Who is watching: exploring individual factors that explain supervision patterns among residential guardians

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Supervision has been identified within criminology as an important element of crime prevention; however, little is known about the individual factors that explain this behaviour among residential guardians. Unique self-report data on daily surveillance routines of residents were gathered from a national sample of 4824 respondents in the Netherlands to explore the key factors that facilitate and inhibit supervision. It was tentatively estimated that residents carry out supervision roughly a quarter of the time they are at home. Further analyses revealed that individual resident characteristics, such as their perceptions of crime, sense of responsibility for guarding, security training, courageousness and national security values positively predict supervision intensity. Conversely, self-esteem and trust were found to negatively affect supervision. Results suggest that manipulable individual factors such as attitudes are more important at predicting supervision than comparatively static factors such as personality. Implications for criminological theory that explains the concept of supervision as a function of guardianship, and how it can be fostered as a crime control mechanism within residential contexts, will be discussed.

Keywords

Guardianship Supervision Surveillance Monitoring Environmental criminology Crime prevention 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Amato, P. R. (1990). Personality and social network involvement as predictors of helping behavior in everyday life. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53(1), 31–43.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2786867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkins, R., Hart, D., & Donnelly, T. M. (2005). The association of childhood personality type with volunteering during adolescene. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51(2), 145–162.  https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2005.0008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atlas, R. (1991). The other side of defensible space. Security Management, 63–66.Google Scholar
  4. Azjen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behaviour (2nd ed.). Berkshire, England: Open Univesity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Banyard, V. L. (2008). Measurement and correlates of prosocial bystander behavior: The case of interpersonal violence. Violence and Victims, 23(1), 83–97.  https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.23.1.83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barr, R., & Pease, K. (1992). A place for every crime and every crime in its place: An alternative prespective on crime displacement. In D. J. Evans, N. R. Fyfe, & D. T. Herbert (Eds.), Crime, policing and place: Essays in environmental criminology (pp. 164–195). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Beavis, C., & Nutter, J. B. (1977). Changing street layouts to reduce residential burglary. Paper presented at the American Society of Crimonology, Atlana, U.S.Google Scholar
  8. Beavon, D. J. K., Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1994). The influence of street networks on the patterning of property offences. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention studies (Vol. 2, pp. 115–148). New York: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bennett, T., & Wright, R. T. (1984). Burglars on burglary: Prevention and the offender. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, B. B., & Altman, I. (1983). Territoriality, defensible space and residential burglary: An environmental analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(3), 203–220.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80001-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlo, G., Okun, M. A., Knight, G. P., & de Guzman, M. R. T. (2005). The interplay of traits and motives on volunteering: agreeableness, extraversion and prosocial value motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(6), 1293–1305.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.08.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cemalcilar, Z. (2009). Understanding individual characteristics of adolescents who volunteer. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 432–436.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.11.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christy, C. A., & Voigt, H. (1994). Bystander responses to public episodes of child abuse. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(9), 824–847.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00614.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke, R. V. (1980). Situational crime prevention: Theory and practice. British Journal of Criminology, 20(2), 136–147.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a047153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, L. E., & Cantor, D. (1980). The determinants of larceny: An empirical and theoretical study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17(2), 140–159.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002242788001700202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coupe, T., & Blake, L. (2006). Daylight and darkness targeting strategies and the risks of being seen at residential burglaries. Criminology, 44(2), 431–464.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00054.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis, M. H., Mitchell, K. V., Hall, J. A., Lothert, J., Snapp, T., & Meyer, M. (1999). Empathy, expectations, and situational preferences: Personality influences on the decision to participate in volunteer helping behaviors. Journal of Personality, 67(3), 469–503.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Einolf, C. J. (2008). Empathic concern and prosocial behaviors: A test of experimental results using survey data. Social Science Research, 37(4), 1267–1279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ekblom, P. (2011). Crime prevention, security and community safety using the 51s framework. Hampshire: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
  21. Felson, M. (1995). Those who discourage crime. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and place: Crime prevention studies (Vol. 4). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  22. Felson, M. (2006). Crime and nature. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Felson, M., & Eckert, M. (2016). Crime and everyday life (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Graziano, W., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007). Agreeableness, empathy and helping: A person x situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 583–599.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hollis-Peel, M. E., & Welsh, B. (2014). What makes a guardian capable? A test of guardianship in action. Security Journal, 27(3), 320–337.  https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2012.32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hollis-Peel, M. E., Reynald, D. M., & Welsh, B. (2012). Guardianship and crime: An international comparative study of guardianship in action. Crime, Law and Social Change, 58(1), 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-012-9366-1.
  27. Huston, T. L., Ruggiero, M., Conner, R., & Geis, G. (1981). Bystander intervention into crime: A study based on naturally-occurring episodes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44(1), 14–23 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3033858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Laner, M. R., Benin, M. H., & Ventrone, N. A. (2001). Bystander attitudes toward victims of violence: Who's worth helping? Deviant Behavior, 22(1), 23–42.  https://doi.org/10.1080/016396201750065793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MacDonald, J. E., & Gifford, R. (1989). Territorial cues and defensible space theory: The burglar's point of view. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9(3), 193–205.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(89)80034-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matsuba, M. K., Hart, D., & Atkins, R. (2007). Psychological and social-structural influences on commitment to volunteering. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 889–907.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miethe, T. D., & Meier, R. F. (1990). Opportunity, choice, and criminal victimization: A test of a theoretical model. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27(3), 243–266.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427890027003003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moir, E. (2017). Guardianship in the Brisbane suburbs: An exploratory study of crime control by residents in a non-urban context. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  33. Moriarty, L., & Williams, J. (1996). Examining the relationship between routine activities theory and social disorganization: An analysis of property crime victimization. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 21(1), 43–59.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02887429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moseley, M. J. (1979). Accessibility: The rural challenge. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  35. Næss, P. (2006). Accessibility, activity participation and location of activities: Exploring the links between residential location and travel behaviour. Urban Studies, 43(3), 627–652.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500534677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through Urban Design. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Nicksa, S. C. (2013). Bystander’s willingness to report theft, physical assault, and sexual assault: The impact of gender, anonymity, and relationship with the offender. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(2), 217–236.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ohmer, M. L., Warner, B. D., & Beck, E. (2010). Preventing violence in low-income communities: Facilitating residents' ability to intervene in neighborhood problems. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 37(2), 161–181 http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol37/iss2/8.Google Scholar
  39. Penner, L. A., & Finkelstein, M. A. (1998). Dispostional and structural determinants of volunteerism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 525–537.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 365–392.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reynald, D. M. (2009). Guardianship in action: Developing a new tool for measurement. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 11(1), 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1057/cpcs.2008.19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reynald, D. M. (2010). Guardians on guardianship: Factors affecting the willingness to supervise, the ability to detect potential offenders, and the willingness to intervene. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(3), 358–390.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427810365904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reynald, D. M. (2011a). Factors associated with the guardianship of places: Assessing the relative importance of the spatio-physical and sociodemographic contexts in generating opportunities for capable guardianship. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(1), 110–142.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427810384138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reynald, D. M. (2011b). Guarding against crime: Measuring guardianship within routine activity theory. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. Reynald, D. M., & Elffers, H. (2009). The future of Newman’s defensible space theory. European Journal of Criminology, 6(1), 25–46.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370808098103.
  46. Reynald, D. M., & Elffers, H. (2015). The routine activity of guardianship: Comparing self-reports of guardianship intensity patterns with proxy measures. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 17, 211–232.  https://doi.org/10.1057/cpcs.2015.9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reynald, D. M., & van Bavel, M. (2013). Retirees in action: Exploring the intensity of guardianship provided by Dutch residents over the age of 65. In S. Ruiter, W. Bernasco, W. Huisman, & G. Bruinsma (Eds.), Eenvoud en verscheidenheid: Liber amicorum voor Henk Elffers. Amsterdam: NSCR & VU.Google Scholar
  48. Sampson, R., Eck, J. E., & Dunham, J. (2010). Super controllers and crime prevention: A routine activity explanation of crime prevention success and failure. Security Journal, 23(1), 37–51.  https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2009.17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tseloni, A., Osborn, D. R., Trickett, A., & Pease, K. (2002). Modelling property crime using the British crime survey. What have we learnt? British Journal of Criminology, 42(1), 109–128.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/42.1.109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tseloni, A., Wittebrood, K., Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (2004). Burglary victimization in England and Wales, the United States and the Netherlands. British Journal of Criminology, 44(1), 66–91.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/44.1.66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Wee, B. (2002). Land use and transport: Research and policy challenges. Journal of Transport Geography, 10(4), 259–271.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(02)00041-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weisel, D. L. (2002). Burglary of single-family houses. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
  53. Welsh, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Surveillance for crime prevention in public space: Results and policy choices in Britain and America. Criminology & Public Policy, 3(3), 497–526.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2004.tb00058.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. White, G. F. (1990). Neighborhood permeability and burglary rates. Justice Quarterly, 7(1), 57–67.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829000090471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilcox, P., Madensen, T. D., & Tillyer, M. S. (2007). Guardianship in context: Implications for burglary victimization risk and prevention. Criminology, 45(4), 771–803.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00094.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Griffith Criminology Institute and School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeGriffith UniversityMt GravattAustralia

Personalised recommendations