Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Neighborhood Effects and Social Networks

  • Brian Soller
  • Christopher R. Browning
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_241



Features of neighborhood social networks are central to many of the most prominent theories of crime. Empirical tests of a number of criminological theories underscore the importance of neighbor networks in both facilitating and deterring crime, both at the individual and community levels. However, most studies that focus on the link between neighborhoods and crime are limited by the use of “perceptual” and other proxy measures that aim to capture neighbor cohesion, social capital, and other social processes thought to mediate the association between neighborhood structural characteristics (e.g., concentrated disadvantage, residential instability) and offending. Exactly which features of neighborhood social organization are the most consequential for crime remains unknown due to the paucity of relational data that capture theoretically relevant features of actual neighborhood network...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Bellair PE, Browning CR (2010) Contemporary disorganization research: an assessment and further test of the systemic model of neighborhood crime. J Res Crime Del 47:496–521Google Scholar
  2. Browning CR, Jackson AL, Soller B, Krivo L, Peterson RD (2011) Ecological community and neighborhood social organization. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Washington, DC, 16–19 Nov 2011Google Scholar
  3. Butts CT, Acton RM, Hipp JR, Nagle NN (2012) Geographical variability and network structure. Soc Networks 34:82–100Google Scholar
  4. Cloward RA, Ohlin LE (1960) Delinquency and opportunity: a theory of delinquent gangs. Free Press, GlencoeGoogle Scholar
  5. Durkheim E (1951) Suicide: a study in sociology. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Entwisle B, Faust K, Rindfuss RR, Kaneda T (2007) Networks and contexts: variation in the structure of social ties. Am J Sociol 112:1495–1533Google Scholar
  7. Golledge RG, Stimson RJ (1997) Spatial behavior: a geographic perspective. The Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78:1360–1380Google Scholar
  9. Haynie DL (2001) Delinquent peers revisited: does network structure matter? Am J Sociol 106:1013–1057Google Scholar
  10. Hipp JR (2007) Block, tract, and levels of aggregation: neighborhood structure and crime and disorder as a case in point. Am Sociol Rev 72:659–680Google Scholar
  11. Hunter A (1985) Private, parochial and public social orders: the problem of crime and incivility in urban communities. In: Zald M, Suttles (eds) The challenge of social control: citizenship and institution building in modern society. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, pp 230–242Google Scholar
  12. Jacobs J (1961) The death and life of great American cities. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Kornhauser R (1978) Social sources of delinquency. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. Kossinets G (2006) Effects of missing data in social networks. Soc Networks 28:247–268Google Scholar
  15. Krivo LJ, Peterson RD, Kuhl DC (2009) Segregation, racial structure, and neighborhood violent crime. Am J Sociol 114:1765–1802Google Scholar
  16. Laumann EO, Marsden PV, Prensky D (1983) The boundary specification problem in network analysis. In: Burt RS, Minor MJ (eds) Applied network analysis: a methodological introduction. Sage Publications, London, pp 18–34Google Scholar
  17. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27:415–444Google Scholar
  18. Opsahl T (Forthcoming) Triadic closure in two-mode networks: redefining the global and local clustering coefficients. Soc NetworksGoogle Scholar
  19. Osgood DW, Wilson JK, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Johnston LD (1996) Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. Am Sociol Rev 61:635–655Google Scholar
  20. Papachristos AV (2009) Murder by structure: dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide. Am J Sociol 115:74–128Google Scholar
  21. Papachristos AV (2010) The coming of a networked criminology. In: MacDonald J (ed) Measuring crime and criminality: advances in criminological theory, vol 17. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, pp 101–140Google Scholar
  22. Papachristos AV, Braga AA, Hureau DM (2012) Social networks and the risk of gunshot injury. J Urban Health 89:992–1003Google Scholar
  23. Radil SM, Flint C, Tita GE (2010) Spatializing social networks: using social network analysis to investigate geographies of gang rivalry, territoriality, and violence in Los Angeles. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 100:307–326Google Scholar
  24. Ripley, Ruth M, Snijders, Tom AB, Preciado P (2012) Manual for SIENA version 4.0. University of Oxford, Department of Statistics; Nuffield College, Oxford, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/∼snijders/siena/
  25. Sampson RJ, Graif C (2009) Neighborhood networks and processes of trust. In: Levi M, Hardin R, Cook KS (eds) Whom can we trust? How groups, networks, and institutions make trust possible. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp 182–215Google Scholar
  26. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 2778:918–924Google Scholar
  27. Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Gannon-Rowley T (2002) Assessing ‘neighborhood effects’: social processes and new directions in research. Annu Rev Sociol 28:443–478Google Scholar
  28. Schaefer DR (2012) Youth co-offending networks: an investigation of social and spatial effects. Soc Networks 34:141–149Google Scholar
  29. Shaw C, McKay HD (1942) Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  30. Wirth L (1938) Urbanism as a way of life. Am J Sociol 44:1–24Google Scholar
  31. Young J (2011) How do they ‘end up together’? A social network analysis of self-control, homophily, and adolescent relationships. J Quant Criminol 27:251–273Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA