A New Look at Urban Alienation: The Effect of Neighborhood Disorder on Perceived

Powerlessness
Author(s): Karlyn J. Geis and Catherine E. Ross
Source: Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 232-246
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2787110 .
Accessed: 21/06/2014 12:15

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Social Psychology Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:15:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Social PsychologyQuarterly
1998,Vol. 61,No. 3, 232-246

A New Look at Urban Alienation:The Effectof

Disorderon PerceivedPowerlessness*
Neighborhood
KARLYN J.GEIS
CATHERINE E. ROSS
The Ohio State University

Usingdatafrom the1995 surveyof Community, Crimeand Health,a representative

sample of 2,482 adultsin Illinois age 18 to 92 (withlinkeddata on respondents'cen-
sus tracts),we find thaturban residenceis associated withperceivedpowerlessness.
Most of theeffect, however,is due to thesociodemographiccharacteristics of people
livingin the city.Yet even when we adjust for sociodemographiccharacteristics, a
small effectof urban residenceon subjectivepowerlessnessremains.This remaining
effectis explainedby theexperienceof disorderin one's neighborhood.People who
live in urban areas and high-poverty neighborhoodsreportmore neighborhooddis-
order;thisdisorder, notthecitynor theneighborhoodpovertyper se,affects perceived
powerlessness.People who reportlivingin a disorderedneighborhoodhave signifi-,
cantlyhigherlevelsofperceivedpowerlessness, in smallpart because theylack social
tieswithneighbors.

Does theenvironment in whichan indi- Onlyone studyhas examined? whetherurban

viduallivesaffecthis or hersense of control residence affectsperceived powerlessness
overlife?Earlyurbansociologistsproposed (Fischer1973);none have examinedwhether
thatcitieswere subjectivelyalienating,but neighborhood contextdoes so.
the idea was declared to be unsupported Second,some observerspainta positive,
(Fischer1973,1976).We argue,fortwo rea- and nonalienatedpictureof urbanlife(e.g.,
sons,thatthishypothesis was dismissedpre- Fischer 1982), but others decry the high
maturely. crimerates,violence,decline,and decay of
First,in most research rejecting the innercities(e.g.,Massey1996;Skogan1990).
hypothesisthaturban areas are alienating, Althoughdisordercharacterizesonlysome
subjectivealienationis measuredas social neighborhoods in cities,itis clearlyan urban
isolation.Cityresidentsdo not have fewer problem. If, compared with other places,
social ties than others(Fischer1973,1976, large cities contain many neighborhoods
1982).As Seeman(1983) pointsout,however, whereresidentsreporta greatdeal of disor-
the major formof subjectivealienationis der,thosecitiesmaybe experiencedas sub-
powerlessness. He proposedthat"itis notthe jectivelyalienating.
lostcommunity (theabsenceofsocialsolidar- We propose that the environmentin
ity)thatis the urbanproblem,but the sense whichan individuallives affectshis or her
of lost control(powerlessness)"(1971:140). sense of controlversus powerlessness.We
expect thatlarge geographicareas do not
*This researchwas supportedby grantRO1
MH51558,"Community, Crimeand Health,"from affect subjectivepowerlessness as strongly
as
theNationalInstituteofMentalHealthto Catherine the immediateneighborhood. Urban areas,
E. Ross (principleinvestigator)and ChesterBritt however,are much more likelyto include
(co-principle We thankPaul Bellair, neighborhoodscharacterizedby disorder-
investigator).
Bob Kaufman,Laurie Krivo,JohnReynolds,and
MariekeVanWilligen fortheirhelp.Weareequalco- by crime,incivilities, trouble,and decay-
An earlierversionofthepaperwaspresent- than are suburbs,small cities,towns,and
authors.
ed at the 1997 annualmeetingsof theAmerican ruralareas.We hypothesize thatindividuals
SociologicalAssociation,heldin Toronto.Address wholivein neighborhoods wheresocialcon-
communications to KarlynGeis or CatherineRoss:
Department ofSociology, 300BrickerHall,TheOhio
trolhas brokendown,and wheredruguse,
StateUniversity, 190 N. Oval Mall,Columbus,OH fights, vandalism,graffiti, loitering,public
43210(geis.3@osu.edu orross.131@osu.edu). drinking,litter,and crime are common,
232

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:15:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NEIGHBORHOOD DISORDER AND PERCEIVED POWERLESSNESS 233
experiencegreatersubjectivepowerlessness others,the effectwas not significant.1
Thus
thanothers,in partbecause theyhave weak pastresearchtellsus littleabouttheassocia-
socialtiesto neighbors. tionofpowerlessness withcities,and nothing
aboutitsassociationwithneighborhoods. To
POWERLESSNESS AND ONE'S derivehypotheses, we turnto the literature
ENVIRONMENT on urbanalienation.

Perceivedpowerlessness is a majorform Urbanismand Subjective Alienation

ofsubjectivealienation(Seeman 1959,1983).
It is a learned,generalizedexpectationthat The ChicagoSchooland itspredecessors
outcomes of situationsare determinedby proposedthatcitiesweresubjectively alien-
forcesexternalto oneself.The individual ating.Accordingto Wirth(1938), urbanism
believes that he or she is powerless to leads to weakenedsocialtiesto place and to
achievedesiredends.At theotherend ofthe the breakdownof informalsocial control,
continuum,perceivedcontrolis the belief whichproducesalienation.Rural areas have
thatone can and does master,control,and small,sparselysettled,sociallyhomogeneous
shape one's ownlife.The individualbelieves populations.Everyoneknowseveryoneelse,
thatoutcomesof situationsare contingent or knows someone who knows them,and
on his or her own choices and actions thesesocialtiesare effective meansofinfor-
(Mirowskyand Ross 1986,1989). Concepts mal social control.Urban areas are charac-
related to the sense of personal control terizedby large populations,heterogeneity,
appear in a numberof forms, notablyinter- and density;as a result,people typically
nal locus of control(Rotter 1966), instru- interactwithstrangers. Withoutstronglocal
mentalism(Wheaton 1980), self-efficacy social ties,informalsocial controlbreaks
(Gecas 1989),mastery(Pearlinet al. 1981), down,allowingdeviance,crime,and all sorts
personalautonomy(Seeman 1983), and, at of social pathologies to develop (Park,
the other end of the continuum,external Burgess,and McKenzie1925;Wirth1938).
locus of control (Rotter 1966), fatalism Simmel(1969) arguedthaturbanareas
(Wheaton 1980), the sense of helplessness harmresidents'mentalstates by exposing
(Elder and Liker 1982), and learned help- themto highlevels of negativestimulation:
lessness(Seligman1975). the chaotic sightsand sounds of the city,
As a belief,perceived powerlessness suchas contactwithstrangers, crowds,noise,
formsthe mentalbridgebetweenexternal sirens,dirtand garbage,and the disorder,
conditionsand emotional and behavioral crime,and dangerthatresultfroma break-
respokses.Throughcontinuedexperience down of informalsocial control.Negative
withobjectiveconditionsof powerlessness stimulus is conceptually similarto uncontrol-
and lack of control,individualslearn that lable negativereinforcement. Accordingto
theirown actions cannot produce desired Seligman(1975), throughcontinuedcontact
outcomes. A belief in external control is withuncontrollable negativereinforcements
thereforeconceptually distinctfromthe (such as noise or harassmenton the street),
social conditionsthat produce it and the individualslearnthattheirattemptsto con-
consequences-includingdepression,anxi- trola situationwillbe futile. Theylearnthat
ety,malaise,illness,impairment, alcoholism, they will not be able, throughtheir own
and mortality-thatfollow(Mirowskyand actions,to producethe outcomestheyseek;
Ross 1989; Pearlin et al. 1981; Rosenfield thisexperienceproducesa senseof helpless-
1989;Ross and Mirowsky1992;Seeman and ness (Hiroto1974).Lack ofreal controlover
Anderson 1983; Seeman and Lewis 1995; desired outcomes-such as a safe, quiet,
Seemanand Seeman1983;Wheaton1980).
Onlyone studyhas examinedthe effect 1 Tittle's (1989) measure of alienation also
of urbanenvironment on individuals'sense includes powerlessness,but the items are political,
of powerlessness. not personal.Theyinclude"Laws benefitonlyspecial
Fischer(1973) foundthat
groups," "Revolution would be a good thing,"
althoughurbanresidents'levels of subjec- "Americansocietyis just and fair,"and "Powerwield-
tivepowerlessness werehigherthanthoseof ers use it selfishly."

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:15:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
234 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
nonthreatening livingenvironment-theo-
reticallyincreases perceived helplessness
and powerlessness. Thus,one can arguethat
residenitsofurbanareaswillhavehigherlev-
els ofsubjectivepowerlessness thanothers.
Recently, however, Massey (1996)
argued that the early sociologists saw in
Chicago not the effectsof urbanismper se,
buttheeffects ofpoverty,whichwas concen-
tratedspatiallyin neighborhoods.Massey
believes that geographicallyconcentrated
poverty creates alienation of all types
because of its association withthe break-
down of public order (1996:407). His view
convergeswiththatoftheearlyurbansociol-
ogistson twoimportant points:thattheenvi-
ronment in whichpeople livehas real effects
on theirlives,and thattheeffects are mediat-
ed by thebreakdownof informal social con-
trol.He disagreesradically, however,about
theleveloftheecologicaleffect, arguingthat
individualsare affectedby the neighbor-
hood,notbythelargergeographical 4rea.
In contrastto early urban sociologists
suchas Wirth, and modernurbansociologists
suchas Massey,whobelievethattheenviron-
menthas real effectson individuals,others
argue that the environmenthas no effect
independentof its residents'demographic
characteristics (Gans 1962;Tittle1989).We
examine this alternative:Certain typesof
people livein certainareas,and it is theresi-
dents' demographiccharacteristics, such as
income,race,and class-not qualitiesof the
environment itself-thatexerteffects.
Disorder
Neighborhood
The breakdownoforderand socialcon-
trolin the community is indicatedhere by
perceivedneighborhooddisorder(Skogan
and
1990). Orderis a stateof peace, safety,
observanceofthelaw;socialcontrolis an act
of maintaining thisorder.Order and social
controlare indicatedbyvisiblecuesthatresi-
dentsperceive.These cues are both social
and physical(Skogan and Maxfield 1981;
Taylorand Hale 1986).Visiblesignsofsocial
disorderinclude fightsand troubleamong
neighbors,people hangingout on thestreets,
and the presenceof people drinking, taking
drugs,panhandling, and creatinga sense of
danger.Physicaldisorderrefersto a neigh-
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:15:49 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
QUARTERLY
borhood's overall appearance.Places with
highlevels of physicaldisorderare noisy,
dirty,and run-down;manybuildingsare in
disrepairor abandoned;vandalismand graf-
fitiare common.Social and physicaldisorder
are conceptualized on a continuum,with
orderon one end and disorderon theother.
Order is evidenced by a clean, safe,quiet
neighborhoodwherebuildingsare in good
repair,crimeis low,neighborswatchout for
each other,and thereare not a lot of young
people hangingout.
Neighborhood disorder is related to
incivilities,weak community social control,
and a generalconcernabout thecommunity
(LaGrange, Ferraro, and Supancic 1992;
Lewis and Salem 1986). Crime is high in
suchdisorderedneighborhoods, butpeople's
concernsgo beyondcrimeand victim'ization
(Garofaloand Laub 1978).Few residentsare
victimizeddirectly, but theysee the signsof
disorderwhenevertheywalk pasta groupof
teenage boys hangingout on the street,a
boarded-upbuildingor vacantlot,drunks, or
panhandlers(Skogan1990).Some aspectsof
neighborhood disorderfallintotherealmof
criminalactivity;others,such as teenagers
hangingout on the streetand buildingsin
disrepair,do not. Moreover, most of the
criminral activitiesthat Skogan and others
discussare relatively minorand lack specific
victims, forinstancegraffiti and publicdrink-
ing.Althoughsome researchersattemptto
separateneighborhood disorderfrommajor
crimessuch as murder,robbery,burglary,
mugging, and rape (Skogan 1990),it is diffi-
cult to do so (Bursikand Grasmick1993).
Major crimes are rare and oftenunseen;
theyformthe extremeend of the disorder
continuum,however(Lee 1981; Lewis and
Salem 1986;Rohe and Stegman1994).
We conceptualize disorderas a character-
isticoftheneighborhood in whichan individ-
of a place,byresi-
ual lives.It is a description
dents,in termsoftheappearanceofdisorder.
To describea neighborhood, a personmust
be aware of it and perceiveit,and twoper-
sonsin thesame neighborhood maydescribe
itsomewhatdifferently. Nonetheless, bothare
describingan objectiveplace. Correlations
betweenrespondents'reportsof disorderin
theirneighborhoodsand researchers'inde-
pendentassessmentsare moderateto high.
 NEIGHBORHOOD DISORDER AND PERCEIVED POWERLESSNESS 235
PerkinsandTaylor(1996) foundcorrelations neighborhoodswhere neighborsview one
rangingfroma low of .20,betweenindepen- anotheras potentialsourcesofvictimization,
dentobservations of youngmenhangingout it is unlikelythattheywill seek each other
on the streetsand respondents'reportsof out forsocial activitiesor ask one another
physicaldisorder,to a highof .76,between forhelp.All told,neighborly behaviormay
observationsof residentialphysicaldisorder be less commonin largecitiesthanin small
and respondents' reportsofphysicaldisorder. citiesand towns,and itmaymediatesomeof
Our measure of neighborhooddisorderis theeffectof urbanor neighborhood context
basedon reportsofthepeoplewholivethere; on powerlessness.
thuswhenwe use thetermneighborhood dis-
order,we mean disorderthatis "perceived" Hypotheses
and"reported" byresidents.
In thisstudywe extendtheliterature on
Social TieswithNeighbors urbanism and alienation in the following
ways.First,we hypothesizethatneighbor-
Informalsocial ties describean individ- hood disorderis associatedwithperceptions
ual's alliances with his or her neighbors. of powerlessnessamongresidents, and that
These include instrumentalties in which the neighborhood,ratherthan the urban
neighborsprovideeach otherwithhelp,lend area per se, affectsperceivedpowerlessness.
each otherbelongings, or furnishothertan- We also hypothesizethat urban areas are
gible services,and affectiveor sociable ties more likelythan suburbs,small cities,and
such as visitingand talking(Campbell and ruralareas to include neighborhoodswith
Lee 1992;Gerson,Stueve,and Fischer1977). high levels of perceived disorder,in part
Weak attachmentsto neighborsmay because theyare morelikelyto containspa-
increaseperceivedpowerlessnessand may tiallyconcentrated poverty.We examinetwo
partiallymediate the effectsof disorder. subsidiaryquestionsas well.First,do urban
Throughsocial tiesin whichneighborsvisit, and neighborhood contextsaffectpowerless-
talk,and helpeach other,residentsmaypro- ness over and above theirresidents'demo-
vide one anotherwithsome protection from graphiccharacteristics, or are apparentenvi-
problemsin theirneighborhoodand thus ronmentaleffects in factdue to thesegrega-
may reduce the sense of powerlessness. tionofplacesbyrace,age,and socioeconom-
Althoughurhanresidentsmaintainno fewer ic status,whichare the truedeterminants of
social ties than others,some evidence sug- perceivedpowerlessness? Second,ifplace of
gests that they maintain fewer ties with residence affectspowerlessness,do weak
neighborsthan do residentsof nonurban social tieswithneighborsmediateanyof the
areas (Fischer1973,1976, 1982). The pres- effectof perceivedneighborhooddisorder
ence of disorderin the neighborhoodmay on subjectivepowerlessness?Figure1 illus-
furtherdecrease ties among neighbors.In tratesourtheoretical model.

