Urban Sociology and Crime - Criminal Justice

Urban sociology — the study of how cities, their spatial organization, and the social relationships they produce shape social life — provides criminology with the theoretical and empirical resources for understanding how the urban context shapes crime in ways that neither individual-level nor purely structural analysis can achieve. Cities are not merely large collections of individuals with individual characteristics; they are specific organizational forms with characteristic spatial arrangements, institutional ecologies, social relationships, and cultural dynamics that produce crime risks and crime prevention capacities that are properties of the urban form itself rather than aggregations of individual properties. The urban sociology of crime is therefore not simply the sociology of crime applied to urban settings but a distinctive analytical tradition that treats the city’s spatial organization as a primary explanatory variable rather than a contextual backdrop.

Sociology and Criminology treats urban sociology and crime as the convergence of two intellectual traditions — the Chicago School’s urban sociology and the social disorganization criminology it produced — whose insights have been both confirmed and complicated by a century of subsequent research. The traditions’ foundational claim — that urban spatial organization, through the ecological processes of competition, invasion, and succession, produces the social conditions (concentrated disadvantage, residential instability, ethnic heterogeneity) that generate crime — has been repeatedly confirmed in its broad outline while the specific mechanisms have been refined, the political processes that produce urban spatial organization have been identified, and the analytical tools available for studying urban ecology have been transformed by data advances and methodological innovation.

Introduction

The urban sociology of crime addresses questions at multiple geographic scales simultaneously. At the city level, it asks why some cities have higher crime rates than others, and what features of urban organization — economic structure, demographic composition, institutional arrangements, political economy — explain between-city variation. At the neighborhood level, it asks why crime concentrates in specific areas within cities, through what mechanisms neighborhood conditions shape individual behavior, and how neighborhood conditions change over time. And at the micro-place level, it asks why crime concentrates at specific addresses and street corners within neighborhoods, what environmental and social features of those micro-places enable crime, and how modifying those features can reduce it.

Each geographic scale requires different analytical tools and produces different theoretical insights. City-level analysis uses comparative methods and exploits variation across cities in structural conditions and crime rates. Neighborhood-level analysis uses multilevel statistical models that simultaneously analyze individual and neighborhood characteristics. And micro-place analysis uses crime mapping, systematic social observation, and the experimental and quasi-experimental designs that hot spots policing research has developed. The integration of insights across scales — understanding how city-level structural conditions shape neighborhood conditions, which shape micro-place crime opportunities, which shape individual criminal behavior — is the central analytical challenge of urban criminological research.

The Chicago School and Urban Form

Ecological Processes and Crime

The Chicago School’s ecological model — reviewed in detail in the urban criminology articles — proposed that urban spatial organization results from the ecological processes of competition, invasion, and succession among different uses and populations for urban territory, producing the concentric zone pattern that Burgess documented in Chicago and the social conditions that Shaw and McKay showed predicted crime concentrations. The foundational insight — that crime is a property of places rather than only of people, and that the spatial organization of cities through ecological processes determines which places have what crime rates — established the theoretical orientation that urban criminological sociology has maintained despite substantial subsequent revision.

Contemporary research has substantially modified the simple ecological account while maintaining its core spatial orientation. The concentric zone model has given way to more complex spatial organization patterns that reflect the specific geography, transportation networks, and institutional locations of individual cities rather than the generic ecological gradient that the Chicago model proposed. The three-variable social disorganization model (poverty, heterogeneity, instability) has been refined through the identification of additional structural predictors (racial segregation, institutional density, political representation) and through the specification of the collective efficacy mechanism that mediates structural conditions’ effects on crime. And the purely market-driven ecological account has been supplemented by the political economy of urban development that documents how deliberate policy decisions — redlining, public housing siting, urban renewal — shape the urban spatial organization that crime research treats as a starting point.

Urbanization, Density, and Crime

The specific relationship between urbanization and crime — the degree to which the ecological characteristics of cities (population density, heterogeneity, anonymity) independently elevate crime rates beyond what socioeconomic characteristics alone predict — has been a subject of sustained research that has produced nuanced rather than simple findings. Wirth’s classic argument that urban size, density, and heterogeneity produce the anonymity, weakened social bonds, and normative fragmentation that elevate crime has been partially confirmed (anonymity does reduce informal social control; population density does concentrate criminal opportunity and motivated offenders) and partially challenged (dense urban neighborhoods with strong social organization show lower crime rates than structurally comparable suburban areas, establishing that it is social organization rather than density per se that determines crime rates).

Research on the specific effects of population density on crime — using natural experiments including public housing demolition, transit expansion, and new development — has found that density’s crime consequences are mediated by the land use mix, institutional presence, and social organization that density is embedded in. High-density mixed-use neighborhoods with active street life, ground-floor commercial activity, and strong community organizations can show lower crime rates than lower-density residential areas with weak social organization — consistent with Jane Jacobs’s “eyes on the street” account of how urban design can build the natural surveillance that crime prevention requires.

Table 1. Urban Sociology Frameworks for Crime Analysis

Framework	Core Concept	Crime Mechanism	Scale	Evidence
Chicago School ecology	Competition, invasion, succession produce urban zones	Social disorganization in transitional zones	City; neighborhood	Shaw and McKay; contemporary replication studies
Collective efficacy	Social cohesion + willingness to intervene	Weakened informal social control in disorganized neighborhoods	Neighborhood	Sampson et al. (1997); international replication
Routine activities	Convergence of offender, target, guardian in time-space	Crime opportunity structures from daily activity patterns	City; micro-place	Cohen & Felson; hot spots research
Environmental criminology	Physical environment shapes criminal opportunity	Target suitability, accessibility, and guardianship at specific places	Micro-place	CPTED research; situational crime prevention
Concentrated disadvantage	Multiple deprivations compound spatially	Social disorganization through poverty, instability, and segregation	Neighborhood	Sampson; Peterson and Krivo
Gentrification dynamics	Neighborhood economic upgrading and displacement	Complex: opportunity reduction + displacement	Neighborhood	Hipp; Kreager; Papachristos

Urban Inequality and Crime Concentration

Deindustrialization and Urban Crime

William Julius Wilson’s analysis of the consequences of deindustrialization for inner-city communities — developed in The Truly Disadvantaged (1987) and When Work Disappears (1996) — remains the most comprehensive political economic account of why crime concentrates in specific urban neighborhoods rather than distributing evenly across the urban landscape. The specific mechanism Wilson identified — the loss of manufacturing employment that had provided stable wages to inner-city workers without requiring educational credentials, combined with the out-migration of working- and middle-class Black families following the Fair Housing Act, concentrated the most disadvantaged residents in neighborhoods that had previously been economically diverse — produced the specific social structural conditions that the social disorganization literature subsequently documented as primary determinants of crime: concentrated poverty, residential instability, and the institutional weakness that follows economic disinvestment.

Contemporary research on the crime consequences of deindustrialization has used plant closings, factory relocations, and trade shocks as natural experiments to estimate the causal effects of local manufacturing employment loss on crime rates. Research by Autor, Dorn, and Hanson on the crime consequences of Chinese import competition found significant increases in violent crime in communities most exposed to manufacturing job loss, establishing a causal mechanism from economic restructuring to crime that Wilson’s historical analysis had identified but whose causal identification required the natural experiment designs that subsequent researchers developed. This research connects the political economy of global trade and automation to the crime outcomes of specific urban communities, establishing that the urban geography of crime is shaped by economic processes operating at the global scale whose local consequences are borne by specific workers in specific communities.

Spatial Inequality and Criminal Opportunity and Criminal Opportunity

The spatial organization of American cities reflects and reproduces social inequality in ways that directly shape the distribution of crime. The concentration of poverty in specific urban neighborhoods — through the mechanisms of racial residential segregation, discriminatory housing policy, and market dynamics that the urban sociology of inequality documents — concentrates the social conditions that produce crime in specific geographic locations while concentrating the institutional resources that prevent crime elsewhere. The result is the extreme crime concentration that hot spots research documents: approximately half of all crime in most cities occurs at approximately 5% of street segments, a concentration that reflects the spatial organization of disadvantage rather than random variation.

Research on the relationship between the spatial organization of legitimate versus illegitimate economic opportunity — the geographic mismatch between where disadvantaged urban residents live and where legitimate employment opportunities are located — has established spatial mismatch as an important mechanism through which urban form shapes criminal opportunity structures. Research by Kasarda and others documenting that manufacturing and entry-level service employment has moved from central cities to suburban areas while disadvantaged urban residents lack the transportation and social networks to access it established the spatial dimension of economic exclusion that the ecology of urban labor markets produces.

The New Urban Sociology and Political Economy

The new urban sociology — associated with Harvey, Logan, Molotch, and the growth machine tradition — provided a critical political economy account of urban development that the Chicago School’s naturalistic ecological model could not supply. Logan and Molotch’s growth machine thesis proposed that urban development is driven by the political coalition of land-based interests (real estate developers, local business associations, property owners) who promote growth to increase land values at the expense of use values — the quality of residential and community life — for residents. This political economy of urban development explains why the spatial organization of American cities has produced the concentrated disadvantage that the social disorganization literature documents: the growth machine’s investment in high-value properties and disinvestment from low-value communities is not a natural ecological process but a political choice whose consequences the crime literature documents.

Research connecting the political economy of urban development to crime outcomes has found consistent associations between gentrification (the growth machine’s transformation of previously disinvested neighborhoods into valuable properties) and displacement — with the criminological consequences of displacement operating through the community social organization disruption that the residential instability literature documents. Research on the specific communities that have experienced the most sustained disinvestment — Detroit, Baltimore, St. Louis, Memphis — has found that the political economy of growth machine disinvestment, not only the demographic and economic characteristics of their populations, explains their persistently high crime rates.

Urban Change and Crime

Suburbanization, Sprawl, and the Geography of Crime

The suburbanization of American metropolitan areas — the decades-long movement of population and economic activity from central cities to suburban rings — has produced the specific urban geography of crime that contemporary research documents: concentrated high crime in the most distressed central-city neighborhoods and the inner-ring suburbs that have absorbed displacement from those neighborhoods, surrounded by lower-crime outer suburbs and exurbs whose distance from the urban core provides geographic separation from concentrated disadvantage. Research on the crime consequences of suburban sprawl — the specific form of low-density residential development that American suburbanization has produced — has found that suburban communities show lower crime rates than comparable urban areas, reflecting both the lower density of criminal opportunity that lower population concentration produces and the selection of more advantaged populations into suburban locations.

Research on the “suburbanization of poverty” — the movement of poverty from central-city to inner-ring suburban locations that the gentrification of urban cores has accelerated — has documented the crime consequences of suburban poverty concentration in communities that lack the institutional infrastructure for crime prevention that urban communities with longer histories of concentrated poverty have sometimes developed. The crime consequences of poverty concentrated in suburban communities without the social work organizations, community development infrastructure, and law enforcement experience with concentrated disadvantage that urban communities have accumulated represent an emerging challenge for criminological research and policy that suburban sociology’s engagement with concentrated disadvantage is beginning to address.

Gentrification and Neighborhood Transformation

Gentrification — the economic and demographic upgrading of previously disinvested urban neighborhoods — has become one of the most intensively studied phenomena in urban sociology and criminology, both because its pace has accelerated dramatically in major American cities since the 1990s and because its consequences for both crime and community are complex and contested. Research on the crime consequences of gentrification has found both crime reductions in gentrifying neighborhoods (as concentrated disadvantage decreases, collective efficacy increases, and criminal opportunity decreases) and crime increases in displacement-receiving neighborhoods (as the most disadvantaged residents are pushed into new communities where they disrupt existing social organization without accessing the improved conditions that gentrification provided in the origin neighborhood).

Research by Hipp and colleagues tracking neighborhood crime rates through gentrification processes documented that the specific crime consequences depend substantially on the pace and character of gentrification: rapid gentrification that produces sharp displacement concentrations shows different crime consequences from gradual upgrading that maintains population continuity and allows new and existing residents to develop collective efficacy together. Research by Papachristos and Kirk documenting the crime consequences of Hurricane Katrina’s forced community dissolution — finding that residents displaced from intact communities showed elevated crime in receiving communities — provides the most direct quasi-experimental evidence that community dissolution rather than residential relocation per se is the primary crime-relevant consequence of displacement.

Urban Planning, Design, and Crime

Mixed Land Use, Commercial Districts, and Crime

Research on the relationship between land use patterns — the mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses in specific urban areas — and crime has found complex associations that depend on the specific crime type, the specific land use, and the specific design characteristics of the land use environment. Commercial activity generates both legitimate guardianship (through the presence of employees, customers, and security) and criminal opportunity (through the concentration of potential victims, cash, and goods in accessible locations) — with the net effect on crime depending on how the commercial activity is designed, managed, and socially organized.

Research on bars and nightclubs as crime generators has found consistent associations between alcohol outlet density and violent crime, with the specific physical and operational features of licensed premises — their capacity, hours of operation, management practices, and design features — substantially moderating the alcohol-violence relationship. Research on commercial revitalization as crime prevention — examining whether investment in commercial corridor improvement reduces crime alongside its economic development benefits — has found positive associations in multiple cities, consistent with the CPTED framework’s prediction that active commercial environments with natural guardianship and clear ownership signals reduce crime opportunity.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) — the applied urban design framework that translates environmental criminology research into specific design principles for crime reduction — represents the most direct translation of urban sociology’s spatial analysis into actionable crime prevention practice. CPTED’s four core principles — natural surveillance (design features maximizing legitimate users’ ability to see and be seen), territorial reinforcement (features signaling ownership and maintenance), access control (features limiting entry and reducing anonymity), and activity support (features attracting legitimate users and building natural guardianship) — derive directly from the routine activities and situational crime prevention frameworks and have been evaluated with generally positive findings across diverse urban settings.

Research on the crime consequences of specific urban design interventions — street lighting improvements, vacant lot remediation, park redesign, and commercial corridor revitalization — has found consistent positive associations between physical environmental improvement and crime reduction, with the strongest evidence from randomized trials including the Philadelphia vacant lot greening experiment. This evidence supports the CPTED framework’s theoretical predictions while also documenting the mechanisms through which physical environment affects crime: not only through the direct situational prevention mechanisms that CPTED theory emphasizes but through the social organizational consequences of environmental improvement — the signaling of community investment that builds collective efficacy and the attraction of legitimate users that increases natural guardianship.

Cities and Criminal Justice Policy

Anchor Institutions and Urban Crime Prevention

Anchor institutions — large, place-bound organizations including universities, hospitals, major employers, and prominent religious institutions — stabilize urban neighborhoods by providing employment, physical maintenance, community investment, and the social capital connections to broader institutional networks that isolated disadvantaged communities lack. Research on the crime consequences of anchor institution presence and investment has found consistent associations with lower crime rates, with the strongest evidence from quasi-experimental designs exploiting anchor institution closings as exogenous shocks to community institutional infrastructure.

Research on university-community partnerships for crime prevention — including the University of Pennsylvania’s West Philadelphia Initiatives, Yale University’s New Haven partnerships, and similar anchor institution community investment programs in other cities — has found positive associations between sustained institutional investment and neighborhood crime reduction that is consistent with the collective efficacy and institutional ecology frameworks that the urban criminology literature has developed. The specific mechanisms through which anchor institutions reduce crime — employment that provides legitimate opportunity and routine structure, physical maintenance that signals community investment and builds collective efficacy, and social capital connections that provide access to conventional networks — are the same mechanisms that the urban criminology literature identifies as primary in the ecological account of crime concentration.

Urban Governance and Crime Control

The specific institutional arrangements of urban governance — how cities are organized, financed, and politically represented — shape both the crime conditions that cities face and the institutional resources available for addressing them. Research on the crime consequences of political representation — finding that communities with greater civic participation, political representation, and lobbying capacity receive more police resources, better public services, and more responsive criminal justice institutions — establishes political power as a determinant of urban crime outcomes alongside the structural and ecological factors that most urban criminology emphasizes.

Research on the specific institutional arrangements of American urban policing — the fragmentation into approximately 18,000 independent agencies, the local property tax financing that concentrates police resources in wealthier communities, and the political accountability structures that make police responsive to specific political constituencies — documents how urban governance institutions shape both the distribution and the quality of policing in ways that compound the structural disadvantage of disadvantaged communities through inadequate institutional resources alongside the material disadvantage that concentrated poverty produces.

Smart Cities, Technology, and Urban Crime

The deployment of surveillance technology — including CCTV networks, license plate readers, gunshot detection systems, and predictive policing algorithms — in urban environments has created new dimensions of the urban sociology of crime whose analysis requires engaging with questions of privacy, equity, and the political economy of surveillance alongside the technical question of whether specific technologies reduce crime. Research on the crime-reduction effects of CCTV cameras has found modest and geographically specific effects — cameras reduce crime in car parks and public transit stations more reliably than in open public spaces — while research on the equity consequences has documented that surveillance technology deployment is concentrated in minority communities in ways that amplify existing enforcement disparities.

Research on the relationship between public transit and crime — examining whether transit stations and corridors concentrate crime (as nodes in criminal activity spaces) or reduce it (as sources of active street life and natural guardianship) — has produced nuanced findings that depend substantially on transit design and operational features. Research documenting that poorly designed transit stations concentrate criminal opportunity — through isolated waiting areas, limited natural surveillance, and the concentration of pedestrians in vulnerable positions — has motivated the application of CPTED principles to transit design, with subsequent research finding crime reductions in stations redesigned with better lighting, more open sight lines, and increased legitimate activity. Research on the crime consequences of new transit investment in previously underserved neighborhoods has found mixed results: transit expansion can both reduce crime by increasing legitimate activity and attracting investment, and increase it by providing criminal access routes to previously isolated neighborhoods — with the net effect depending on the specific urban context and the complementary investments that accompany transit.

Research on urban resilience — the capacity of cities and neighborhoods to maintain social organization and limit crime in the face of economic shocks, population changes, and institutional challenges — has identified the specific institutional and social organizational features that distinguish resilient from non-resilient communities. Research by Sampson and colleagues documenting that Chicago neighborhoods with higher collective efficacy in the 1990s showed more durable crime reductions through the subsequent decades than comparable neighborhoods with lower efficacy — even as structural conditions changed — establishes collective efficacy as a form of urban social capital that provides resilience benefits above and beyond its direct crime-reduction effects. Research on the crime consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic’s differential institutional disruption — finding that communities with stronger pre-existing CVI infrastructure, higher collective efficacy, and more robust community organizations showed more resilience to the pandemic crime surge than those without — provides contemporary natural experimental confirmation of the urban resilience mechanism that the theoretical frameworks predict.

The urban sociology of crime’s engagement with climate change — examining how rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and the disruption of urban social organization that climate shocks produce will affect crime rates and crime prevention capacity — represents an important emerging research frontier whose analysis the discipline is beginning to address. Research on the temperature-violence relationship, on the crime consequences of natural disasters, and on the institutional disruption that climate-driven population displacement produces all connect the urban sociology of crime to the global environmental changes whose local consequences will shape the urban crime landscape of the coming decades.

Conclusion

Urban sociology provides criminology with its most spatially sophisticated analytical framework — the account of how cities’ specific organizational forms, political economies, and institutional ecologies shape the distribution of crime risk and crime prevention capacity in ways that neither individual-level psychology nor purely structural sociology can capture. Its foundational insight — that crime is a property of urban places as much as of the people within them, and that the spatial organization of those places reflects deliberate decisions as well as market processes — has been confirmed across a century of empirical research and refined through the methodological advances of contemporary social science.

Urban sociology and crime are connected through the spatial organization of social life — through the way that cities concentrate poverty, allocate institutional resources, organize social relationships, and produce the specific ecological conditions that crime research has documented as the primary community-level determinants of crime rates. Understanding these connections requires the integration of Chicago School ecological analysis, political economy of urban development, environmental criminology, and the new urban data infrastructure that contemporary research has developed.

The policy implications of urban sociology for crime prevention are consistently directed toward the urban conditions themselves — the spatial organization of disadvantage that concentrated poverty produces, the institutional ecology of neighborhoods that determines their collective efficacy and informal control capacity, and the specific physical environments that enable or prevent criminal opportunity — rather than toward the individual characteristics of urban residents. A criminology that takes urban sociology seriously is one that takes the city’s spatial organization seriously as a primary determinant of crime rates and that supports the urban planning, community development, and institutional investment strategies that address those determinants directly. The cities that have achieved the most dramatic and sustained crime reductions — through the combination of evidence-based policing, community investment, and the physical and social revitalization that urban sociology identifies as primary — provide the empirical demonstration of what taking urban sociology seriously can produce. The cities that have failed to achieve crime reduction despite massive enforcement investment — because that investment has not been accompanied by the community development, institutional investment, and structural inequality reduction that urban sociology identifies as primary determinants — provide the equally important demonstration of what taking urban sociology seriously would prevent. The urban sociology of crime’s century of research has established the evidential foundation; what American cities require now is the political will to build on it rather than continuing to treat the symptoms that structural urban inequality produces through enforcement strategies whose inadequacy to the scale of the problem the evidence has consistently established: the perpetuation of crime through the enforcement-only approaches that address the symptom while leaving the structural conditions that produce it unchanged.

References

Boessen, A., & Hipp, J. R. (2015). Close-ups and the scale of ecology: Land uses and the geography of social context and crime. Criminology, 53(3), 399–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12074
Branas, C. C., South, E., Kondo, M. C., Hohl, B. C., Bourgois, P., Wiebe, D. J., & MacDonald, J. M. (2018). Citywide cluster randomized trial to restore blighted vacant land and its effects on violence, crime, and fear. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(12), 2946–2951. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718503115
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589
Hipp, J. R., & Roussell, A. (2013). Micro- and macro-environment population and the consequences for crime rates. Social Forces, 92(2), 563–595. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sot073
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.
Kirk, D. S. (2016). Prisoner reentry and the reproduction of legal cynicism. Social Problems, 63(2), 222–243. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spw003
Kirk, D. S., & Papachristos, A. V. (2011). Cultural mechanisms and the persistence of neighborhood violence. American Journal of Sociology, 116(4), 1190–1233. https://doi.org/10.1086/655754
Logan, J. R., & Molotch, H. L. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political economy of place. University of California Press.
Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Harvard University Press.
Papachristos, A. V., & Kirk, D. S. (2015). Changing the street dynamic: Evaluating Chicago’s group violence reduction strategy. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(3), 525–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12139
Park, R. E., Burgess, E. W., & McKenzie, R. D. (1925). The city. University of Chicago Press.
Peterson, R. D., & Krivo, L. J. (2010). Divergent social worlds: Neighborhood crime and the racial-spatial divide. Russell Sage Foundation.
Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. Liveright.
Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. University of Chicago Press.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918
Sharkey, P. (2013). Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. University of Chicago Press.
Sharkey, P. (2018). Uneasy peace: The great crime decline, the renewal of city life, and the next war on violence. W. W. Norton.
Sharkey, P., Torrats-Espinosa, G., & Takyar, D. (2017). Community and the crime decline: The causal effect of local nonprofits on violent crime. American Sociological Review, 82(6), 1214–1240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417736289
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press.
Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology, 53(2), 133–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12070
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. Knopf.
Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1086/217913