 === 101 === In the past thirty years, the systemic model (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993) and the collective efficacy model (Sampson et al., 1997) have dominated modern social disorganization tradition. However, the biggest difference between the two is the importance of social ties. Particularly, Sampson and his colleague believe that functional relationships matter more than relational ties in preventing crime; while Bursik and Grasmick argue that the different levels of social ties are important in reducing crime The current study examines these two types of interpersonal network to see which one serves as a better social control mechanism to prevent crime. I used three different datasets for the study. Survey data from ICPSR Project Number 9741, “Testing Theories of Criminality and Victimization in Seattle, 1960-1990.”, a survey of Seattle criminal victimization conducted in 1990 by Terance D. Miethe. , 1990 census information collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, and crime incident data from 1991 to 1993 collected by Seattle Police Department. To test my model, Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) was used to examine how crime, social structural factors affect individual levels of collective efficacy and social ties. Multiple regression model was then used to explain neighborhood crime rates. In sum, the study found that: 1. As predicted by social disorganization theory, places with high levels of concentrated disadvantage also tend to have more crime problems. 2. As for the comparison between social ties and collective efficacy, social ties and collective efficacy are found to be no significantly related to crime. This finding is very different from all prior literature, thus, some more analyses were conducted to investigate the phenomenon. Keyword:social disorganization, social ties, collective efficacy
author2 Yang, Sueming
author_facet Yang, Sueming
Juan, Meichin
阮美瑾
author Juan, Meichin
阮美瑾
spellingShingle Juan, Meichin
阮美瑾
Comparing the Explanatory Effects Between Social Ties and Collective Efficacy on Predicting Neighborhood Crime Rates
author_sort Juan, Meichin
title Comparing the Explanatory Effects Between Social Ties and Collective Efficacy on Predicting Neighborhood Crime Rates
title_short Comparing the Explanatory Effects Between Social Ties and Collective Efficacy on Predicting Neighborhood Crime Rates
title_full Comparing the Explanatory Effects Between Social Ties and Collective Efficacy on Predicting Neighborhood Crime Rates
title_fullStr Comparing the Explanatory Effects Between Social Ties and Collective Efficacy on Predicting Neighborhood Crime Rates
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the Explanatory Effects Between Social Ties and Collective Efficacy on Predicting Neighborhood Crime Rates
title_sort comparing the explanatory effects between social ties and collective efficacy on predicting neighborhood crime rates
publishDate 2013
url http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/51984083739416730553
work_keys_str_mv AT juanmeichin comparingtheexplanatoryeffectsbetweensocialtiesandcollectiveefficacyonpredictingneighborhoodcrimerates
AT ruǎnměijǐn comparingtheexplanatoryeffectsbetweensocialtiesandcollectiveefficacyonpredictingneighborhoodcrimerates
AT juanmeichin shèhuìliánxìyǔjítǐxiàonéngduìshèqūfànzuìyǐngxiǎngzhībǐjiàoyánjiū
AT ruǎnměijǐn shèhuìliánxìyǔjítǐxiàonéngduìshèqūfànzuìyǐngxiǎngzhībǐjiàoyánjiū
_version_ 1718072578389573632