Broken Windows Theory(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
Broken Windows Theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
42 comments
This theory is always misunderstood and haphazardly applied in practice.
The theory seems to state that broken windows generate crime which suggests that if you literally fix the windows the result will be less crime.
The theory seems to state that broken windows generate crime which suggests that if you literally fix the windows the result will be less crime.
Classist bullshit. Police the people who have the least money and time to fix things. Awesome, yea that's great for society. Put more pressure on poor people instead of just helping them.
Can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? It makes threads dumber and nastier. Please make your substantive points without that.
We've already had to ask you this once before, and you've continued to post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments pretty regularly. We end up having to ban such accounts, so please fix this.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
We've already had to ask you this once before, and you've continued to post unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments pretty regularly. We end up having to ban such accounts, so please fix this.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
It isn't classist bullshit at all, it's human psychology observable and testable even on small scales. Try this experiment!
Detail clean your car meticulously, and on separate occasions, ask friends to come with you to get some fast food. Notice how much trash they leave behind in the car when they're done - probably none.
Now, deliberately make your car interior messy and dirty. Run the same test again with different friends, and observe that more trash has been left behind.
Humans naturally conform to the expectations of society, which they interpret based partially on environmental cues of their surroundings. When those environmental cues advertise social expectations of lawlessness, uncaring, and valuelessness, behavior alters to match expectations.
Detail clean your car meticulously, and on separate occasions, ask friends to come with you to get some fast food. Notice how much trash they leave behind in the car when they're done - probably none.
Now, deliberately make your car interior messy and dirty. Run the same test again with different friends, and observe that more trash has been left behind.
Humans naturally conform to the expectations of society, which they interpret based partially on environmental cues of their surroundings. When those environmental cues advertise social expectations of lawlessness, uncaring, and valuelessness, behavior alters to match expectations.
Anecdote is not a study nor is it generalizable to a large population.
Not to mention your "population" in this case is preselected from your own friend group
Not to mention your "population" in this case is preselected from your own friend group
>Anecdote is not a study nor is it generalizable to a large population.
The page lists many actual studies over large populations with links to read more of the research. OP may have felt since you don't believe the actual studies which were listed and are pretty conclusive, that you can test it yourself to get a feel of the phenomenon.
Don't like that, here's [1] google scholar on the broken windows theory, with scads of papers you can read to satisfy your request for studies.
[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C15&q=bro...
The page lists many actual studies over large populations with links to read more of the research. OP may have felt since you don't believe the actual studies which were listed and are pretty conclusive, that you can test it yourself to get a feel of the phenomenon.
Don't like that, here's [1] google scholar on the broken windows theory, with scads of papers you can read to satisfy your request for studies.
[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C15&q=bro...
The page also lists how Zimbardo demonstrated the principle by interfering with his "study"
That's alongside numerous other critiques and criticisms which are generally more recent on the wikipedia page that we are commenting on. All you have to do is scroll down.
That's alongside numerous other critiques and criticisms which are generally more recent on the wikipedia page that we are commenting on. All you have to do is scroll down.
>Zimbardo demonstrated the principle by interfering with his "study"
After he broke the car window, he noted that others would jump in and do the same. And he is by far not the only researcher to test the hypothesis on many, many areas.
As to how recent work is, the Google scholar literature is more recent than any on Wikipedia. I provided a link. Look at some.
There are thousands of papers on Google scholar, a huge amount form this year, about where the hypothesis applies. Almost none claim it is not a valid effect. The research centers around where it shows up and detailed causal effects.
A criticism of some hypothesis is not an invalidation, especially when the majority of the literature overrides.
There's published critiques of a everything from general relativity to climate change. It doesn't invalidate the overriding evidence in those cases, nor does criticism invalidate this.
After he broke the car window, he noted that others would jump in and do the same. And he is by far not the only researcher to test the hypothesis on many, many areas.
As to how recent work is, the Google scholar literature is more recent than any on Wikipedia. I provided a link. Look at some.
There are thousands of papers on Google scholar, a huge amount form this year, about where the hypothesis applies. Almost none claim it is not a valid effect. The research centers around where it shows up and detailed causal effects.
A criticism of some hypothesis is not an invalidation, especially when the majority of the literature overrides.
There's published critiques of a everything from general relativity to climate change. It doesn't invalidate the overriding evidence in those cases, nor does criticism invalidate this.
From the first paper on the google scholar search you posted, which is a recent meta-analysis from 2019
>Further examination revealed that support for BWT-related hypotheses has been overstated owing to data censoring and the failure to consistently include critical covariates, like socioeconomic status and collective efficacy
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02779...
I'm getting the feeling that you did not read the articles you posted. And yes, I trust the word of a large scale meta-analysis over individual studies as a general rule
>Further examination revealed that support for BWT-related hypotheses has been overstated owing to data censoring and the failure to consistently include critical covariates, like socioeconomic status and collective efficacy
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02779...
I'm getting the feeling that you did not read the articles you posted. And yes, I trust the word of a large scale meta-analysis over individual studies as a general rule
> for BWT-related hypotheses has been overstated
Overstated does not mean the hypothesis is invalid, does it?
Also you realize this paper is not about the BWT as a hypothesis for more crime, which is the BWT hypothesis, but is instead applying BWT to health outcomes, right? Seems a bit odd that this is what you select.
If you want some recent papers actually about the BWT, try [1]: "The findings reported here lend support to propositions derived from broken windows theory to a major extent."
>And yes, I trust the word of a large scale meta-analysis over individual studies as a general rule
Good. Maybe read the next sentence after the one you quoted that you conveniently forgot:
"Even where there is evidence that BWT impacts outcomes, it is driven by studies that measured disorder as the perceptions of the focal individual, potentially conflating pessimism about the neighborhood with mental health."
So there is some evidence that BWT impacts outcomes, even health ones, in some situations?
When you select a paper not on topic, pull a quote out of context to make it look on topic, ignore the following sentence, that level of dishonesty is not worth dealing with. Looking at the 14 of your posts (out of 32 total posts) in this thread so far, you are not being honest with anyone here. So I'm done.
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418825.2017.13...
Overstated does not mean the hypothesis is invalid, does it?
Also you realize this paper is not about the BWT as a hypothesis for more crime, which is the BWT hypothesis, but is instead applying BWT to health outcomes, right? Seems a bit odd that this is what you select.
If you want some recent papers actually about the BWT, try [1]: "The findings reported here lend support to propositions derived from broken windows theory to a major extent."
>And yes, I trust the word of a large scale meta-analysis over individual studies as a general rule
Good. Maybe read the next sentence after the one you quoted that you conveniently forgot:
"Even where there is evidence that BWT impacts outcomes, it is driven by studies that measured disorder as the perceptions of the focal individual, potentially conflating pessimism about the neighborhood with mental health."
So there is some evidence that BWT impacts outcomes, even health ones, in some situations?
When you select a paper not on topic, pull a quote out of context to make it look on topic, ignore the following sentence, that level of dishonesty is not worth dealing with. Looking at the 14 of your posts (out of 32 total posts) in this thread so far, you are not being honest with anyone here. So I'm done.
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418825.2017.13...
>The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of the proactive policing of disorder on crime-related calls for service (CFS) in Houston, Texas. A principal feature of the organizational structure of the Houston Police Department is the strategic deployment of a Differential Response Team (DRT) at the patrol division whose task is to target and take action against social and physical disorder (without prioritizing arrests)
>This study was a partial test of broken windows thesis by examining the association between disorder policing activities and crime-related calls in Houston.
>There is an obvious difference between the current study and previous studies on testing the effectiveness of police intervention derived from the broken windows thesis. A review of the literature revealed that most studies on this topic have used one of two popular approaches. The first approach relies on the study of police intervention in a geographic area such as a patrol district (e.g., Hoover et al., 2016; McGarrell et al., 1999) or a block/intersection (e.g., Lawton et al., 2005). In these studies, the police intervention was often measured as the strategic allocation of additional resources to a given geographic area/location. Additional patrol officers, for example, were made available to enhance police presence and increase the number of arrests as a way of deterring crimes. Many of the intervention programs studied were supported by external grant funding received from federal, state, or local governments (e.g., Lawton et al., 2005). It is noteworthy that almost all of the studies were carried out in a short period of time from 1-day interventions (Nunn et al., 2006), 1-month interventions (Novak et al., 1999), to a period of 2 years (Caeti, 1999). The average range of period of intervention among these studies was about 12 months (e.g., Braga et al., 2015). Most recently, in a review of aggressive policing studies, particularly in hotspots, Nagin and Sampson (2019) noted that the short-time frame of intervention can lead to inaccurate research results regarding the effectiveness of a program.
>Our findings suggest that the DRT overall did not produce significant effects on crime-related calls, with only one out of five space-time patterns showing demonstrable benefit.
>The findings also suggested that overall, the DRT intervention process did not achieve the anticipated objective of a significant reduction in crime-related calls over the period of the study. Only DRT intervention in sporadic places—where the DRT activity is an on-again then off-again intervention—showed a statistically significant decline in crime-related CFS, and the DRT intervention in the rest of the four areas failed to yield any significant effect.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10986111221092...
>This study was a partial test of broken windows thesis by examining the association between disorder policing activities and crime-related calls in Houston.
>There is an obvious difference between the current study and previous studies on testing the effectiveness of police intervention derived from the broken windows thesis. A review of the literature revealed that most studies on this topic have used one of two popular approaches. The first approach relies on the study of police intervention in a geographic area such as a patrol district (e.g., Hoover et al., 2016; McGarrell et al., 1999) or a block/intersection (e.g., Lawton et al., 2005). In these studies, the police intervention was often measured as the strategic allocation of additional resources to a given geographic area/location. Additional patrol officers, for example, were made available to enhance police presence and increase the number of arrests as a way of deterring crimes. Many of the intervention programs studied were supported by external grant funding received from federal, state, or local governments (e.g., Lawton et al., 2005). It is noteworthy that almost all of the studies were carried out in a short period of time from 1-day interventions (Nunn et al., 2006), 1-month interventions (Novak et al., 1999), to a period of 2 years (Caeti, 1999). The average range of period of intervention among these studies was about 12 months (e.g., Braga et al., 2015). Most recently, in a review of aggressive policing studies, particularly in hotspots, Nagin and Sampson (2019) noted that the short-time frame of intervention can lead to inaccurate research results regarding the effectiveness of a program.
>Our findings suggest that the DRT overall did not produce significant effects on crime-related calls, with only one out of five space-time patterns showing demonstrable benefit.
>The findings also suggested that overall, the DRT intervention process did not achieve the anticipated objective of a significant reduction in crime-related calls over the period of the study. Only DRT intervention in sporadic places—where the DRT activity is an on-again then off-again intervention—showed a statistically significant decline in crime-related CFS, and the DRT intervention in the rest of the four areas failed to yield any significant effect.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10986111221092...
>Anecdote is not a study
And what I described is the outline of a study, not an anecdote. Small scale, limited sample size, and less well controlled than an academic study, but it's still data.
Also, as another poster already mentioned, it isn't as if there is any shortage of large scale, academic studies available showing exactly the same results, if those are more your cup of tea.
And what I described is the outline of a study, not an anecdote. Small scale, limited sample size, and less well controlled than an academic study, but it's still data.
Also, as another poster already mentioned, it isn't as if there is any shortage of large scale, academic studies available showing exactly the same results, if those are more your cup of tea.
>Further examination revealed that support for BWT-related hypotheses has been overstated owing to data censoring and the failure to consistently include critical covariates, like socioeconomic status and collective efficacy
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02779...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02779...
That paper is not about the BWT, but about BWT applied to health outcomes. And the next sentence you didn't quote states that even in that case BWT has truth to it.
Such dishonesty over and over...
Such dishonesty over and over...
Please don't cross into flamewar or personal swipes, regardless of how you feel about someone else's comments.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No, it actually does not. Emphasis mine
>Even where there is evidence that BWT impacts outcomes, it is driven by studies that measured disorder as the perceptions of the focal individual, potentially conflating pessimism about the neighborhood with mental health.
This states that the perception of disorder does not necessarily match up with reality and that the conclusion of said study is flawed
>Even where there is evidence that BWT impacts outcomes, it is driven by studies that measured disorder as the perceptions of the focal individual, potentially conflating pessimism about the neighborhood with mental health.
This states that the perception of disorder does not necessarily match up with reality and that the conclusion of said study is flawed
How are you supposed to help people that want to spray their ‘art’ on other peoples property? People that want to vandalize other peoples property? Give them free paint?
Sure! and specific places to do it. Works for other countries.
Graffiti art is beautiful, I think you have a great idea.
Another perspective is that people do what they can afford to, murals can be an inexpensive way to brighten an otherwise bleak area.
Another perspective is that people do what they can afford to, murals can be an inexpensive way to brighten an otherwise bleak area.
In other news, all these great artists start out as great artists, not vandals who practice spraying ‘ass’ on a wall 5000 times before they are good enough to make a great work of art.
The naivite of this belief is precious.
Yes, some people use spraypaint to make stunning, socially relevant art. Banksy is, in some sense, a graffiti artist.
But most graffiti has nothing to do with Banksy-esque social commentary. In fact, much of it is simply gang signs labeling areas of turf control. The people writing these gang sign messages are absolutely not interested in having a specific, authorized place in which to exhibit their street artwork.
Yes, some people use spraypaint to make stunning, socially relevant art. Banksy is, in some sense, a graffiti artist.
But most graffiti has nothing to do with Banksy-esque social commentary. In fact, much of it is simply gang signs labeling areas of turf control. The people writing these gang sign messages are absolutely not interested in having a specific, authorized place in which to exhibit their street artwork.
Intent of the artist does not matter, art is subjective and the production of the system of many artists layering their works over time has a beauty in itself
It's some seriously privileged classist stuff to make the claims that you're making
It's some seriously privileged classist stuff to make the claims that you're making
It's seriously privileged and classist to acknowledge that much graffiti is merely gang tags advertising territorial control over an area?
It's "subjective" whether or not gang tags constitute art, rather than a danger to the community?!?
Huh?!
It's "subjective" whether or not gang tags constitute art, rather than a danger to the community?!?
Huh?!
Dangerous art? I wonder which groups of people called art dangerous in the past
It's crazy how some people think painted symbols present a danger to humans somehow
It's crazy how some people think painted symbols present a danger to humans somehow
How much do you know about street gangs? Yeah, they're dangerous! Turf markings are extremely dangerous. They aren't put there to be art, it's like calling a "caution: floor is wet" sign "art".
I'm trying not to be offensive or personal here, but I'm stunned at this take that refuses to acknowledge how dangerous and harmful street gangs are to communities. If you've ever had to live in a neighborhood with them, like I have, then I doubt this would be as much of an issue for you?
I'm trying not to be offensive or personal here, but I'm stunned at this take that refuses to acknowledge how dangerous and harmful street gangs are to communities. If you've ever had to live in a neighborhood with them, like I have, then I doubt this would be as much of an issue for you?
I said the symbols. Painted symbols can easily outlast the people who painted them, painted symbols existing is not an indicator of present danger. It's bizarre how you're conflating the two
>Painted symbols can easily outlast the people who painted them
We aren't talking about that sort of painted symbol, though. I'm totally mystified as to why you refuse to acknowledge the nature of gang tags. They aren't art, and aren't intended to be art. Instead, they're enciphered threats to other criminals in the area, warning them to stay out. They don't and aren't intended to outlast the people who painted them.
And most importantly, they represent real danger to the entire community. Turf wars, mistaken identity shootings, as well as gang activities like narcotics, sex trafficking, and robbery/burglary are all to be expected in areas where gangs openly declare ownership of turf with tags.
We aren't talking about that sort of painted symbol, though. I'm totally mystified as to why you refuse to acknowledge the nature of gang tags. They aren't art, and aren't intended to be art. Instead, they're enciphered threats to other criminals in the area, warning them to stay out. They don't and aren't intended to outlast the people who painted them.
And most importantly, they represent real danger to the entire community. Turf wars, mistaken identity shootings, as well as gang activities like narcotics, sex trafficking, and robbery/burglary are all to be expected in areas where gangs openly declare ownership of turf with tags.
I understand the nature of gang tags but I also understand that gang tags are the minority of graffiti art
Also stating again: intent does not matter
Also stating again: intent does not matter
>I understand the nature of gang tags but I also understand that gang tags are the minority of graffiti art
Because in some rail yard somewhere lurks some really decked out train cars, you want to prevent a neighborhood plagued with gang violence from protecting their community?
Because in some rail yard somewhere lurks some really decked out train cars, you want to prevent a neighborhood plagued with gang violence from protecting their community?
Investing in communities gives people things to do. People can't invest when they're broke, throwing police at them does nothing to help, in fact it does the opposite.
Also your comment makes it sound like literally all people are just vandals who do graffiti. That's a disgusting view of humans that lacks perspective and nuance.
Also your comment makes it sound like literally all people are just vandals who do graffiti. That's a disgusting view of humans that lacks perspective and nuance.
I feel like you didn't read the Wikipedia? Where are you getting your take.
feet's "Classist bullshit" is a take on the Wikipedia entry, under "Class bias" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#Class_bi... , which includes:
> Critics, such as Robert J. Sampson and Stephen Raudenbush of Harvard University, see the application of the broken windows theory in policing as a war against the poor, as opposed to a war against more serious crimes.
> Critics, such as Robert J. Sampson and Stephen Raudenbush of Harvard University, see the application of the broken windows theory in policing as a war against the poor, as opposed to a war against more serious crimes.
I'm getting my take from how the idea is actually implemented and acted upon in reality in the US, not from how people claim it should be implemented as an ideology
>It was popularized in the 1990s by New York City police commissioner William Bratton and mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose policing policies were influenced by the theory.
Example of the absurdity of implementation:
>Throughout the late 1990s, NYPD shut down many of the city's acclaimed night spots for illegal dancing.
Tons of criticisms, not to mention it was partially popularized by an incredibly flawed study by the infamous Zimbardo
>However, other studies do not find a cause and effect relationship between the adoption of such policies and decreases in crime.[6][25] The decrease may have been part of a broader trend across the United States. The rates of most crimes, including all categories of violent crime, made consecutive declines from their peak in 1990, under Giuliani's predecessor, David Dinkins. Other cities also experienced less crime, even though they had different police policies
>Baltimore criminologist Ralph B. Taylor argues in his book that fixing windows is only a partial and short-term solution. His data supports a materialist view: changes in levels of physical decay, superficial social disorder, and racial composition do not lead to higher crime, but economic decline does. He contends that the example shows that real, long-term reductions in crime require that urban politicians, businesses, and community leaders work together to improve the economic fortunes of residents in high-crime areas.[42]
>According to a study by Robert J. Sampson and Stephen Raudenbush, the premise on which the theory operates, that social disorder and crime are connected as part of a causal chain, is faulty. They argue that a third factor, collective efficacy, "defined as cohesion among residents combined with shared expectations for the social control of public space," is the actual cause of varying crime rates that are observed in an altered neighborhood environment. They also argue that the relationship between public disorder and crime rate is weak.[44]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
There are so many issues it's difficult to fit everything in one comment. Did you read the wikipedia article?
>It was popularized in the 1990s by New York City police commissioner William Bratton and mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose policing policies were influenced by the theory.
Example of the absurdity of implementation:
>Throughout the late 1990s, NYPD shut down many of the city's acclaimed night spots for illegal dancing.
Tons of criticisms, not to mention it was partially popularized by an incredibly flawed study by the infamous Zimbardo
>However, other studies do not find a cause and effect relationship between the adoption of such policies and decreases in crime.[6][25] The decrease may have been part of a broader trend across the United States. The rates of most crimes, including all categories of violent crime, made consecutive declines from their peak in 1990, under Giuliani's predecessor, David Dinkins. Other cities also experienced less crime, even though they had different police policies
>Baltimore criminologist Ralph B. Taylor argues in his book that fixing windows is only a partial and short-term solution. His data supports a materialist view: changes in levels of physical decay, superficial social disorder, and racial composition do not lead to higher crime, but economic decline does. He contends that the example shows that real, long-term reductions in crime require that urban politicians, businesses, and community leaders work together to improve the economic fortunes of residents in high-crime areas.[42]
>According to a study by Robert J. Sampson and Stephen Raudenbush, the premise on which the theory operates, that social disorder and crime are connected as part of a causal chain, is faulty. They argue that a third factor, collective efficacy, "defined as cohesion among residents combined with shared expectations for the social control of public space," is the actual cause of varying crime rates that are observed in an altered neighborhood environment. They also argue that the relationship between public disorder and crime rate is weak.[44]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
There are so many issues it's difficult to fit everything in one comment. Did you read the wikipedia article?
Funny how the minorities who actually live in crappy neighborhoods want more policing, but plenty of uppity whites claim it’s racist while safely ensconced in their safe neighborhoods.
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. What you did in this thread is not ok.
We've had to ask/warn you about this many times in the past, and you've unfortunately continued to do it. If this keeps up, we're going to have to ban you, so please stop.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We've had to ask/warn you about this many times in the past, and you've unfortunately continued to do it. If this keeps up, we're going to have to ban you, so please stop.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Citation needed.
That does not support your claim.
But the thing is, the first actions were rough, but after that crime realigned itself to a lot calmer, warmed version, with a very low profile, far away from very visible and / or explicit public violence.
All in all, society as a whole ripped tangible benefits, and those were actually happy years for most of the citizens, the benefits were later lost when a democratic government took over the political power and restablished the proper not-rough enforcement of the law.
So the apparent leasson would be that humans are actual predators, and you're not going to easily convince such a dangerous intelligent entity to go the way of the law if he / she has decided to do otherwise.