Urban + eNighborhood
L Rsidencz ? Disorder

IA Perceived
/1* \ Powerlessness

Socio SocialTieswith
Demographic i e ghbors

Figure1.TheoreticalModel in WhichNeighborhoodDisorder Mediates the Effectof Urban Residence on

PerceivedPowerlessness

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:15:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
236 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
SAMPLE AND MEASUREMENT referto Chicagosuburbs.We combinedresi-
dence in small towns and in rural areas
We use data fromthe 1995 surveyof because theireffectswere similar.Sixteen
Commuinity, Crime and Health (CCH), a percentof respondentslive in Chicago,30
probabilitysample of Illinois households percentin thesuburbsofChicago,12 percent
withlinkeddata on povertyin each respon- in smallcities,27 percentin smalltowns,and
dent'scensustract.Respondentswereinter- 14 percentin ruralareasofIllinois.
viewedby telephoneand wereselectedinto Neighborhood characteristicsinclude
the sample by a random-digit-dialing subjectiveperceptions ofdisorderin theres-
method comparable to the standard ident'sneighborhood, and objectivecensus
Waksbergmethod(Lund and Wright1994; tractinformation on povertyin the neigh-
Waksberg1978).Inclusionin thesamplewas borhood.Perceivedneighborhood disorderis
limitedto English-speaking adultsage 18 or measuredwiththe 14-itemindex shownin
older. From each household sampled,the Table 1. Highpovertyin theneighborhood is
adult with the most recent birthdaywas a dummyvariablecoded 1 if 25 percentor
selectedas a respondent. Thisis an efficient moreofthehouseholdsin one's censustract
way to randomly choose adults within are below the federal povertyline, and 0
households.Up to 10 callbackswere made otherwise.Five and one halfpercentof all
to selectand contacta respondent; and up to respondentslive in a census tractin which
10 additionalcallbackswere made to com- 25 percentor moreof householdsare poor;
plete the interviewafterinitialcontacthad 18 percentof Chicago residentslive in a
been made.Twenty-seven percentof eligible high-poverty census tract.Social ties with
respondents refusedto be interviewed. neighborsare measuredwiththe threeitem
The sample includes2,482 respondents indexshownin theappendix.
rangingin age from18 to 92, withan aver- Sociodemographic characteristics
include
age age of 42. The mean educationlevel is age,race,sex,education,employment status,
13.801 years, and the mean household and householdincome.Age and education
incomeis $48,274(the median is $40,000). are measuredin years.Householdincomeis
Forty-onepercentof respondentsare male, measuredin thousandsof dollars.Race, sex,
84.1 percentare white,and 53.3 percentare and employment are coded as dummyvari-
married.In termsof socioeconomicstatus, ables.Race is coded 1 forwhites,0 fornon-
the sampleis broadlyrepresentative of the whites. Sex is coded 1 for males, 0 for
Illinois population in 1990, but males are females.Employment is coded 1 forrespon-
underrepresented. The meaneducationlevel dentswhohavea job,0 forthosewhodo not.
in Illinoiswas 12.651 years,median house- Perceivedpowerlessness, thefinaldepen-
hold incomeequaled $38,664,80.5 percent dent variable,is measuredwiththe eight-
of residentsover age 18 were white,and itemMirowsky-Ross scale ofperceivedpow-
48.53 percentwere male. On the basis of erlessness versus control (Mirowskyand
addresses,respondents'census tractswere Ross 1991) shown in the appendix. This
coded,and the percentageof householdsin measureis conceptuallysimilarto the per-
povertywas linkedto themicro-level data. sonal controlcomponentof Rotter's(1966)
Urban area of residence is based on internal-external locus of control scale
respondents' reportsand is measuredwitha (modified for community surveysby using
set of dummyvariables (Chicago, suburb, Likert-scale responses rather than forced-
small city,town,or rural area). When we choice responses)and to the masteryscale
speak of urbanresidencewe mean livingin of Pearlinet al. (1981).The majordifference
the cityof Chicago.Small citiesare always is thatit balances statementsclaimingcon-
distinguishedfromChicago.2All suburbs trolagainstthose whichdenyit,and state-
mentsabout good outcomesagainstthose
2 The small cities include Peoria, Springfield,
about bad outcomes.The balanced 2 x 2
Rockford,Moline, Champaign/Urbana,Kankakee,
Carbondale,Decatur, Dekalb, Normal,Rock Island,
design eliminatesdefense and agreement
Bloomington, and others with populations under bias fromthe scale (Mirowskyand Ross
200,000. 1991).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:15:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NEIGHBORHOOD DISORDER AND PERCEIVED POWERLESSNESS 237

Table 1. PrincipalComponentsFactorAnalysisof Itemsin NeighborhoodDisorder Scale

Scale Items FactorLoadings

PhysicalDisorder
There is a lot of graffiti
in myneighborhood. .804
My neighborhoodis noisy. .748
Vandalismis commonin myneighborhood. .836
There are a lot of abandoned buildingsin myneighborhood. .725
PhysicalOrder
My neighborhoodis clean. .594
People in myneighborhoodtake good care of theirhouses and apartments. .546
Social Disorder
There are too manypeople hangingaroundon the streetsnear myhome. .748
I am alwayshavingtroublewithmyneighbors. .419
There is a lot of crimein myneighborhood. .851
There is too muchdruguse in myneighborhood. .820
There is too muchalcohol use in myneighborhood. .758

Social Order
My neighborhoodis safe. .613
In myneighborhood,people watchout foreach other. .424
I can trustmostpeople in myneighborhood. .500
Mean 1.805
Alpha Reliability .910

Notes: Items indicatingdisorder are scored stronglydisagree (1), disagree (2), neutral (3), agree (4), and
stronglyagree (5). Itemsindicatingorderare scored stronglyagree (1), agree (2), neutral(3), disagree(4), and
stronglydisagree (5). All itemsindicatingsocial and physicalorder and disorderload .4 or higheron the first
factor,structurematrix,obliminrotation.

ANALYSES We estimated this model and, using

Breusch and Pagan's Lagrange Multiplier
Because the models includepovertyin Test (Greene
1990), found that the error
the respondent'scensus tract,we use tech- varianceattributableto tracts(ut) was sig-
niques thattake into accountthe potential nificantly greaterthanzero onlyin Model 3
errorpatternswhicharisefromthegrouped of Table 4 (described below). In all other
natureof the observationsand whichmay models,the errorvariance attributableto
violatetheassumptions of OLS. In estimating tractswas notsignificantly greaterthanzero.
models containingdirectcontextualeffects ThusGLS estimatesdo notprovidea signifi-
but no cross-level interactions,one can cantimprovement over OLS, and OLS esti-
choose fromtwotechniques. The first,
which matesshouldbe used.The resultsare almost
we use,estimates a random-effectserror-com- identical.3
ponentsmodelwithgeneralizedleastsquares
(GLS), whichfitsan appropriate errorstruc-
tureand has good estimation RESULTS
properties.The
randomeffects modelhas theform The determinants of powerlessnessare
yti= a + bx ti+ eti+ut, shown in Table 3. In the firstmodel, we
regresspowerlessness on area ofresidenceto
wheretindexestractsand i indexesindividu-
als withintracts.Thus two componentsof 3 Although specialty multilevel modeling pro-
error are estimated:eti' whichis random grams such as HLM (Bryk and Raudenbush 1992)
are also statistically
appropriate,theiruse is not tech-
errorunique to individuals, and ut,whichis nically feasible in this case because apprQximately
unique to tracts.Assumptionsconcerning two-thirdsof the tracts(766 of 1,169) contain only
theerrorcomponents are one respondent.Under thisconstraint, such programs
cannot generate reliable estimates of the variances
E[ut] = 0, Var[ut] = 6 , Cov[eti, ut] = 0. withintractsand thusshouldnotbe used.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:15:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 238 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
determinewhetherurbanismhas a total Illinois,nonwhiteslive disproportionately in
effecton individuals'senseof powerlessness. Chicago;nonwhitesalso reportgreaterper-
Sociodemographic characteristicsare added ceptionsof powerlessnessthanwhites,even
in Model 2 to show whetherthe effectof at the same levels of employment, educa-
urban environmentis due in fact to the tion,and income.An individual'srace has a
demographiccharacteristics of the people substantialeffecton perceivedpowerless-
wholivethere.In Model 3, we add neighbor- ness, possibly because opportunitiesfor
hood characteristics of povertyand disorder minorities are blocked.
to the equationto see whethertheyexplain Withadjustmentfordemographicchar-
any effectof urbanresidenceon perceived acteristics in Model 2, thenegativeeffecton
powerlessness. In Model 4 we add social ties perceivedpowerlessnessof livingin a small
withneighborsto examinewhethersuchties citybecomessignificant at p < .10.Thus we
mediateanyeffect ofneighborhood disorder. finda smallindependenteffectof small-city
Chicagoresidentsreportthehighestlev- livingon perceptionsof control.People who
els of perceivedpowerlessness, followedby live in smallcitiesreportless powerlessness
residentsof ruralareas,suburbsof Chicago, thanthosewho live in suburbs,ruralareas,
and small cities,as shown in Model 1 of or Chicago.
Table 3. Both personslivingin the cityof Adjustmentfor perceived disorderin
Chicagoand thoselivingin ruralareas per- the neighborhoodin Model 3 completely
ceive significantly higherlevels of power- explainsthe effectof Chicago residenceon
lessnessthansuburbanresidents. the sense of powerlessness. People who live
When demographiccharacteristics are in the cityof Chicago repoftmuch more
added in Model 2, the effectof livingin a neighborhooddisorder than residentsof
rural area is explained completely. otherareas (see Table 4). Neighborhooddis-
Individualslivingin ruralareas are older, order in turnis associated withhigh per-
have lowerlevels of educationand income, ceived powerlessness.People who report
and are less likelyto be employed(see Table that theirneighborhoodcontains a great
2). These factorsexplain rural residents' deal of vandalism,graffiti, dirt,noise,drug,
highlevels of perceived powerlessnessin and alcoholuse,thatteenagershangout on
comparisonwithsuburbanresidents.Older the street,and thatbuildingsare not main-
age is associatedwithhighperceivedpower- tained reportmuch higherlevels of per-
lessness. High levels of education and ceived powerlessnessthan those who say
incomeand beingemployedare associated theylive in clean,safe,quiet neighborhoods
withlow perceivedpowerlessness. We found wherebuildingsare in good repairand peo-
no independenteffectof rurallivingon the ple take care of their houses and apart-
senseofcontrol, whereasindividualsociode- ments.4Troubledneighborhoodsare found
mographiccharacteristics exertsubstantial disproportionately in Chicago,and adjust-
effects. mentforneighborhood disorderrendersthe
Individuals who live in the city of effect of urbanism insignificant.
Chicagoshow slightly higherlevels of pow- Perceivedpowerlessnessis affectedby
erlessness than suburban residents,with reported disorderin theneighborhood, rather
adjustmentfordemographiccharacteristics. than by neighborhood poverty per se. Poverty
The coefficient, however,is significant only intheneighborhood is notsignificant.
at the .10 level. Thus mostof the effectof
urbanismis explainedby the demographic 4 Wealso examinedtwoalternative neighborhood
characteristics of individualswho live in the disorderscales.The firstexcludesthe threeitems
mostdirectly indicatinginformal socialorderor con-
city.Table 2 showsthatyoungerpersonsand trol:"My neighborhood is safe,""In myneighbor-
nonwhitesare significantly more likelyto hood,peoplewatchout foreach other,"and "I can
livein Chicago.Fifty-one percentof Chicago trustmostpeople in myneighborhood." Thisscale
residentsare white,comparedwith87 per- has an alpha reliabilityof .89,and all substantive
resultsare thesame.The secondexcludestheitem
centofthosewholivein thesuburbs, 91 per- "There is a lot of crime in my neighborhood."This
cent of small-city residents,and 93 percent scale has an alpha reliabilityof .90, and all substan-
of people in smalltownsand ruralareas.In tiveresultsare thesame.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:15:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Table 2. BivariateCorrelations,
Means, and StandardDeviations (N = 2,479)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Powerlessness

