"Broken Windows" Theory or the ‘Monkey See Monkey Do’ Theory?
These ideas are based on page A11 in The Oregonian * Friday, November 21, 2008 – Study bolsters ‘broken windows’ theory (of policing) – Crime | Litter-, graffiti- laden areas invite more violations, Dutch researchers say – …by Karen Kaplan, reporting for LA Times -The Washington Post.
I’ll begin at the end. Hope you don’t mind reading backwards!
My theory is a bit more simplistic. People get “sloppy” when their “world” gets sloppy. Rather than calling it the broken window theory why not call it the Monkey See Monkey Do theory?
The idea that seeing more littering (when surroundings are messy) is significant is disputed by Bernard Harcourt , professor of law and criminology at University of Chicago. He believes the idea of looking at littering behavior is too quaint and that studying violence is a more academic endeavor. I disagree. Monkeys will mimic anything they are exposed to and that “interests” them. I believe Keizer is on to something here. His studies are related to providing information to law enforcement agencies. I can see that.
The results of Keez Keizer’s research is what this debate is all about. As a graduate student at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, he did some interesting studies and recently published his results in the journal Science. i.e. He left fake flyers on peoples cars in a grocery store parking lot. The store had a wall without graffiti and a sign saying NO GRAFFITI! People littered with the flyers at a rate of 33%. When the wall was graffiti covered, the rate increased to 69%. The other scenarios he invented and tested were also significant.
So, is Keizer’s study simply quaint as Harcourt contends or do these more innocuous behaviors really reflect the tendencies seen in more egregious crimes?
Hmmmm…
