The Theory of Collective Efficacy

Deep into the depths of Sampson's research surrounding his collective efficacy theory (CET), it's nice to finally reach the chapter where he (more or less) explains this theory. As most of you should be aware by now, collective efficacy is the gem of Sampson's research in Chicago. The collective efficacy theory is Sampson's belief that collective efficacy is a significant (if not the most significant) factor in establishing specific, desirable shared norms within a community. In turn, the establishment of these specific norms within a neighborhood allows one to perceive the level of trust and shared expectations that exist within their community, regardless of the strength of their ties to the community. 

Through more research, Sampson supports his theory with surveys and data. In his survey, Sampson asks 5 questions concerning the shared expectations about social control within a neighborhood. I went ahead and answered these five questions to determine my perception of the neighborhood I inhabit. Corresponding with each question, my responses are as follows:

1. If children were skipping school and hanging out on the street corner, I do not feel like my neighbors would intervene.
2. If children were seen spray painting graffiti on a local building, I do believe that my neighbors would intervene.
3. If children were seen showing disrespect to an adult within the community, I feel like the responses would vary depending on the degree of disrespect. If the disrespect was minimal, I don't think most of my neighbors would take much notice.
4. If a fight broke out if front of one of my neighbors houses, I strongly believe that they would take action by calling the police.
5. If the fire station closest to home was threatened by budget cuts, I don't think that there would be much support from my neighbors to help raise funds.

In chapter seven, Sampson states that "research has demonstrated that an individual's socioeconomic status is positively linked to his or her sense of personal control, efficacy, and even biological health." Sampson goes on to suggest that "a similar process might work on a community level." 

By mapping the trends of collective efficacy in various communities throughout Chicago, Sampson is able to show the connection between collective efficacy and socioeconomic issues such as poverty and crime. In figure 7.4, Sampson is able to illustrate the correlation between poverty and collective efficacy. Areas with high poverty in the 70's correspond with the lowest scores of collective efficacy in 1995. 

Further on in the chapter Sampson demonstrates how collective efficacy "appears to exert a protective factor in confronting change." In figure 7.6, Sampson shows the trajectory of homicide decline in Chicago neighborhoods from 1996 to 2006. The results show that the neighborhoods that increased the most in collective efficacy and decreased the most in concentrated poverty showed the strongest decline within the span of ten years. On the other hand, the neighborhoods that experienced a decline in collective efficacy and a rise in concentrated poverty showed the weakest decline. These findings weren't surprising to me, because they supported what Sampson has been saying all along about the importance of collective efficacy. 

In this chapter, Sampson explains that the research done in Chicago has been expanded and replicated internationally in several cities around the world. I took a closer look at the results of the mentioned research being done in Brisbane, Australia. 

In The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, I found a study titled: Community Variations in Violence: The Role of Social Ties and Collective Efficacy in Comparative Context. This study was put together by Lorraine Mazerolle, Rebecca Wickes and James McBroom and originally published online in 2009. In this study, the researchers surveyed 2,859 people from 82 different communities in Brisbane and combined their results with police records to produce graphs similar to those that Sampson shows in chapter 7. In this particular study, the researchers note that certain variables are very significant, such as gender and age. Both older people and women were found to report higher levels of collective efficacy within their communities. They also show that just like in Sampson's research, higher household incomes and owning one's house result in higher collective efficacy. Although the total rate of reported crime in Brisbane is three time lower than Chicago, and two and a half time lower than Stockholm, the correlations between spatial variations in crime correlated with both of these other studies. In conclusion, these researchers note that their research (along with the research in Stockholm and Chicago) "does point to a possible converging of cross-national differences in the collective control of crime problems in contemporary society."

What I found to be most interesting part of this chapter is the link Sampson mentions between collective efficacy and health issues such as asthma and AIDS.  With an emphasis in biology, these concepts are of more interest to me. Since collective efficacy theory seems to have an effect on issues outside the scope of crime and poverty, the results of Sampson's research could end up being far more important than he once imagined. I'm excited to read more research on how collective efficacy influences health issues like these in our society!

Works Cited: 

Mazerolle L., Wickes R., McBroom J., Community variations in violence: The role of social ties and collective efficacy in comparative context (2010) Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,  47  (1) , pp. 3-30.