Broken Windows Theory
- Jul 24
- 5 min read
Hello everyone! In this blog post, we're going to take a look at broken windows theory. Hope you enjoy!
PIN IT
Broken Windows Theory
What is Broken Windows Theory?
According to Wikipedia, broken windows theory is a theory from criminology that posits visible signs of crime, civil unrest, and antisocial behaviour create a type of urban environment that further perpetuates crime. Wikipedia also says that "policing methods that target minor crimes, such as vandalism, loitering, public drinking and fare evasion, help to create an atmosphere of order and lawfulness." The theory was introduced by two social scientists, Kelling & Wilson, in 1982 and popularised in the 1990s following a New York City police officer who was influenced by the theory. Police in NYC implemented a "stop-and-frisk" practice, where police would stop pedestrians and frisk them for weapons or contraband. Over 88% of people who stopped didn't carry anything on them. It was also shown to have a racial bias, with authorities targeting people of colour more than anyone else. This practice, unfortunately, still exists but to a much lower extent.
Even though this theory was popularised in the 1990s, it goes as far back as 1969, when Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment with some cars. Yes, I am talking about Zimbardo, who did the terrible Stanford Prison Experiment. According to Kelling & Wilson (1982), Zimbardo arranged to have one car left out with its hood up in the Bronx. The car also had no license plates. He also arranged for another car to be parked on a street in Palo Alto, California. The following is what happened:
People attacked the car in the Bronx within 10 minutes; the first to arrive on the scene was a family of 3 - mum, dad, and a young son. This family removed the radiator and battery. Within 24 hours, 99% of the car's parts had been removed, and following that, random destruction of the car started. It is noted that most of the "vandals" were well-dressed.
The car in Palo Alto was left alone for over a week. Then, Zimbardo smashed some of the car with a sledgehammer, and others started to join in (it's not clear if Zimbardo left or if he was still doing this while others were there). A few hours later, the car was completely destroyed.
The authors note that the perpetrators were majority white and well-dressed.
So what does this tell us? Kelling & Wilson (1982) suggest that it has to do with where the cars were left, and if people felt they were "fair game". They go on to say that because the Bronx has more of an "anonymity" vibe where fewer people tend to care about vandalism, it's more likely to happen faster than in places like Palo Alto. However, vandalism is more likely to happen by anyone if there's the perception of "no one cares".
In relation to "broken windows", specifically, if there is a building with a broken window that is left unfixed for a period of time, then the rest of the windows will soon be broken. It is suggested that this is true for both low SES areas and high SES areas (i.e., poor vs rich). If someone sees a broken window, people take it as a sign that "no one cares" and, in turn, "fair game".
This sounds VERY basic at the core, so let's look at it from more of a theoretical framework, and then we can critique the theory. The urban environment can affect crime - we all know that, but there are three factors we can look at here:
Social Norms & Conformity
The Presence OR Lack of Routine Monitoring
Social Signaling & Signal Crime
If someone is in an isolated urban environment, social norms are ambiguous, so people may start to look for things as cues or signs to follow the social norms of that environment. They may also weigh up what the consequences are if they do not follow the social norms of that area. If an area is well-maintained and clean, people are given a "sign" that criminal behaviour is not really tolerated, whereas an environment that is not well-kept may signal that the environment is NOT monitored and there may be little risk of detection. Broken windows are signals to criminals that the community they are in doesn't have much informal social control and may not be able to defend itself against criminal invasions. It's kinda like mixing environmental cues with human behaviour or social deviance for a better term.
As I'm going to critique this theory, I'm going to hold off on adding in any more case studies because my brain is kinda going "this is a dumb theory". LOL. Anyway, what about some critiques of the broken windows theory?
Some scholars have argued that the broken window theory relates correlation with causality (i.e., correlation doesn't equal causation, that old quote). One scholar David Thacher (2003), suggests that crime has more social factors at play rather than just being "luck of the draw". Maybe someone is committing a crime because they have to e.g., a homeless person shoplifting food.
It's been argued that crime rates were high in New York City in the 1990s due to the "crack epidemic".
The teaching of better impulse control towards children may be why we don't really see people breaking windows all the time. I've never seen a broken window and thought, "Oh yeah, I'm gonna go break another window" - I don't really think it's on everyone's minds.
Why are we not thinking about the social norms/context of the area where the crimes are happening? Is there more police brutality in one area than another? Are people breaking windows because they're scared, or do they feel like they have no choice? Is there actually any evidence for this theory?
Gau & Pratt (2010) say, "The broken windows custom has traditionally assumed that disorder is a construct quite apart from crime and that disorder temporally precedes crime in a causal fashion." They go on to say that disorder and crime are HIGHLY context specific, and it's unlikely that people are just going to break a window for the fun of it.
I'm going to end that one here because I think the theory has been debunked enough, but it was interesting to learn about.
Thank you for reading!
Ash x
References/Readings
Gau, J. M., & Pratt, T. C. (2010). Revisiting broken windows theory: Examining the sources of the discriminant validity of perceived disorder and crime. Journal of criminal justice, 38(4), 758-766.
Harcourt, B. E. (1998). Reflecting on the subject: A critique of the social influence conception of deterrence, the broken windows theory, and order-maintenance policing New York style. Michigan Law Review, 97(2), 291-389.
Kelling, G. L., & Wilson, J. Q. (1982). Broken windows. Atlantic monthly, 249(3), 29-38.
Thacher, D. (2003). Order maintenance reconsidered: Moving beyond strong causal reasoning. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 94, 381.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City
SAVE TO PINTEREST
Comments