Advertisement

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 371–395 | Cite as

A Matter of Time: A Partial Test of Institutional Anomie Theory Using Cross-National Time Use Data

  • Dean WeldEmail author
  • Sean Patrick Roche
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

The institutional anomie theory of crime (IAT) has traditionally been tested using either survey-based attitudinal measures or government expenditures. However, data on how people use their time may offer more valid and unobtrusive indicators of the theory’s key concepts, since choosing how to spend one’s time is inherently an exercise in expressing values. The present study answers the call for time use data in IAT research.

Methods

We perform a cross-national test of IAT using data compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) from national time use surveys administered in 29 countries since 1999. Using multivariate regression, we assess the relationships between homicide rates and time spent in economic versus noneconomic institutional domains.

Results

Consistent with prior work, we find mixed support for IAT. By itself, time spent in economic activity is not significantly related to homicide rates. However, the interaction term for time spent in economic and non-economic activities has a positive and statistically significant relationship with homicide, even after controlling for several other factors.

Conclusions

The results tentatively suggest that non-economic institutions may be criminogenic in some societies. We discuss the importance of our findings and suggest new lines of research to further explore the content of non-economic institutions. We also address other possible applications of time use data in macro-criminological inquiry.

Keywords

Institutional anomie Homicide Time use data Cross-national crime rates 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Steven Messner, Justin Pickett, and Kate Hart for their comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript, and Meghan Rogers for her advice.