2 Neighborhood .196*
Disorder
3 Social Ties with -.102* -.325*
Neighbors
4 Chicago .067* .414* -.210*

5 Suburb -.063* -.107* -.013 -.290*

6 Small City -.058* -.024 .028 -.166* -.246*

7 RuralArea .048* -.194* .149* -.367* -.542* -.311*

8 Sex -.064* -.002 -.015 .030 .009 .014 -.047*

(male = 1)
9 Age .199* -.025 .125* -.084* -.032 -.017 .101* -.071*
10 Race -.115* -.307* .233* -.396* .046* .070* .213* .001 .120*
(white= 1)
11 Education -.278* -.197* .014 .006 .166* .053* -.192* .091* -.175*
12 Employment -.210* -.041 -.020 .010 .055* .014 -.068* .167* -.449*
(employed= 1)
13 Household -.185* -.165* .066 -.018 .150* .004 -.126* .102* -.122*
Income
14 High-Poverty .075* .259* -.107* .251* -.133* -.030 -.042 .026 -.037
Neighborhood

Mean -.734 1.805 3.078 .164 .299 .123 .407 .409 45.095

StandardDeviation .506 .480 .798 .370 .458 .329 .491 .492 16.977
*p < .05

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:15:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
240 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
Table 3. PerceivedPowerlessnessRegressedon Urban Area, IndividualSociodemographicCharacteristics,
High Povertyand Disorder in Neighborhood,and Social Ties withNeighbors (N = 2,478)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

b b b b
(s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.)

Urban
Chicagoa .1244*** .0477+ -.0088 -.0100
(.0310) (.0308) (.0325) (.0324)
Small Citya -.0313 -.0463+ -.0510+ -.0474+
(.0342) (.0321) (.0320) (.0320)
Rurala .0778*** .0030 .0138 .0184
(.0242) (.0234) (.0235) (.0235)
Sociodemographics
Sex -.0133 -.0147 -.0153
(male = 1) (.0196) (.0196) (.0196)
Race -.1382*** -.1139*** -.1034***
(white= 1) (.0286) (.0293) (.0294)
Age .0037*** .0038*** .0040***
(.0006) (.0006) (.0006)
Education -.0408*** -.0361*** -.0365***
(.0040) (.0041) (.0041)
Employed -.1017*** -.1001*** -.0985***
(.0232) (.0232) (.0232)
Household -.0010*** -.0009*** -.0009***
Income (.0002) (.0002) (.0002)

Neighborhood
High Poverty .0049 -.0038
(.0449) (.0448)
Neighborhood .1342*** .1160***
Disorder (.0230) (.0236)

Social Ties with -.0411***

Neighbors (.0128)

Constant -.7811 -.1003 -.4345 -.2923

R2 .0109 .1347 .1472 .1507

a Compared withsuburb
+ p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; * p <.001 (one-tailedtests)

Column 1 of Table 4 shows that even derthanolderpeople,whites,and thosewith

afteradjustingfordemographiccharacteris- high levels of education and household
associa- income.5
tics,area ofresidencehas significant
tionswithreportedneighborhooddisorder. 5 We also examined in anotherway the associa-
Comparedwithsuburbanresidents, people tions of neighborhooddisorderwithindividualrace
in thecityof Chicagoreportthehighestlev- and socioeconomicstatusand withplace of residence.
els of neighborhooddisorder,followedby We createda dummyvariablescored 1 forhighdisor-
those in smaller cities.Residents of rural der (defined as one standard deviation or more
above the mean) and 0 otherwise.Eight percent of
areas and smalltownsreporttheleast disor- whites,8 percentof thosewitha college degree,and 7
der.Those who live in poor neighborhoods percent of those with household incomes over
experience significantlyhigher levels of $40,000 report that they live in highlydisordered
neighborhooddisorder than residentsof neighborhoods,compared with 33 percent of non-
non-poorneighborhoods. individuals whites,14 percentof people withouta college degree,
Finally,
and 17 percentof people withhousehold incomesof
who are nonwhite, young,poor,and poorly less than $40,000. Fifty-twopercent of residentsof
educated reportmore neighborhooddisor- poor neighborhoodsreporthighlevels of disorderin

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:15:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NEIGHBORHOOD DISORDER AND PERCEIVED POWERLESSNESS 241
Table 4. NeighborhoodDisorder and Social Ties withNeighborsRegressedon Urban Area, Individual
and NeighborhoodCharacteristics
SociodemographicCharacteristics, (N = 2,478)

NeighborhoodDisorder Social Ties withNeighbors

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 3a
b b b b b
(s.e) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.) (s.e.)

Urban
Chicagob .3937*** -.3646*** -.2132*** -.0275 .0353
(.0275) (.0481) (.0500) (.0513) (.0621)
Small Cityb .0290 .0720 .0724+ .0878* .0979+
(.0283) (.0530) (.0521) (.0507) (.0626)
Ruralb -.0885*** .1567*** .1491*** .1128** .1434**
(.0206) (.0376) (.0380) (.0372) (.0454)

Sociodemographics
Sex .0055 -.0206 -.0165 .0086
(male= 1) (.0173) (.0319) (.0310) (.0358)
Race -.1584*** .3357*** .2547*** .2655***
(white= 1) (.0256) (.0465) (.0463) (.0546)
Age -.0003 .0052*** .0051*** .0051***
(.0005) (.0010) (.0010) (.0012)
Education -.0331*** .0057 -.0090+ -.0148+
(.0036) (.0066) (.0065) (.0077)
Employed .0080 .0402 .0404 .0212
(.0205) (.0378) (.0368) (.0428)
Household -.0012*** .0013*** .0008* .0012**
Income (.0002) (.0004) (.0004) (.0005)

Neighborhood
High Poverty .2627*** .0270 .0154
(.0392) (.0709) (.0764)
Neighborhood -.4437*** -.3314***
Disorder (.0363) (.0133)

Constant 2.4117 3.0659 2.3645 3.4557 3.3374

R2 .2638 .0507 .0912 .1433 .1546

a GLS random-effects
model
b Co"mparedwithsuburb
+p < .10; *p < .05; **p <.01; ***p < .001 (one-tailedtests)

Neighborhood disorder is an urban

their neighborhoods,compared with 10 percent of
those who live in nonpoor neighborhoods.Forty-two problem,but the neighborhood, more than
percentof Chicago residentsreporthighlevels of dis- thecityitself,
shapespeople's sense of pow-
order in their neighborhoods compared with 12.4 erlessness.Neighborhooddisorderis also a
percentin smallercities,8.7 percentin suburbs,and problemof poor neighborhoods, but disor-
6.4 percent percent in rural areas and small towns.
Average levels of reported neighborhood disorder
der,morethanpoverty, governsthepercep-
are also significantlyhigherin poor neighborhoods tion of powerlessness.Finally,the effectof
thanin nonpoorneighborhoods(2.33,comparedwith disorder in one's neighborhood on per-
1.78), and are higherin Chicago than in otherareas. ceived powerlessnessis not simplya reflec-
The mean level forChicago is 2.25 (sd = .51), whichis tion of race or socioeconomic status:
significantlyhigherthan in small cities (mean = 1.78,
sd = .46), suburbs(mean = 1.73,sd = .42), and rural Disorder has large independenteffectson
areas (mean = 1.69, sd = .41). The average level of perceptions of powerlessness, over and
reported disorder is higherin poor neighborhoods above individualcharacteristics
ofrace,edu-
and in Chicago thanelsewhere,and Chicago registers cation,income,and employment.
more variationin neighborhooddisorderthan does In Model 4 ofTable 3 we add social ties
any otherarea.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:15:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
242 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
withneighborsto see whethertheymediate orderthando thosein smallcities,and thus
the effectof neighborhood disorderon per- more neighborly behavior;withadjustment
ceived powerlessness.Ties withneighbors fordisorder, however,suburbsare character-
correlate negativelywith powerlessness: ized by fewerties withneighborsthan are
People who visitand talk withtheirneigh- as com-
smallcities.Thus,livingin a smallcity,
bors and help each otherout reportsignifi- pared withthe suburbs,mayinvolvetrade-
cantlylowerlevelsof powerlessness thando The higherdensity
offs. ofsmallcitiesactually
thosewithoutsuchties.Withadjustment for maypromoteneighborliness, once disorderis
social ties,the effectof neighborhood disor- takenintoaccount.Thisis theonlyinstance,
deron powerlessness butit
decreasesslightly, however,in whichthe GLS model shows
stillhas a large significanteffect.Ties with slightlydifferent, and less significant,esti-
neighbors mediateonlyabout13.5percentof matesthanthe OLS; therefore the relation-
the association ((.1342 - .1160)/.1342= .135). shipbetweenlivingin a smallcityand neigh-
The determinantsof social ties with borlinessshouldbe considered tentative.6
neighbors are shown in the right-hand
columnsof Table 4. People's social tieswith DISCUSSION
theirneighborsare a function of wherethey
live: Chicago residentsreportsignificantly Beforethisresearch,onlyone studyhad
fewertieswithneighborsthando thosewho examined the effectof urbanresidene on
live in suburbsand small cities,whilerural individuals' sense of powerlessness,and
residentsreport the most. These effectsare none had examined the effectof neighbor-
notexplainedbythedemographic character- hood disorder.Most studiesof.urbanalien-
isticsof people who live in different areas. ation measuredalienationas lack of social
Controllingfor demographicsin Model 2 ties,notas perceivedpowerlessness. The one
does notreduceby muchthe significance of study on powerlessness found insignificant
urbanresidence,althoughwhites,olderpeo- effectsof size of place (Fischer 1973). We
ple, and those with high familyincomes finda nonlineareffectof size of place on
reportmoresocialtieswithneighbors. perceivedpowerlessness-individuals living
Perceivedneighborhood disordercorre- in Chicago and in rural areas report higher
lates negatively withtiesto one's neighbors, levelsthanthoselivingin smallcitiesand in
as shownin Model 3 ofTable 4. People who suburbs-but the entireeffectof ruralresi-
witha dence on powerlessness is due to the demo-
reportthattheylivein neighborhoods
graphic characteristics of ruralresidents.
greatdeal ofnoise,dirt,drugs,crime,graffiti,
less Urban residence is associated withsub-
vandalism,and dangerare significantly
jective powerlessness, although most of the
likely than others to visit and talk with
effect is due to the demographic characteris-
neighborsor to help neighborsout. High
ticsof people livingin the city,and mostof
levels of povertyin the neighborhoodare
the effectof these characteristics is due to
less directlyimportantto formingbonds
race. Whenwe adjustforsociodemographic
withneighbors:Livingin a poor neighbor-
characteristics, onlya small effectof urban
hood is not associated witha lack of ties
residence on subjective powerlessness
with neighbors.Adjustmentfor disorder
remains.This remainingeffectis explained
explains the effectof livingin Chicago: It
bythefactthatChicagohas moreneighbor-
appears that nothinginherentin the city
itself discourages ties with neighbors. 6 We also tested the interactionof disorderand
Instead, Chicago contains more troubled neighborliness to see whetherdisorderhad a smaller
neighborhoodsthan do other places, and effecton powerlessness when neighborliness was
people are less neighborlyin theseareas. high.Contraryto expectations,the interactionwas
Adjustmentforneighborhooddisorder positive.The equations (solved at the mean level of
showsanotherinteresting ecologicalfinding. all controlvariables)forhighneighborliness(mean +
1 sd) and low neighborliness(mean - 1 sd) are as fol-
Small-cityresidents moretiesto their lows:At highneighborliness,
register y = -.9781+ .1110(disor-
neighborsthando suburbanresidents, once der); at low neighborliness, y = -.7630 + .0404(disor-
disorderis takenintoaccount.Suburbanresi- der). Neighborlybehaviordoes not bufferthe effect
dentsreportlowerlevelsofneighborhood dis- ofperceivedneighborhooddisorder.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:15:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NEIGHBORHOOD DISORDER AND PERCEIVED POWERLESSNESS 243
hoodswhereresidentsreporta greatdeal of perceivedpowerlessness. These informal ties
disorderthan do suburbs,small cities,and may provideprotectionfromthe negative
smalltownsand ruralareas.The neighbor- effectsof neighborhooddisorder.Perceived
hood, more thanthe cityitself,shapes per- disorder,however,decreasessocial tieswith
ceptionsof powerlessness. The same is true neighbors.Thus the supportivebenefitsto
of disorderin the neighborhood, morethan personalcontrolthatneighborliness provides
concentrated povertyper se. The "urbaniza- are less common among individualswho,
tionof poverty"(Massey 1996) affectspeo- because of conditions in their neighbor-
ple's sense of powerlessness largelythrough hoods,need suchsupportthemost.
theperceivedbreakdownofsocialorderand Chicagoresidentshave fewersocial ties
controlin theimmediateneighborhood. withtheirneighborsthan do residentsof
Livingwithdisorderin one's neighbor- smallcities,suburbs,and ruralareas,butthis
hood correlatessignificantly withsubjective situationis explainedby Chicago'stroubled
powerlessness. In some neighborhoods, neighborhoods.Adjustmentfor neighbor-
mechanismsof social controlare working. hood disorderrendersinsignificant the neg-
These neighborhoodsare characterizedby ative effectof livingin Chicago on ties to
perceivedorder:Residentsreportthatthe neighbors. Previousresearchfoundthatresi-
streetsare clean and quiet,thereis littleor dentsoflargecitieshad no fewersocialcon-
no vandalismor graffiti, propertyis main- nectionswithfriendsand familythan did
tained,and people feelsafe.Otherneighbor- others,but theyreportedfewersocial con-
hoods lack effectivesocial controlmecha- nectionswiththeirneighbors(Fischer1973,
nismsand expose residentsto a barrageof 1976,1982). We findthatties to neighbors
uncontrollable,negative reinforcements are not affectedby urbanismper se, but by
such as noise, vandalism,crime,garbage, the factthatthe citycontainsmore neigh-
trouble,fights, and danger.Throughcontin- borhoodswhereorderand controlhave bro-
ued contactwithundesirableand uncontrol- kendown.
lable conditionsand eventsin one's neigh- Our sample is limitedto residentsof
borhood, people may learn that theyare one state,Illinois.For the purpose of this
helplessto controlimportant lifeoutcomes. study,however,Illinoisprovidesgood com-
Theylearn thattheycannotachieve a goal parative data. It is one of the states that
mostpeople desire:to live in a clean, safe includesruralareas,smalltowns,smallcities,
environment freefromharassment,drugs, and a majormetropolitan area,Chicago.As
and danger.This knowledgecreatesa sense Fischer(1976) notes,to say anythingvalid
ofpowerlessness. aboutlifein largecities,one mustcompareit
Urbanareasandpoorneighborhoods are with life in smaller locales. Chicago, the
characterizedby more disorder than are largecitystudiedhere,providesintellectual
otherplaces. Forty-two percentof Chicago continuitywiththe early urban sociology
residentsreporthighlevels of disorderin conductedin Chicago.Nonetheless, although
theirneighborhood, comparedwith12.4per- large cities have manythingsin common,
centin smallcities,8.7percentin suburbs, and theydifferin manyrespects.Cities in the
6.4 percentin small townsand ruralareas. midwestand the northeastare different
People who live in neighborhoods in which from those studied by Fischer (1982)in
25 percentor more of the households are NorthernCalifornia.For "example,half of
poor reportmuchmoredisorder:52 percent thetotalincreasein concentrated (or "ghet-
of residentsof poor neighborhoodsreport to") povertyduringthe 1970swas explained
highlevelsofdisorder, comparedwith10 per- by just two cities:New York and Chicago
centin nonpoorneighborhoods. most (Wilson1991).In addition,our data are lim-
Finally,
of this concentrated poverty is urban: itedto one cross-section, butit is likelythat
Chicago residentsare six timesas likelyas reciprocaleffects exist.For example,individ-
otherIllinoisresidents to livein a poorneigh- uals whofeelpowerlessmaybe less likelyto
borhood(18% and 3% resectively). formties withneighbors, and lack of social
Neighborswho formsocial bonds with ties withneighborsmay exacerbateneigh-
each otherreportsignificantly lowerlevelsof borhooddisorder.Individualswhofeelpow-

