2
INTRODUCTION
Studies on neighborhood-level social organization and its effect on a variety of outcomes are
increasingly prominent in social science research, especially when studying crime, delinquency and
disorder (e.g., Sampson et al. 1997; Sampson et al. 1999; Browning et al. 2004). Studies of neighborhood
effects show that pro-social and collective behaviors attenuate these outcomes, regardless of the
sociodemographic composition of individuals within a community (Sampson et al. 1997). To this end,
one central question to the study of crime and disorder as an outcome arises out of the interaction between
relationships within a community and social control. Visible, physical signs of disorder, such as liter and
abandoned buildings can create negative community impressions on residents (Wilson and Kelling 1982;
Kelling and Coles 1996). Similarly, public drunkenness, drug sales, low-level crimes and other types of
social disorder may be more distressing to residents. Studies using crime rates, victimization and self-
reported delinquency have indicated that neighborhood processes can attenuate the relationship between
the individual (as expected by social disorganization theory and ecological theories, for example see
Shaw and McKay 1969; Wilson 1996) and the individual’s perception of their community. However,
different styles of social organization, control and interaction may be more or less effective at promoting
positive neighborhood impressions depending on the type of disorder present within a community.
Models that identify neighborhood mechanisms that control crime and delinquency provide
potential explanations of positive neighborhood impressions. One such explanation is the collective
efficacy model (e.g., Sampson et al. 1997, Sampson et al. 1999). This model argues that cohesive
communities are able to promote conformity to conventional values through informal social control and
collective action. Collective efficacy models argue that many trusting relationships within a neighborhood
promote action toward collective good and ultimately positive community impressions in the minds of
residents. The density of social networks can be achieved in numerous ways, however. To this end, we
suggest that collective efficacy, strong neighborhood networks and pro-social behavior may all contribute
to an individual’s perception of disorder. Collective efficacy captures trust and cohesion within a
neighborhood. Another potential process to consider is the effect of strong social networks, which may
Convention