社會連繫與集體效能對社區犯罪影響之比較研究

Comparing the Explanatory Effects Between Social Ties and Collective Efficacy on Predicting Neighborhood Crime Rates

阮美瑾(Juan, Meichin)

指導教授 ： 楊曙銘

國立中正大學/教育學院/犯罪防治學系/碩士(2013年)

摘要

本研究主要是以社會解組理論為基礎，主要針對Bursik 與 Grasmick，以及Sampson與其同事為瞭解釋社會解組地區與偏差行為之間的關聯，而提出的系統模式與集體效能做討論。此兩理論最大的差異在於系統模式強調社會連繫的重要性，集體效能則認為社會連繫為非必要的。有鑑於以往有關集體效能與社會連繫的比較研究是以芝加哥地區資料為主(Sampson, Raudenbush & Earls,1997; Morenoff, Sampson & Raudenbush, 2001)，因此，本文是以研究西雅圖地區為主，比較在不同地區是否會得到相同的結果。共使用三種不同來源的資料：1. 由ICPSR提供的Terance D. Miethe在西雅圖地區所蒐集的5,302位居民的犯罪與被害等相關經驗資料，2. 西雅圖警局官方犯罪統計資料，以及 3. 美國人口調查局的人口普查資料進行次級資料分析。主要使用階層迴歸分析方法檢驗鄰里地區因素對於社會連繫與集體效能的影響，也同時評估鄰里地區因素與個人因素之間的交互作用。另外也使用多元迴歸分析，檢驗社會連繫與集體效能對於社區犯罪的影響。結果顯示，社會連繫與集體效能對於居民的犯罪被害經驗，以及社區犯罪率皆沒有影響。但研究結果也發現，社區結構因素：集中劣勢對於社會連繫、集體效能以及社區犯罪率有顯著的影響。社區的集中劣勢情況愈嚴重，社會連繫與集體效能越低，犯罪率也愈高。

關鍵字

集體效能 ； 社會連繫 ； 社會解組

並列摘要

In the past thirty years, the systemic model (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993) and the collective efficacy model (Sampson et al., 1997) have dominated modern social disorganization tradition. However, the biggest difference between the two is the importance of social ties. Particularly, Sampson and his colleague believe that functional relationships matter more than relational ties in preventing crime; while Bursik and Grasmick argue that the different levels of social ties are important in reducing crime The current study examines these two types of interpersonal network to see which one serves as a better social control mechanism to prevent crime.
I used three different datasets for the study. Survey data from ICPSR Project Number 9741, “Testing Theories of Criminality and Victimization in Seattle, 1960-1990.”, a survey of Seattle criminal victimization conducted in 1990 by Terance D. Miethe. , 1990 census information collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, and crime incident data from 1991 to 1993 collected by Seattle Police Department. To test my model, Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) was used to examine how crime, social structural factors affect individual levels of collective efficacy and social ties. Multiple regression model was then used to explain neighborhood crime rates.
In sum, the study found that: 1. As predicted by social disorganization theory, places with high levels of concentrated disadvantage also tend to have more crime problems. 2. As for the comparison between social ties and collective efficacy, social ties and collective efficacy are found to be no significantly related to crime. This finding is very different from all prior literature, thus, some more analyses were conducted to investigate the phenomenon.

Keyword：social disorganization, social ties, collective efficacy

並列關鍵字

collective efficacy ； social ties ； social disorganization

參考文獻

翁國峰 (民96)。集體效能對社區居民犯罪恐懼感之研究。犯罪學期刊，2，115-114。

黃財尉 (民92)。共同因素分析與主成份分析之比較。彰化師大輔導學報，25，63-86。

Bellair, P. E. (1997). Social interaction and community crime: Examining the importance of neighbor networks. Criminology, 35(4), 677-703.

Bellair, P. E. (2000). Informal surveillance and street crime: A complex relationship. Criminology, 38(1), 137-170.

Bursik, R. J. Jr. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26(4), 519-551.