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:15:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
244 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
erless and helplessmay abandon effortsto
maintaincontrolin the neighborhood;this
situationin turn,allows disorderto prevail.
Giventhetheoryand theassumptions about
causal order,we findsupportforthehypoth-
esized effects,but examinationof possible
reciprocaleffectsawaitslongitudinaldata.
Accordingto Massey (1996), neighbor-
hoods withconcentratedpovertyengender
violentbehaviorin theirresidents.In these
neighborhoods, whereinformalsocial con-
trolis weak and violence is common,resi-
dentsadapt to violenceby becomingviolent
themselves. Perceived powerlessness is
anotherresponse.Althoughno directempir-
ical comparisonexistsbetween the preva-
lence of violenceand theprevalenceof per-
ceived powerlessnessin disorderedneigh-
borhoods,we thinkthatfewpeople in these
neighborhoodswill become violent.Many,
however,will give up hope and will feel
powerlessto improvetheirlives.
REFERENCES
Bryk,AnthonyS. and StephenW. Raudenbush.
1992.HierarchicalLinearModels.Newbury
Park,CA: Sage.
Bursik,Robert J.,Jr.and Harold G. Grasmick.
1993.Neighborhoods and Crime.New York:
LexingtonBooks.
Campbell, Karen E. and BarrettA. Lee. 1992.
"Sources of Personal Neighborhood
Networks: Social Integration, Need or
Time?"Social Forces70:1077-100.
Elder,Glen H. and Jeffrey K. Liker.1982."Hard
Times in Women's Lives: Historical
Influences across 40 Years." American
JournalofSociology88:241-69.
ClaudeS. 1973."On UrbanAlienations
Fischer, and
Anomie:Powerlessness and SocialIsolation."
American SociologicalReview38:311-26.
. 1976. The Urban Experience. New York:
HarcourtBrace Jovanovich.
. 1982. To Dwell among Friends. Chicago:
University ofChicagoPress.
Gans, Herbert J. 1962. "Urbanism and Pearlin, Leonard I., Elizabeth G. Menaghan,
Surburbanism as Ways of Life: A Re-
Evaluation of Definitions."Pp. 625-48 in
HumanBehaviorand Social Processes,edit-
ed by Arnold M. Rose. Boston: Houghton Perkins,Douglas D. and Ralph B. Taylor.1996.
Mifflin.
Garofalo,Jamesand JohnLaub. 1978."The Fear
of Crime: Broadening Our Perspective."
Victimology 3:242-53.
Gecas, Viktor.1989. "The Social Psychologyof
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:15:49 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
QUARTERLY
Self-Efficacy."Annual Reviewof Sociology
15:291-316.
Gerson,Kathleen,C. Ann Stueve,and Claude S.
Fischer. 1977. "Attachment to Place."
Pp.139-61in Networks and Places,editedby
Claude S. Fischer.NewYork:FreePress.
Greene,WilliamH. 1990.EconometricAnalysis.
NewYork:Macmillan.
Hiroto,Donald S. 1974. "Locus of Controland
Learned Helplessness." Journal of
Experimental Psychology 102:187-93.
LaGrange, Randy L., Kenneth F. Ferraro,and
Michael Supancic. 1992. "Perceived Risk
and Fear of Crime: Role of Social and
PhysicalIncivilities."
Journalof Researchin
Crimeand Delinquency29:311-34.
Lee, Barrett A. 1981. "The Urban Unease
Revisited:Perceptionsof Local Safetyand
Neighborhood Satisfaction among
Metropolitan Residents." Social Science
Quarterly 62:611-29.
Lewis, Dan A. and Greta Salem. 1986. Fear of
Crime:Incivilityand the Productionof a
Social Problem. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Lund, Laura and William E. Wright. 1994.
"Mitofsky-Waksberg vs. ScreenedRandom
Digit Dial: Reporton a Comparisonof the
SampleCharacteristics ofTwo RDD Survey
Designs." Presented at the 11th annual
BRFSS conference of the Centers for
Disease Control, Atlanta.
Massey,Douglas S. 1996."The Age of Extremes:
Concentrated Affluenceand Povertyin the
Twenty-First Century."Demography33:395-
412.
Mirowsky,Johnand Catherine E. Ross. 1986.
"Social Patterns of Distress." Annual
ReviewofSociology12:23-45.
._ 1989. Social Causes of Psychological
Distress.NewYork:Aldine.
.1991. "Eliminating Defense and
Agreement Bias from Measures of the
Sense of Control:A 2 x 2 Index." Social
Psychology Quarterly54:127-45.
Park,RobertE., ErnestW Burgess,and Roderick
D. McKenzie. 1925. The City. Chicago:
University ofChicagoPress.
Morton A. Lieberman, and Joseph T.
Mullan.1981."The StressProcess."Journal
ofHealthand Social Behavior22:337-56.
"Ecological Assessments of Community
Disorder: Their Relationship to Fear of
Crime and Theoretical Implications."
American Journal of Community
Psychology 24:63-107.
 NEIGHBORHOOD DISORDER AND PERCEIVED POWERLESSNESS 245
Rohe,WilliamM. and MichaelA. Stegman.1994. Medicine41:517-25.
"The Impact of Home Ownershipon the Seeman, Melvin and Theresa Seeman. 1983.
Social and Political Involvementof Low- "Health Behaviorand PersonalAutonomy:
Income People." UrbanAffairsQuarterly A Longitudinal Study of the Sense of
30:152-72. Controlin Illness."Journalof Health and
Rosenfield,Sarah.1989."The EffectsofWomen's Social Behavior24:144-60.
Employment:Personal Control and Sex Seligman,Martin E.P. 1975. Helplessness. San
Differencesin Mental Health."Journalof Fransisco:Freeman.
Healthand Social Behavior30:77-91. Simmel, Georg. 1969. "The Metropolis and
Ross, Catherine E. and JohnMirowsky.1992. MentalLife."Pp. 47-60in ClassicEssayson
"Households,Employment, and the Sense the Culture of Cities,edited by Richard
of Control."Social PsychologyQuarterly Sennett. New York: Appleton-Century-
55:217-35. Crofts.
Rotter,JulianB. 1966."GeneralizedExpectancies Skogan,WesleyG. 1990. Disorder and Decline.
for Internal versus External Control of Berkeley:University ofCaliforniaPress.
Reinforcement." PsychologicalMonographs Skogan,WesleyG. and MichaelG. Maxfield.1981.
80:1-28. CopingwithCrime.BeverlyHills:Sage.
Seeman, Melvin. 1959. "On the Meaning of Taylor, Ralph B. and Margaret Hale. 1986.
Alienation."AmericanSociologicalReview "Testing Alternative Models of Fear of
24:783-91. Crime." Journal of Criminal Law and
. 1971. "The Urban Alienations: Some Criminology 77:151-89.
Dubious Theses fromMarx to Marcuse." Tittle,CharlesR. 1989."Influenceson Urbanism:
Journal of Personality and Social A Test of Predictions from Three
Psychology 19:135-43. Perspectives."Social Problems36:270-88.
.1983. "Alienation Motifsin Contemporary Waksberg, Joseph.1978."SamplingMethodsfor
Theorizing: The Hidden Continuity of Random Digit Dialing." Journal of the
Classic Themes." Social Psychology AmericanStatisticalAssociation73:40-6.
Quarterly 46:171-84. Wheaton, Blair. 1980. "The Sociogenesis of
Seeman,Melvinand CarolynS. Anderson.1983. PsychologicalDisorder:An Attributional
"AlienationandAlcohol:The Role ofWork, Theory." Journal of Health and Social
Mastery, and Community in Drinking Behavior21:100-24.
Behavior."AmericanSociological Review Wilson,WilliamJulius.1991."Studying Inner-City
48:60-77. $ocial Dislocations:The ChallengeofPublic
Seeman, Melvin and Susan Lewis. 1995. Agenda Research."AmericanSociological
"Powerlessness,Health and Mortality:A Review56:1-14.
Longitudinal Study of Older Men and Wirth,Louis. 1938."Urbanismas a Wayof Life."
Mature Women." Social Science and AmericanJournalofSociology44:1-24.

Karlyn J. Geis is a doctoralstudentin theDepartmentof Sociology at The Ohio State

She is theManagingEditorof theJournalof Health and Social Behavior.Her
University.
researchinterests
includecommunity and neighborhoodeffects
onpsychological well-being.

CatherineE. Ross is Professorof Sociologyat The Ohio State University. She studiesthe
effectsof work,familyand community on men'sand women'shealth,mentalhealth,and their
sense of controlversuspowerlessness.
She is principalinvestigatoron a grantfromNIMH,
"Community, Crimeand Health" (ChetBritt,co-p.i.),and co-p.i.withJohnMirowskyon a
grantfromNIA, "Aging,Status,and theSense of Control"and on a grantfromNIMH,
"Children, ChildCare and PsychologicalWell-being."
Recentpublicationsinclude"Economic
and InterpersonalWorkRewards:SubjectiveUtilities of Men's and Women'sCompensation"
Social Forces,1996,withJohnMirowsky;"Educationand theSubjectiveQualityof Life"
Journalof Health and Social Behavior, 1997, withMarieke Van Willigen,and "Social
Stratification
and Health:Education'sBenefitBeyondEconomicStatusand Social Origins"
Social Problems,1998,withJohnReynolds.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:15:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
246 SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY
Appendix.Measures forVariables

Mirowsky/Ross
Scale of PerceivedPowerlessnessversusControl

Controlover Good Outcomes:

(1) I am responsibleformyown successes.
(2) I can do just about anythingI reallyset mymindto.
Controlover Bad Outcomes:
(3) My misfortunes are theresultof mistakesI have made.
(4) I am responsibleformyfailures.
Lack of Controlover Good Outcomes:
(5) The reallygood thingsthathappen to me are mostlyluck.
(6) There's no sense planninga lot-if somethinggood is goingto happen it will.
Lack of Controlover Bad Outcomes:
(7) Most of myproblemsare due to bad breaks.
(8) I have littlecontrolover thebad thingsthathappen to me.
Responses to the perceivedpowerlessnessquestions (5 through8) are coded -2 = stronglydisagree,-1 = dis-
agree,0 = neutral,1 = agree,2 = stronglyagree.Responses to questionson perceivedcontrol(1 through4) are
coded in reverse.We created a mean score perceivedpowerlessnessindex,coded fromperceivedcontrol(-2)
to perceivedpowerlessness(2) (alpha reliability= .68,mean = -.734).

Social Ties withNeighbors

(1) How oftendo you visitinformallywithneighbors?
(2) How oftendo you chatwithneighbors?
(3) How oftendo you and yourneighborshelp each otherout by lendingthingslike tools,givingsome
one a ride,or watchingeach other'shouses whenyou'reaway?
All itemsare coded 1 = never,2 = seldom,3 '- sometimes,and 4 = often.From these responseswe created a
mean score (alpha reliability= .823,mean = 3.078).

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.49 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 12:15:49 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions