Social Norms and Crime - Criminal Justice

Social norms — the shared expectations, rules, and standards that define appropriate and inappropriate behavior within social groups and communities — are among the most powerful regulators of human behavior, operating through mechanisms of social approval and disapproval that shape conduct far more pervasively than formal legal sanctions. Their relationship to crime is foundational: criminal behavior represents by definition a violation of formally codified normative standards, but the social norms most important for understanding crime are the informal expectations operating in specific social contexts — the peer group that normalizes violence, the neighborhood that tolerates drug dealing, the corporate culture that rewards fraud, the masculinity norms that prescribe aggression — rather than the formal legal norms whose violation constitutes crime per se.

Sociology and Criminology treats social norms as both independent variables that shape criminal behavior and as dependent variables that are themselves produced by the social structural conditions criminology analyzes. Norms that normalize violence, rationalize theft, or celebrate criminal status are not random cultural variations but are products of the ecological conditions — concentrated disadvantage, blocked legitimate opportunity, institutional abandonment — that make such norms adaptive responses to structural reality rather than mere cultural deficiencies. Understanding the production, transmission, operation, and modification of crime-relevant norms is essential for both explaining why crime concentrates where it does and designing the interventions that can reduce it by changing the normative environments within which criminal decisions are made.

Introduction

The theoretical treatment of social norms in criminological research spans multiple traditions with different emphases on norm content versus norm enforcement and on group-level versus individual-level analysis. Social learning theory (Akers) treats norms as definitions of behavior that are learned through differential association and that predict behavior through their reinforcement history. Social bond theory (Hirschi) treats belief in the moral validity of conventional norms as one of the four bonds that constrain criminal behavior. Social disorganization theory treats norm consensus and community normative agreement as components of collective efficacy that enable informal social control. And the code of the street literature (Anderson) treats the specific norms of disadvantaged urban neighborhoods as cultural adaptations to structural conditions that are neither arbitrary cultural pathologies nor simple expressions of individual values but organized normative responses to the specific ecological conditions that generate them.

These theoretical frameworks converge on the insight that norms affect crime through two distinct mechanisms: through their content (norms that define violence as acceptable, property crime as justified, or drug use as normal directly increase the probability of those behaviors among individuals who internalize them) and through their enforcement (strong norm consensus and willingness to enforce norms reduces crime by increasing the social costs of violations regardless of norm content). Research distinguishing these two mechanisms has found evidence for both, with norm content most relevant for understanding why some social groups show higher crime rates than others and norm enforcement most relevant for understanding why crime concentrates in specific places and under specific social conditions.

Social Norms and Social Learning

Definitions and Pro-Criminal Norms

Ronald Akers’s social learning theory identifies definitions — cognitive orientations and attitudes toward behavior — as a primary mechanism through which norms affect criminal behavior. Definitions favorable to law violation include moral justifications that exempt specific behaviors from general prohibitions (violence is acceptable in self-defense or honor contests), neutralizations that deny the harm or responsibility of criminal conduct, and peer group norms that positively value criminal behavior as a source of status, excitement, or masculine identity. The learning of such definitions — through exposure to individuals who hold and act on them — increases the probability of criminal behavior by making criminal definitions available as cognitive schemas that can be applied to ambiguous situations where the choice between criminal and conventional responses is being made.

Research on the normative dimensions of gang participation provides the most systematic evidence on how pro-criminal norm socialization affects criminal behavior. Qualitative research by Elijah Anderson, Philippe Bourgois, and Victor Ríos has documented the specific normative content of street codes in different urban contexts, while quantitative research has attempted to measure these norms and their relationship to criminal behavior in survey data. Research by Matsuda and Heimer testing differential association propositions using panel data found that definitions favorable to deviance significantly predicted subsequent criminal behavior, establishing the mechanism through which norm socialization increases criminal involvement.

Moral Disengagement and Neutralization

Albert Bandura’s moral disengagement theory and Gresham Sykes and David Matza’s neutralization theory both address how individuals whose general normative commitments oppose criminal behavior nonetheless commit crime by engaging cognitive mechanisms that temporarily disable the application of those commitments to specific behaviors. Sykes and Matza’s five techniques of neutralization — denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, condemnation of the condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties — each provide a cognitive framework for exempting a specific act from the general moral prohibition that would otherwise inhibit it, enabling criminal behavior without requiring the wholesale adoption of pro-criminal norms that differential association emphasizes.

Research on neutralization and crime has found consistent evidence that these cognitive mechanisms are associated with higher rates of criminal behavior, with the techniques most relevant depending on the crime type and social context. Research on white-collar crime has found particularly strong evidence for neutralization — executives who commit fraud or environmental violations typically report strong general commitments to conventional morality alongside specific cognitive frameworks that exempt their business conduct from those commitments — establishing neutralization as a mechanism of particular importance for crimes committed by otherwise conventional individuals. Contemporary research applying neutralization theory to cybercrime has found that specific digital neutralizations — the normalization of unauthorized access as “exploring,” the dehumanization of victims as faceless corporations, and the appeal to hacker culture norms that celebrate technical skill over legal constraint — facilitate cybercriminal behavior among individuals who would not otherwise engage in theft or vandalism in offline contexts.

Table 1. Social Norms and Crime: Theoretical Mechanisms

Theoretical Tradition	Norm Concept	Mechanism	Crime Prediction	Key Evidence
Social learning (Akers)	Definitions — cognitive attitudes toward behavior	Pro-criminal definitions increase probability of criminal behavior	More pro-criminal definitions → more crime	Panel studies; gang research
Neutralization (Sykes & Matza)	Techniques that suspend moral inhibition	Cognitive neutralization enables crime without value change	Specific neutralizations predict specific crime types	White-collar crime; delinquency research
Social bond (Hirschi)	Belief in moral validity of conventional rules	Weak conventional belief removes normative constraint	Weak belief in conventional norms → more crime	Survey research; delinquency studies
Code of the street (Anderson)	Street culture norms prescribing violence	Ecological norms create obligations to violence	Neighborhoods with strong street code show more violence	Ethnographic research; contextual survey studies
Social norm theory (applied)	Perceived prevalence of behavior among peers	Behavior tracks perceived peer norms more than actual norms	Misperceived peer norms predict individual behavior	Social norms marketing research
Moral disengagement (Bandura)	Cognitive mechanisms disabling moral self-regulation	Self-regulatory processes are disengaged in criminal contexts	Moral disengagement predicts aggression and crime	Experimental and longitudinal studies

Gendered Norms and Violence

Masculinity norms — the culturally specific prescriptions about what it means to be a man, what behaviors demonstrate masculine status, and what responses to challenge are required for masculine honor — are among the most consequential crime-relevant norms studied in criminological research. Research consistently documents that criminal behavior, particularly violence, is concentrated among young men in ways that cannot be explained by biological sex differences alone but require the sociological analysis of how masculinity norms are constructed, transmitted, and enforced in specific social contexts. James Messerschmidt’s structured action theory proposes that crime — particularly violent crime — functions as a resource for “doing masculinity” in contexts where conventional masculinity performance through economic success, institutional position, and family provision is unavailable or insufficient.

The intersection of masculinity norms and the code of the street is particularly consequential for violence: the street code’s prescriptions about reputation, respect, and the obligation to respond to disrespect with violence are specifically masculine prescriptions that apply primarily to men navigating public space in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Research by Brunson and Miller documenting the gendered dimensions of street code experiences found that young men and women in the same disadvantaged neighborhoods experienced and responded to the code differently, with young men facing stronger obligations to perform toughness and young women finding alternative normative frameworks for navigating similar structural conditions. Research by Connell on hegemonic masculinity and by Kimmel on American masculinity provides the broader cultural context within which the street code’s specific masculine prescriptions make sense as contextual expressions of broader masculinity norms rather than entirely autonomous cultural formations.

The Code of the Street

Anderson’s Normative Ecology

Elijah Anderson’s code of the street — documented through years of ethnographic research in Philadelphia and published in 1999 — provides the most influential account of how ecological conditions produce specific crime-relevant norms in disadvantaged urban communities. Anderson proposed that in neighborhoods where conventional institutions have largely withdrawn, a street code emerges that governs behavior in public space through norms prescribing violence as both appropriate and obligatory in response to perceived disrespect, reputation maintenance as a primary social obligation, and the projection of a threatening demeanor as a protective strategy against predation.

The code is not a uniform cultural trait of disadvantaged communities but a contextual normative framework that most community members — Anderson distinguishes “decent” families who maintain conventional values from “street” families who adopt the code — employ strategically in public contexts that require it while abandoning it in conventional institutional contexts. This contextual switching is important for understanding both the code’s operation and its modification: most residents of high-code neighborhoods do not fully embrace street norms but adapt their public behavior to the requirements that others’ street orientation creates, producing a normative environment that elevates violence rates even among individuals who would prefer a different normative context.

Research testing the code of the street hypothesis using survey measures of street code attitudes has found consistent support for its relationship to violent behavior. Stewart and Simons used panel data to examine the relationship between street code endorsement, neighborhood disadvantage, and violent behavior, finding that street code attitudes mediated a portion of the relationship between neighborhood disadvantage and violence while also operating independently of neighborhood context — establishing both the ecological production of code attitudes and their independent behavioral effects. More recent research has examined the code’s gendered dimensions, its online extensions through social media platforms where similar normative dynamics operate in digital contexts, and its relationship to the specific network structures through which violence transmits.

Subcultural Theory and Criminal Norms

Albert Cohen’s subculture theory — published in Delinquent Boys (1955) — proposed that working-class boys, unable to compete successfully in the middle-class educational system, respond to this status frustration by inverting middle-class values and creating a delinquent subculture that valorizes the behaviors the middle-class values prohibit: aggression, immediate gratification, property destruction, and contempt for conventional success. The delinquent subculture, in Cohen’s account, is a collective solution to a shared status problem — not a deliberate choice but an emergent normative response to structural exclusion that provides an alternative status system in which boys excluded from conventional status can achieve recognition.

Miller’s subsequent critique proposed that delinquent subculture was not an inversion of middle-class values but an expression of specifically lower-class focal concerns — toughness, trouble, smartness, excitement, fate, and autonomy — that represented independent cultural values rather than reactions to middle-class standards. The theoretical debate between reaction formation (Cohen) and autonomous lower-class culture (Miller) has not been definitively resolved, but both accounts share the core insight that crime-relevant norms are not individual choices but collective cultural formations that emerge from and are sustained by shared structural conditions. Contemporary research on subcultures has moved beyond the simple gang-focused frameworks of mid-century research to examine how digital subcultures, online communities, and transnational criminal networks create normative environments that shape criminal behavior across geographic boundaries that traditional subculture theory could not address.

Perceptions of Peer Norms and Social Norm Interventions

The Misperception of Peer Norms

One of the most policy-consequential findings in the social norms literature is the systematic tendency to overestimate the prevalence of deviant behavior and pro-criminal norms among one’s peers — a misperception that, because behavior tends to conform to perceived peer norms regardless of their accuracy, may itself produce higher rates of deviant behavior than accurate perception would. Research by Berkowitz and colleagues on alcohol use among college students first documented this systematic misperception: students consistently overestimated how much their peers drank and how much they approved of heavy drinking, and this overestimation predicted their own drinking above and beyond their own attitudes about alcohol.

Social norms marketing interventions — which communicate accurate statistical information about the actual (lower) prevalence of deviant behavior and the actual (lower) approval of it among the relevant peer population — have produced significant reductions in the target behavior in randomized trials, establishing the misperception-behavior pathway causally. Applications to violence prevention — communicating accurate information about how few community members support violence and how many community members want safety — have been incorporated into the community norm messaging component of focused deterrence interventions, with consistent evidence that this community norm message contributes to the violence reduction effects of the full focused deterrence approach.

Norm Change and Community Violence Intervention

The community violence intervention framework’s normative component — communicating to the highest-risk individuals that community members do not support violence and that the community wants safety — directly targets the normative environment within which violence decisions are made. Research on the Cure Violence model’s interruption mechanism documented that violence interrupters communicate not only practical deterrence information but normative messages about community values that challenge the street code’s prescriptions by making visible the normative opposition to violence that the code’s dynamics typically suppress. The mechanism is consistent with both social norms theory’s prediction that perceived peer norm approval of violence predicts violence and with social learning theory’s prediction that exposure to definitions unfavorable to violence reduces violent behavior.

Changing Norms: Policy and Intervention

Social Norms as Intervention Targets

The policy implications of social norms research extend beyond the prevention applications of social norms marketing to encompass broader interventions designed to change the normative environment rather than only individual attitudes or behavioral patterns. Community violence intervention programs that deploy credible messengers to communicate community norm opposition to violence — establishing that violence is not actually approved by the majority of community members, including those whose apparent support the street code requires — directly target the normative mechanism through which violence is sustained.

The focused deterrence strategy’s community norm component — having respected community leaders and former offenders communicate at group notification meetings that the community does not want the violence and will not support it — directly addresses the normative legitimacy that Anderson’s code of the street analysis identifies as the mechanism sustaining street violence in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Research evaluating focused deterrence implementations has found that the community norm message component contributes independently to violence reduction beyond the deterrence message alone, establishing norm change as a mechanism of violence reduction with evidence beyond the ethnographic and survey research that identifies it theoretically.

Research on school-based norms interventions — programs designed to correct misperceptions about peer norm approval of bullying, substance use, and antisocial behavior — has found consistent positive effects on target behaviors in randomized evaluations. The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program’s school-level norm change component — establishing clear school norms against bullying and building adult monitoring capacity to enforce them — has produced significant reductions in bullying in multiple randomized trials across different national contexts, establishing norm change as a scalable and evidence-based prevention strategy applicable beyond the delinquency context to the broader range of antisocial behaviors that normative frameworks influence.

Formal Norms: Law, Legitimacy, and Compliance

The relationship between formal legal norms — the statutory and regulatory prohibitions that constitute criminal law — and informal social norms determines the legitimacy of law and the degree to which legal compliance is voluntary rather than coerced. Research by Tom Tyler on procedural justice established that compliance with law depends more on the perceived legitimacy of legal authorities than on the severity of sanctions, establishing that the normative relationship between citizens and law — characterized by voluntary acceptance of legal obligation when law is perceived as fair and institutions are perceived as procedurally just — is a more effective crime deterrent than the threat of formal punishment for most crime types and most offenders.

This finding has important implications for the relationship between legal norms and social norms: when formal legal norms align with the informal social norms of the communities they govern, compliance is primarily voluntary and enforcement costs are low. When formal legal norms conflict with community informal norms — as drug law enforcement in communities that do not experience drug market activity as their primary concern, or as stop-and-frisk enforcement in communities that experience the tactic as racial harassment — the legitimacy deficit that results reduces voluntary compliance and community cooperation with police, reducing the effectiveness of enforcement efforts beyond the specific coercive encounters they produce. Research by Jonathan Jackson and colleagues on police legitimacy across multiple countries has found that procedurally just policing builds the normative obligation to comply with law that deterrence-based enforcement cannot create, establishing the legitimacy-compliance pathway as an empirically confirmed mechanism through which formal-informal norm alignment reduces crime.

Organizational and Occupational Norms

Crime-relevant norms operate not only in street contexts and adolescent peer groups but in organizational and professional settings where the norms of occupational culture shape the likelihood of white-collar crime, corporate misconduct, and police corruption. Research on police culture has documented the existence of an “occupational code” among police officers — including norms of loyalty to fellow officers, suspicion of citizens, secrecy regarding misconduct, and tolerance for rule violations in service of desired outcomes — that parallels the street code in its prescriptive force and its resistance to outside intervention. Research by Reuss-Ianni and Ianni’s ethnography of New York City police, and by the subsequent literature on police culture, has established that these occupational norms are socialized through the police academy and early patrol experience in ways that override the formal training on ethics and procedural compliance that police departments also provide.

Corporate and organizational norms similarly shape the probability of white-collar crime by defining what counts as acceptable business practice within specific industry cultures. Research on financial industry culture following the 2008 financial crisis documented the normative environments of investment banks, mortgage originators, and rating agencies in which fraudulent and reckless practices were normalized through industry-wide definitions of acceptable conduct, competitive pressures, and the suppression of internal dissent — environments whose normative dimensions were as important as the individual greed and regulatory failure that popular accounts emphasized. The Sutherland differential association framework, applied to organizational contexts, predicts that individuals embedded in organizational cultures with high proportions of pro-crime definitions will show higher rates of white-collar crime — a prediction that the organizational crime literature’s findings on industry culture and regulatory compliance consistently support.

Norms and the Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic provided an inadvertent natural experiment in the crime consequences of rapid normative change — specifically, the dramatic and rapid shift in public norms around acceptable behavior in public spaces, social gatherings, and economic activity that pandemic restrictions produced. Research on the pandemic crime consequences found that some crime types declined as normative compliance with social distancing reduced the routine activity patterns that produce criminal opportunity, while others — notably homicide — increased dramatically in ways that rapid normative change in police-community relations (following the George Floyd killing and protests) and the normative disruption of the institutions that ordinarily regulate behavior may have facilitated.

Research examining the differential crime trajectories of the pandemic period across cities with different levels of pre-existing community violence intervention infrastructure, police legitimacy, and institutional density has found evidence consistent with the prediction that communities with stronger normative consensus and greater institutional social control capacity showed more resilience to the pandemic crime surge than those without — suggesting that the normative mechanisms of crime control documented in normal-period criminological research operate with predictable consequences in crisis conditions as well.

Global and Transnational Norms

The globalization of communication through digital platforms has created new normative environments that operate across national boundaries — transnational subcultures, online communities, and global media ecosystems — whose crime-relevant normative dimensions are increasingly important for understanding crime in the contemporary period. Research on transnational criminal organizations — drug cartels, human trafficking networks, cybercriminal organizations — has documented that these organizations maintain their own normative frameworks, codes of conduct, and enforcement mechanisms that parallel the street code’s functions in local criminal contexts at the international level. The normative analysis of these transnational criminal cultures — their internal solidarity norms, their violence-regulating codes, their relationships to the formal institutional environments in which they operate — is an important frontier for contemporary criminological research that traditional community-level norms research cannot fully address.

Research on radicalization and terrorist norm socialization — examining how individuals are recruited into ideological frameworks that legitimate political violence — has extended the social norms analysis of crime to its most extreme expressions, documenting that the normative transformation from conventional citizen to political violent actor follows the same differential association, neutralization, and moral disengagement mechanisms that explain ordinary crime, applied to the specific cognitive and social contexts that political violence requires. Understanding these normative mechanisms — and the social network pathways through which radicalization occurs — is as important for counter-terrorism policy as understanding the code of the street is for community violence intervention.

Conclusion

The sociology of social norms and crime has produced insights at multiple levels of analysis that no single theoretical tradition can integrate alone: the individual-level mechanisms of social learning and moral disengagement through which norms shape specific behavioral decisions; the group-level mechanisms through which peer cultures and organizational environments produce and maintain crime-relevant norms; the community-level mechanisms through which ecological conditions generate the normative environments within which criminal decisions are made; and the societal-level mechanisms through which dominant cultural values and institutional arrangements shape the normative frameworks available to individuals navigating the demands of social life in structurally unequal societies.

Social norms and crime are connected through mechanisms operating at multiple levels simultaneously — through the content of norms that directly encourage or discourage criminal behavior, through the normative enforcement capacity of communities that raises the social cost of violations, through the misperceptions of peer norms that influence individual behavior through conformity pressures, and through the ecological production of crime-relevant norms in contexts of concentrated disadvantage, institutional abandonment, and blocked legitimate opportunity. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for designing the normative interventions that complement structural and individual-level approaches to crime prevention.

The social norms framework’s policy implications are both immediate and structural: immediate in that social norms marketing, focused deterrence norm messaging, and school-based norm change interventions can begin producing crime reductions on short time horizons; structural in that the persistent production of pro-criminal norms in disadvantaged urban neighborhoods reflects structural conditions whose modification requires the long-term investment in institutional quality and economic opportunity that structural criminology identifies as necessary for durable normative change. Neither dimension is sufficient alone: changing norms without changing the structural conditions that produced them may produce short-term behavioral change that structural pressures eventually reverse, while changing structural conditions without norm change programs may leave in place normative environments that delay the crime reductions that structural improvement should produce. The most effective violence reduction programs — Boston’s Operation Ceasefire, Oakland’s Measure Y, Chicago’s Group Violence Intervention — have integrated both dimensions, using targeted enforcement and social services to change the structural opportunity structure alongside credible messenger and community norm messaging to change the normative environment. Their sustained successes provide the strongest available evidence for the complementarity of structural and normative approaches to crime prevention that social norms theory implies. The development of more precise normative measurement instruments, better longitudinal designs for tracking normative change and its behavioral consequences, and more rigorous evaluation of norm-change intervention components within multi-component programs represents the research agenda that the social norms tradition requires to move from its current position of strong theoretical plausibility and moderate empirical support to the fully evidence-based status that criminological policy demands.

References

Agnew, R. (2011). Toward a unified criminology: Integrating assumptions about crime, people, and society. New York University Press.
Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Northeastern University Press.
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. W. W. Norton.
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
Berkowitz, A. D. (2004). The social norms approach: Theory, research, and annotated bibliography. https://www.alanberkowitz.com/articles/social_norms.pdf
Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D., & Turchan, B. (2018). Focused deterrence strategies and crime control: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(1), 205–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12353
Bubolz, B. F., & Lee, J. D. (2022). Codes of the streets in the digital era: Examining online gang behavior and violence with social norms. Journal of Criminal Justice, 79, 101900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2021.101900
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. University of California Press.
Fagan, J., & Piquero, A. R. (2007). Rational choice and developmental influences on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(4), 715–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00105.x
Harcourt, B. E., & Ludwig, J. (2006). Broken windows: New evidence from New York City and a five-city social experiment. University of Chicago Law Review, 73(1), 271–320.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.
Kennedy, D. M. (2011). Don’t shoot: One man, a street fellowship, and the end of violence in inner-city America. Bloomsbury.
Kubrin, C. E., & Weitzer, R. (2003). New directions in social disorganization theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 374–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427803256238
Laninga-Wijnen, L., Harakeh, Z., Dijkstra, J. K., Veenstra, R., & Vollebergh, W. (2020). Aggressive norms in adolescent cliques. Journal of Research in Adolescence, 30(1), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12421
Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and drift. Wiley.
Piquero, N. L., Tibbetts, S. G., & Blankenship, M. B. (2005). Examining the role of differential association and techniques of neutralization in explaining corporate crime. Deviant Behavior, 26(2), 159–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620590522280
Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. University of Chicago Press.
Sampson, R. J., & Bartusch, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance. Law & Society Review, 32(4), 777–804. https://doi.org/10.2307/827739
Simons, R. L., & Burt, C. H. (2011). Learning to be bad: Adverse social conditions, social schemas, and crime. Criminology, 49(2), 553–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00231.x
Stewart, E. A., & Simons, R. L. (2010). Race, code of the street, and violent delinquency: A multilevel investigation of neighborhood street culture and individual norms of violence. Criminology, 48(2), 569–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00196.x
Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089195
Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2000). The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. Criminal Justice, 4, 33–83.
Wikström, P.-O. H., & Svensson, R. (2010). When does self-control matter? The interaction between morality and self-control in crime causation. European Journal of Criminology, 7(5), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370810372132
Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly, 249(3), 29–38.