References

  1. Al Baghal T, Belli RF, Phillips AL, Ruther N (2014) What are you doing now? activity-level responses and recall failures in the american time use survey. J Surv Stat Methodol 2:519–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson AL, Hughes LA (2008) Exposure to situations conducive to delinquent behavior: the effects of time use, income, and transportation. J Res Crime Delinq 46:5–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ATUS (2013) American time use survey user’s guide: understanding ATUS 2003–2012. Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics, USGoogle Scholar
  4. Batton C, Jensen G (2002) Decommodification and homicide rates in the twentieth-century United States. Homicide Stud 6:6–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumer EP, Gustafson R (2007) Social organization and instrumental crime: assessing the empirical validity of classic and contemporary anomie theories. Criminology 45:617–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baumer EP, Wolff KT (2014) Evaluating contemporary crime drop(s) in America, New York city, and many other places. Justice Q 31:5–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernburg JG (2002) Anomie, social change and crime: a theoretical examination of institutional-anomie theory. Br J Criminol 42:729–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bevans GE (1913) How working men spend their spare time (PhD dissertation). Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Bjerregaard B, Cochran JK (2008) A cross-national test of institutional anomie theory: Do the strength of other social institutions mediate or moderate the effects of the economy on the rate of crime? West Criminol Rev 9:31–48Google Scholar
  10. Bolger N, Davis A, Rafael E (2003) Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived. Annu Rev Psychol 54:579–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cao L (2004) Is American society more anomic? a test of Merton’s theory with cross-national data. Int J Comp Appl Crim Justice 28:15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chamlin MB, Cochran JK (1995) Assessing Messner and Rosenfeld’s institutional anomie theory: a partial test. Criminology 33:411–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chamlin MB, Cochran JK (1997) Social altruism and crime. Criminology 35:203–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chamlin MB, Cochran JK (2007) An evaluation of the assumptions that underlie institutional anomie theory. Theor Criminol 11:39–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cook RD (1977) Detection of influential observation in linear regression. Technometrics 19:15–18Google Scholar
  16. Costanza R, Hart M, Posner S, Talberth J (2009) Beyond GDP: the need for new measures of progress. Pardee paper no. 4, Boston, MA: Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range FutureGoogle Scholar
  17. Cullen FT (1994) Social support as an organizing concept for criminology: Presidential address to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Justice Q 11:527–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cullen FT, Wright JP (1997) Liberating the anomie strain paradigm: implications from social support theory. In: Passas N, Agnew R (eds) The future of anomie theory. Northeastern University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  19. Cullen JB, Parboteeah KP, Hoegl M (2004) Cross-national differences in managers’ willingness to justify ethically suspect behaviors: a test of institutional anomie theory. Acad Manag J 47:411–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dean JP, Whyte WF (1958) How do you know if the informant is telling the truth? Hum Organ 17:34–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dolliver DS (2014) Cultural and institutional adaptation and change in Europe: a test of institutional anomie theory using time series modelling of homicide data. Br J Criminol. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azu092
  22. Esping-Andersen G (1990) The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  23. Eurostat. (2009) Harmonized European time use surveys (HETUS), guidelines 2008. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  24. Fisher K, Gershuny J (2013) Multinational time use study. User’s guide and documentation. Centre for Time Use Research, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Glasman LR, Albarracin D (2006) Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: a meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychol Bull 132:778–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gordon WR, Caltabiano ML (1996) Urban–rural differences in adolescent self-esteem, leisure boredom, and sensation-seeking as predictors of leisure-time usage and satisfaction. Adolescence 31:883–901Google Scholar
  27. Gross SJ, Niman CM (1975) ‘Attitude behavior consistency: a review. Public Opin Q 39:358–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hannon L, DeFronzo J (1998) The truly disadvantaged, public assistance, and crime. Soc Probl 45:383–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harvey AS, Pentland WE (1999) Time use research. In: Pentland WE, Harvey AS, Lawton MP, McColl MA (eds) Time use research in the social sciences. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, pp 3–18Google Scholar
  30. Heine SJ, Lehman DR, Peng K, Greenholtz J (2002) What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales?: the reference-group effect. J Pers Soc Psychol 82:903–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoeben EM, Bernasco W, Weerman FM, Pauwels L, van Halem S (2014) The space-time budget method in criminological research. Crime Sci 3:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Howard GJ, Newman G, Pridemore WA (2000) Theory, method, and data in comparative criminology. Crim Justice Measurement Anal Crime Justice 4:139–211Google Scholar
  33. Hughes LA, Schaible LM, Gibbs BR (2015) Economic dominance, the “American Dream”, and homicide: a cross-national test of institutional anomie theory. Sociol Inq 85:100–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jensen GF (2002) Institutional anomie and societal variations in crime: a critical appraisal. Int J Sociol Soc Policy 22:45–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jerolmack C, Khan S (2014) Talk is cheap: ethnography and the attitudinal fallacy. Sociol Methods Res 43:178–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson TP, Van de Vijver FJR (2003) Social desirability in cross-cultural research. In: Harkness JA, Van de Vijver FJR, Mohler PP (eds) Cross-cultural survey methods. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 195–204Google Scholar
  37. Juster FT (1985) The validity and quality of time use estimates obtained from recall diaries. In: Juster FT, Stafford FP (eds) Time, goods, and well-being. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp 63–91Google Scholar
  38. Juster FT, Ono H, Stafford FP (2003) An assessment of alternative measures of time use. Sociol Methodol 33:19–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kalish CB (1988) International crime rates. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Karabell Z (2014) (Mis)Leading indicators: Why our economic numbers distort reality. Foreign affairs, March/April, 90–101Google Scholar
  41. Kivivuori J (2007) Crime by proxy coercion and altruism in adolescent shoplifting. Br J Criminol 47:817–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kuznets S (1934) National income 1929–1932. A report to the US Senate, 73rd Congress, 2nd Session. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. LaFree G (1998) A summary and review of cross-national comparative studies of homicide. In: Smith MD, Zahn MA (eds) Homicide: a sourcebook of social research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 125–145Google Scholar
  44. Levitt SD (2004) Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s: four factors that explain the decline and six that do not. J Econ Perspect 18:163–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Linton M (1982) Transformations of memory in everyday life. In: Neisser U (ed) Memory observed: remembering in natural contexts. Freeman, San Francisco, pp 71–91Google Scholar
  46. Lundberg GA, Keonavouski M, McInerny MA (1934) Leisure: a suburban study. Colombia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Maume MO, Lee MR (2003) Social institutions and violence: a sub-national test of institutional anomie theory. Criminology 41:1137–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Merton RK (1938) Social structure and anomie. Am Sociol Rev 3:672–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Merton RK (1940) Fact and factitiousness in ethnic opinionnaires. Am Sociol Rev 5:13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Merton RK (1968) Social theory and social structure. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Messner SF (2003) An institutional-anomie theory of crime: continuities and elaborations in the study of social structure and anomie. Cologne J Sociol Soc Psychol 43:93–109Google Scholar
  52. Messner SF, Rosenfeld R (1994) Crime and the American dream, 1st edn. Thomson Wadsworth, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  53. Messner SF, Rosenfeld R (1997) Political restraint of the market and levels of criminal homicide: a cross-national application of institutional-anomie theory. Soc Forces 75:1393–1416Google Scholar
  54. Messner SF, Rosenfeld R (2006) The present and future of institutional anomie theory. In: Cullen FT, Wright JP, Blevins K (eds) Taking stock: the status of criminological theory. Transaction Publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  55. Messner SF, Rosenfeld R (2007) Crime and the American dream, 4th edn. Wadsworth, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  56. Messner SF, Sampson RJ (1991) The sex ratio, family disruption, and rates of violent crime: the paradox of demographic structure. Soc Forces 69:693–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Messner SF, Thome H, Rosenfeld R (2008) Institutions, anomie, and violent crime: clarifying and elaborating institutional-anomie theory. Int J Conf Violence 2:163–181Google Scholar
  58. Michelson WM (2005) Time use: expanding explanation in the social sciences. Paradigm Publishers, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  59. Mills C Wright (1940) Methodological consequences of the sociology of knowledge. Am J Sociol 46:316–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Miranda V (2011) Cooking, caring and volunteering: unpaid work around the world, OECD social, employment and migration working papers, no. 116, OECD PublishingGoogle Scholar
  61. Parsons T (1990) Prolegomena to a theory of social institutions. Am Sociol Rev 55:319–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pember Reeves M (1913) Round about a pound a week. G. Bell & Sons Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  63. Pickett JT, Baker T (2014) The pragmatic American: empirical reality or methodological artifact? Criminology 52:195–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Piquero A, Piquero NL (1998) On testing institutional anomie theory with varying specifications. Stud Crime Crime Prev 7:61–84Google Scholar
  65. Pratt TC, Cullen FT (2005) Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: a meta-analysis. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 373–450Google Scholar
  66. Pratt TC, Godsey TW (2003) Social support, inequality, and homicide: a cross-national test of an integrated theoretical model. Criminology 41:611–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Presser S, Stinson L (1998) Data collection mode and social desirability bias in self reported religious attendance. Am Sociol Rev 63:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Riley D (1987) Time and crime: the link between teenager lifestyle and delinquency. J Quant Criminol 3:339–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Robinson JP (1999) The time-diary method: structure and uses. In: Pentland WE, Harvey AS, Lawton MP, McColl MA (eds) Time use research in the social sciences. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York, pp 47–89Google Scholar
  70. Rosenfeld R, Messner SF (2009) The crime drop in comparative perspective: the impact of the economy and imprisonment on American and European burglary rates. Br J Sociol 60:445–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Savolainen J (2000) Inequality, welfare state, and homicide: further support for the institutional anomie theory. Criminology 38:1021–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schoepfer A, Piquero NL (2006) Exploring white-collar crime and the American dream: a partial test of institutional anomie theory. J Crim Justice 34:227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schuman H, Johnson MP (1976) Attitudes and behaviors. Annu Rev Sociol 2:161–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schuman H, Presser S (1981) Questions and answers in attitude surveys: experiments on question form, wording, and context. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  75. Sullivan O, Gershuny J (2001) Cross-national changes in time-use: some sociological (hi)stories re-examined. Br J Sociol 52:331–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Van Vaerenbergh V, Thomas TD (2013) Response styles in survey research: a literature review of antecedents, consequences, and remedies. Int J Public Opin Res 25:195–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wicker AW (1969) Attitudes versus actions: the relationship of verbal and overt behavior responses to attitude objects. J Soc Issues 25:41–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. World Health Organization. (2015) Completeness and coverage of death registration data. Retrieved 15 June 2015 from http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/mortcoverage/en/
  79. Zaller J, Feldman S (1992) A simple theory of the survey response: answering questions versus revealing preferences. Am J Polit Sci 36:579–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zimring FE (2006) The great American crime decline. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity at Albany, SUNYAlbanyUSA
  2. 2.School of Criminal JusticeUniversity at Albany, SUNYAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations