H567/03 Section B Option 2 - Wilson and Kelling (1982) and preventing crime
Understand Wilson and Kelling's broken-windows argument, distinguish its different sources of evidence, and apply a proportionate prevention strategy.
The broken-windows argument
Wilson and Kelling's 1982 article argues that maintaining neighbourhood order can protect informal social control and feelings of safety.
The prescribed work is an argumentative article drawing on research, observation and examples. It is not a single experiment with one newly recruited sample and one set of independent and dependent variables.
An unrepaired broken window is the article's example of a signal that nobody cares. The proposed sequence is that visible neglect encourages further disorder, residents become fearful and withdraw, informal community control weakens, and opportunities for further offending increase. The authors explicitly do not claim that serious violence is inevitable wherever disorder appears.
This is a situational explanation: the same person may act differently when cues suggest that property is cared for and other people will respond. It challenges an explanation based only on the supposedly criminal character of a neighbourhood's residents. Individual choices and resources still matter, and the argument does not establish that environment determines every action.
The psychological contribution connects cognitive interpretations of neglect with social norms and community responsibility. It broadens prevention beyond catching offenders after an event to maintaining conditions in which ordinary use of public spaces can continue.
The evidence behind the argument
The article brings together evidence with different methods and outcomes, so each source must be interpreted separately.
The New Jersey Safe and Clean Neighborhoods programme funded foot patrol in 28 cities. A Police Foundation evaluation centred on Newark used a controlled comparison of patrol arrangements. The crucial finding reported by Wilson and Kelling was that foot patrol did not reduce crime rates, but residents felt more secure, reported more favourable views of police and took fewer protective steps such as staying at home. Foot-patrol officers also had more favourable attitudes and morale. These are benefits in reassurance and relationships, not evidence of a measured crime reduction.
Kelling accompanied foot-patrol officers. His account of an officer called “Kelly” describes knowledge of local regulars, informal rules and responses to disorder. Such observation provides detail about community interaction but is not a representative survey or a randomised test of each action. Some described practices raise serious issues of fairness and discretionary authority.
The article also recounts Zimbardo's abandoned-car demonstrations. A car in the Bronx was attacked quickly; a comparable car in Palo Alto remained untouched for over a week until it was deliberately damaged, after which others joined in. This illustrates the possible role of cues about care and acceptable behaviour. Wilson and Kelling did not conduct these demonstrations, and the two locations differed in many ways. The examples do not isolate disorder from all neighbourhood characteristics.
Surveys of fear supplied further support for the importance of perceived disorder. Together, the sources make the mechanism plausible, while offering uneven support for the complete causal sequence.
Order maintenance and prevention
The article proposes supporting community control through accessible policing and attention to areas where order is beginning to deteriorate.
An officer on foot can learn local concerns, hold ordinary conversations and reinforce residents' efforts to maintain shared spaces. This contact may reduce the social distance created by a patrol car and make it easier to communicate a concern. Wilson and Kelling argued for allocating scarce patrol resources to neighbourhoods at a “tipping point,” where deterioration is occurring but informal control can still be supported.
They also discussed community agreements and citizen watch activity, while distinguishing watchfulness from vigilante punishment. The psychological mechanism is visible responsibility and cooperation, not a licence for residents to judge or punish strangers.
This reasoning is connected to, but not identical with, zero tolerance. A strict punitive response to every minor violation is one possible policy interpretation. The article's proposals also include cooperation and informal responses, and the Newark finding does not establish the effectiveness of mandatory arrests. A prevention plan should define harmful behaviour clearly and use proportionate, accountable responses.
Repairs and routine maintenance can accompany this approach by removing the signal of neglect. The mechanism predicts increased confidence and shared use, but a particular implementation must be evaluated for crime outcomes as well as reassurance.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account