Social Networks and Crime: Pitfalls and Promises for Advancing the Field

Literature Cited

1. Akers RL 1985. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. , 3rd ed..
   [Google Scholar]
2. Baker WE, Faulkner RR 1993. The social organization of conspiracy: illegal networks in the heavy electrical equipment industry. Am. Soc. Rev. 58:6837–60
   [Google Scholar]
3. Batchelder WH, Anders R, Oravecz Z 2018. Cultural consensus theory. Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Methodology E Wagenmakers, JT Wixtd 201–64 Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. , 4th ed..
   [Google Scholar]
4. Berlusconi G, Aziani A, Giommoni L 2017. The determinants of heroin flows in Europe: a latent space approach. Soc. Netw. 51:104–17
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bichler G, Malm A, Cooper T 2017. Drug supply networks: a systematic review of the organizational structure of illicit drug trade. Crime Sci 6:12
   [Google Scholar]
6. Boessen A, Hipp JR, Butts CT, Nagle NN, Smith EJ 2017. Social fabric and fear of crime: considering spatial location and time of day. Soc. Netw. 51:60–72
   [Google Scholar]
7. Borgatti SP 2003. The key player problem. Dynamic Social Network Modeling and Analysis: Workshop Summary and Papers R Breiger, K Carley, P Pattison 241–52 Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
   [Google Scholar]
8. Borgatti SP, Halgin DS 2011. On network theory. Organ. Sci. 22:51168–81
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bouchard M, Nguyen H 2011. Professionals or amateurs? Revisiting the notion of professional crime in the context of cannabis cultivation. World Wide Weed: Global Trends in Cannabis Cultivation and Control T Decourte, GR Potter, M Bouchard 109–25 Burlington, VT: Ashgate
   [Google Scholar]
10. Brandes U, Kenis P, Raab J 2006. Explanation through network visualization. Methodol. Eur. J. Res. Methods Behav. Soc. Sci. 2:116–23
    [Google Scholar]
11. Brands RA 2013. Cognitive social structures in social network research: a review. J. Org. Behav. 34:S1S82–103
    [Google Scholar]
12. Browning CR, Calder CA, Boettner B, Smith A 2017.a Ecological networks and urban crime: the structure of shared routine activity locations and neighborhood-level informal control capacity. Criminology 55:4754–78
    [Google Scholar]
13. Browning CR, Calder CA, Soller B, Jackson AL, Dirlam J 2017.b Ecological networks and neighborhood social organization. Am. J. Soc. 122:61939–88
    [Google Scholar]
14. Browning CR, Dietz RD, Feinberg SL 2004. The paradox of social organization: networks, collective efficacy, and violent crime in urban neighborhoods. Soc. Forces 83:2503–34
    [Google Scholar]
15. Browning CR, Soller B, Jackson AL 2015. Neighborhoods and adolescent health-risk behavior: an ecological network approach. Soc. Sci. Med. 125:163–72
    [Google Scholar]
16. Butts CT 2006. Exact bounds for degree centralization. Soc. Netw. 28:4283–96
    [Google Scholar]
17. Butts CT 2008. Social network analysis: a methodological introduction. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 11:113–41
    [Google Scholar]
18. Butts CT 2009. Revisiting the foundations of network analysis. Science 325:5939414–16
    [Google Scholar]
19. Butts CT, Acton RM, Hipp JR, Nagle NN 2012. Geographical variability and network structure. Soc. Netw. 34:182–100
    [Google Scholar]
20. Butts CT, Hipp JR, Nagle NN, Boessen A, Acton RM 2014. The American Social Fabric Study Irvine, CA: NCASD http://lakshmi.calit2.uci.edu/ncasd/?page_id=194
21. Calderoni F 2012. The structure of drug trafficking mafias: the ‘Ndrangheta and cocaine. Crime Law Soc. Change 58:3321–49
    [Google Scholar]
22. Christakis NA, Fowler JH 2009. Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives New York: Little Brown
    [Google Scholar]
23. Cohen J, Tita GE 1999. Diffusion in homicide: exploring a general method for detecting spatial diffusion processes. J. Quant. Criminol. 15:4451–93
    [Google Scholar]
24. Cohen-Cole E, Fletcher JM 2008. Detecting implausible social network effects in acne, height, and headaches: longitudinal analysis. BMJ 337:a2533
    [Google Scholar]
25. Decker SH, Pyrooz DC 2010. On the validity and reliability of gang homicide: a comparison of disparate sources. Homicide Stud 14:359–76
    [Google Scholar]
26. DellaPosta D 2017. Network closure and integration in the mid-20th century American mafia. Soc. Netw. 51:148–57
    [Google Scholar]
27. Descormiers K, Morselli C 2011. Alliances, contradictions and conflict in Montreal street gangs landscape. Int. Crim. Justice Rev. 21:3297–314
    [Google Scholar]
28. Erickson BH 1981. Secret societies and social structure. Soc. Forces 60:1188–210
    [Google Scholar]
29. Fox K 2013. New developments and implications for understanding the victimization of gang members. Violence Vict 28:61015–40
    [Google Scholar]
30. Freeman LC 1979. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc. Netw. 1:3215–39
    [Google Scholar]
31. Friedkin NE 1981. The development of structure in random networks: an analysis of the effects of increasing network density on five measures of structure. Soc. Netw. 3:141–52
    [Google Scholar]
32. Gestener D, Oberwittler D 2018. Who's hanging out and what's happening? A look at the interplay between unstructured socializing, crime propensity and delinquent peers using social network data. Eur. J. Crim. 15:1111–29
    [Google Scholar]
33. Graif C, Lungeanu A, Yetter AM 2017. Neighborhood isolation in Chicago: violent crime effects on structural isolation and homophily in inter-neighborhood commuting networks. Soc. Netw. 51:40–59
    [Google Scholar]
34. Grannis R 1998. The importance of trivial streets: residential streets and residential segregation. Am. J. Sociol. 103:61530–64
    [Google Scholar]
35. Gravel J 2018. On the use of police records for social network analysis PhD Diss., Univ. Calif Irvine:
36. Gravel J, Tita GE 2017. Network perspectives on crime. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology S Messner, H Pontel Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
37. Gravel J, Tita GE 2015. With great methods come great responsibilities: Social network analysis in the implementation and analysis of gang programs. Crim. Public Policy 14:3559–72
    [Google Scholar]
38. Green B, Horel T, Papachristos AV 2017. Modeling contagion through social networks to explain and predict gunshot violence in Chicago, 2006 to 2014. JAMA Intern. Med. 177:3326–33
    [Google Scholar]
39. Grund T, Morselli C 2017. Overlapping crime: stability and specialization of co-offending relationships. Soc. Netw. 51:14–22
    [Google Scholar]
40. Grund TU, Densley JA 2015. Ethnic homophily and triad closure: mapping internal gang structure using exponential random graph models. J. Contemp. Crim. Justice 31:3354–70
    [Google Scholar]
41. Harris KM 2009. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), Waves I & II, 1994–1996; Wave III, 2001–2002; Wave IV, 2007–2009 Chapel Hill, NC: Carol. Popul. Cent.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Haynie DL 2001. Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter?. Am. J. Sociol. 106:1013–57
    [Google Scholar]
43. Haynie DL, Doogan N, Soller B 2014. Gender, friendship networks and delinquency: a dynamic network approach. Criminology 526:688–722
    [Google Scholar]
44. Haynie DL, Osgood DW 2005. Reconsidering peers and delinquency: How do peers matter?. Soc. Forces 84:1109–30
    [Google Scholar]
45. Heider F 1946. Attitudes and cognitive organization. J. Psych. 21:1107–12
    [Google Scholar]
46. Heckathorn DD 1997. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc. Probl. 44:2174–99
    [Google Scholar]
47. Hipp JR 2007. Block, tract, and levels of aggregation: neighborhood structure and crime disorder as a case in point. Am. Soc. Rev. 72:5659–80
    [Google Scholar]
48. Hipp JR, Boessen A 2013. Egohoods as waves washing across the city: a new measure of “neighborhoods.”. Criminology 51:2287–327
    [Google Scholar]
49. Hipp JR, Butts CT, Acton R, Nagle NN, Boessen A 2013. Extrapolative simulation of neighborhood networks based on population spatial distribution: Do they predict crime?. Soc. Netw. 35:4614–25
    [Google Scholar]
50. Hipp JR, Perrin AJ 2009. The simultaneous effect of social distance and physical distance on the formation of neighborhood ties. City Community 8:15–25
    [Google Scholar]
51. Howell JC 2015. The History of Street Gangs in the United States: Their Origins and Transformations New York: Lexington Books
    [Google Scholar]
52. James R, Croft DP, Krause J 2009. Potential banana skins in animal social network analysis. Behav. Ecol. . Sociobiol 63:7989–97
    [Google Scholar]
53. Kennedy DM, Piehl AM, Braga AA 1996. Youth violence in Boston: gun markets, serious youth offenders, and a use-reduction strategy. Law Contemp. Probl. 59:1147–96
    [Google Scholar]
54. Klein MW, Maxson CL 2006. Gang Structures, Crime Patterns, and Police Responses Washington, DC: US Dep. Justice
    [Google Scholar]
55. Krackhardt D 1987. Cognitive social structures. Soc. Netw. 9:2109–34
    [Google Scholar]
56. Kreager DA, Schaefer DR, Bouchard M, Haynie DL, Wakefield S et al. 2016. Toward a criminology of inmate networks. Justice Q 33:61000–28
    [Google Scholar]
57. Krebs VE 2002. Mapping networks of terrorist cells. Connections 24:343–52
    [Google Scholar]
58. Krohn MD 1986. The web of conformity: a network approach to the explanation of delinquent behavior. Soc. Probl. 33:581–593
    [Google Scholar]
59. Lyons R 2011. The spread of evidence-poor medicine via flawed social-network analysis. Stat. Politics Policy 2:12
    [Google Scholar]
60. Malm A, Bichler G 2011. Networks of collaborating criminals: assessing the structural vulnerability of drug markets. J. Res. Crim. Delinquency 48:2271–97
    [Google Scholar]
61. Malm A, Bichler G, Van De Walle S 2010. Comparing the ties that bind: Is blood thicker than water?. Secur. J. 23:152–74
    [Google Scholar]
62. McGloin JM, Nguyen H 2013. The importance of studying co-offending networks in criminological theory and policy. Crime Networks C Morselli 13–27 New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
63. McGloin JM, Piquero A 2010. On the relationship between co-offending network redundancy and offending versatility. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 47:63–90
    [Google Scholar]
64. McGrath C, Blythe J, Krackhardt D 1997. The effect of spatial arrangement on judgments and errors in interpreting graphs. Soc. Netw. 19:3223–42
    [Google Scholar]
65. Morenoff JD, Sampson RJ 1997. Violent crime and the spatial dynamics of neighborhood transition: Chicago, 1970–1990. Soc. Forces 76:131–64
    [Google Scholar]
66. Morselli C 2009. Inside Criminal Networks, 8 New York: Springer
67. Morselli C 2010. Assessing vulnerable and strategic positions in a criminal network. J. Contemp. Crim. Justice 26:4382–92
    [Google Scholar]
68. Morselli C 2013. Crime and Networks New York: Routledge
69. Morselli C, Giguère C, Petit K 2007. The efficiency/security trade-off in criminal networks. Soc. Netw. 29:1143–53
    [Google Scholar]
70. Morselli C, Paquet-Clouston M, Provost C 2017. The independent's edge in an illegal drug distribution setting: Levitt and Venkatesh revisited. Soc. Netw. 51:118–26
    [Google Scholar]
71. Morselli C, Tremblay P 2004. Criminal achievement, offender networks, and the benefits of low self-control. Criminology 42:3773–804
    [Google Scholar]
72. Ouellet M, Bouchard M, Hart M 2017. Criminal collaboration and risk: the drivers of Al Qaeda's network structure before and after 9/11. Soc. Netw. 51:171–77
    [Google Scholar]
73. Papachristos AV 2009. Murder by structure: dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide. Am. J. Soc. 115:174–128
    [Google Scholar]
74. Papachristos AV 2011. The coming of a networked criminology. Adv. Criminol. Theory 17:101–40
    [Google Scholar]
75. Papachristos AV 2013. The importance of cohesion for gang research, policy and practice. Crim. Public Policy 12:149–58
    [Google Scholar]
76. Papachristos AV, Braga AA, Hureau DM 2012. Social networks and the risk of gunshot injury. J. Urban Health 89:6992–1003
    [Google Scholar]
77. Papachristos AV, Braga AA, Piza E, Grossman LS 2015.a The company you keep? The spillover effects of gang membership on individual gunshot victimization in a co-offending network. Criminology 53:4624–49
    [Google Scholar]
78. Papachristos AV, Hureau DM, Braga AA 2013. The corner and the crew: the influence of geography and social networks on gang violence. Am. Soc. Rev. 78:3417–47
    [Google Scholar]
79. Papachristos AV, Wildeman C 2014. Network exposure and homicide victimization in an African American community. Am. J. Public Health 104:1143–50
    [Google Scholar]
80. Papachristos AV, Wildeman C, Roberto E 2015.b Tragic, but not random: the social contagion of nonfatal gunshot injuries. Soc. Sci. Med. 125:139–50
    [Google Scholar]
81. Patillo ME 1998. Sweet mothers and gangbangers: managing crime in a black middle-class neighborhood. Soc. Forces 76:3747–74
    [Google Scholar]
82. Patillo ME 2013. Black Picket Fences: Privilege and Peril Among the Black Middle Class Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
83. Pyrooz DC, Decker SH, Fleisher MS 2011. From the street to the prison, from the prison to the street: understanding and responding to prison gangs. J. Aggress. Confl. Peace Res. 3:112–24
    [Google Scholar]
84. Radil SM, Flint C, Tita GE 2010. Spatializing social networks: using social network analysis to investigate geographies of gang rivalry, territoriality and violence in Los Angeles. Annal. Assoc. Am. Geog. 100:2307–26
    [Google Scholar]
85. Rees C, Pogarsky G 2011. One bad apple may not spoil the whole bunch: best friends and adolescent delinquency. J. Quant. Crim. 27:2197–223
    [Google Scholar]
86. Reiss AJ Jr 1986. Co-offender influences on criminal careers. Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals,” A Blumstein, J Cohen, J Roth, C Visher 121–60 Washington DC: Natl. Acad. Press
    [Google Scholar]
87. Robins G 2013. A tutorial on methods for the modeling and analysis of social network data. J. Math. Psychol. 57:6261–74
    [Google Scholar]
88. Robins G, Alexander M 2004. Small worlds among interlocking directors: network structure and distance in bipartite graphs. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 10:169–94
    [Google Scholar]
89. Romney AK, Weller SC, Batchelder WH 1986. Culture as consensus: a theory of culture and informant accuracy. Am. Anthropol. 88:2313–38
    [Google Scholar]
90. Sampson RJ 1988. Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: a multi-level systemic model. Am. Soc. Rev. 53:5766–79
    [Google Scholar]
91. Sampson RJ, Groves WB 1989. Community structure and crime: testing social disorganization theory. Am. J. Soc. 94:4774–802
    [Google Scholar]
92. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F 1997. Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277:5328918–24
    [Google Scholar]
93. Sarneki J 1986. Delinquent Networks Stockholm, Swed: Natl. Counc. Crime Prev.
94. Sarnecki J 1990. Delinquent networks in Sweden. J. Quant. Criminol. 6:131–50
    [Google Scholar]
95. Schaefer DR 2012. Youth co-offending networks: an investigation of social and spatial effects. Soc. Netw. 34:1141–49
    [Google Scholar]
96. Schaefer DR 2018. A network analysis of factors leading adolescents to befriend substance-using peers. J. Quant. Crim. 34:1275–312
    [Google Scholar]
97. Schaefer DR, Bouchard M, Young JT, Kreager DA 2017. Friends in locked places: an investigation of prison inmate network structure. Soc. Netw. 51:88–103
    [Google Scholar]
98. Shaw C, McKay H 1969. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
99. Sierra-Arévalo M, Papachristos AV 2015. Social network analysis and gangs. The Handbook of Gangs SH Decker, DC Pyrooz 157–77 Malden, MA: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
100. Sierra-Arévalo M, Papachristos AV 2017. Social networks and gang violence reduction. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 13:373–93
     [Google Scholar]
101. Smith CM, Papachristos AV 2016. Trust thy crooked neighbor: multiplexity in Chicago organized crime networks. Am. Soc. Rev. 81:4644–67
     [Google Scholar]
102. Smith EJ, Marcum CS, Boessen A, Almquist ZW, Hipp JR et al. 2015. The relationship of age to personal network size, relational multiplexity, and proximity to alters in the western United States. J. Gerontol. Ser. B 70:191–99
     [Google Scholar]
103. Snijders TA 1996. Stochasitc actor-oriented models for network change. J. Math. Soc. 21:1–2149–72
     [Google Scholar]
104. Snijders TA 2001. The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociol. Methodol. 31:361–95
     [Google Scholar]
105. Snijders TA 2011. Statistical models for social networks. Annu. Rev. Soc. 37:131–53
     [Google Scholar]
106. Snijders TA, Baerveldt C 2003. A multilevel network study of the effects of delinquent behavior on friendship evolution. J. Math. Soc. 27:2–3123–51
     [Google Scholar]
107. Sutherland EH 1939. Principles of Criminology Philadelphia: Lippincott. , 3rd ed..
108. Thornberry TP, Freeman-Gallant A, Lizotte AJ, Krohn MD, Smith CA 2003. Linked lives: The intergenerational transmission of antisocial behavior. J Abnorm. Child Psychol. 31:2171–84
     [Google Scholar]
109. Thrasher F 1963. The Gang: A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
     [Google Scholar]
110. Tita GE, Greenbaum RT 2009. Crime, neighborhoods, and units of analysis: putting crime in its place. Putting Crime in its Place: Units of Analysis in Geographic Criminology D Weisburd, W Bernasco, GJN Bruinsma 145–70 New York: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
111. Tita GE, Radil SM 2010. Making space for theory: the challenges of theorizing space and place for spatial analyses in criminology. J. Quant. Crim. 26:4467–79
     [Google Scholar]
112. Tita GE, Radil SM 2011. Spatializing the social networks of gangs to explore patterns of violence. J. Quant. Crim. 27:4521–45
     [Google Scholar]
113. Tita GE, Riley KJ, Ridgeway G, Grammich CA, Abrahamse A 2003. Reducing Gun Violence: Results From an Intervention in East Los Angeles Santa Monica, CA: RAND
114. Tracy M, Braga AA, Papachristos AV 2016. The transmission of gun and other weapon-involved violence in social networks. Epidemiol. Rev. 31:170–86
     [Google Scholar]
115. Valasik MA 2014. “Saving the world one neighborhood at a time”: the role of civil gang injunctions at influencing gang behavior PhD Diss., Univ. Calif., Irvine
     [Google Scholar]
116. Valente TW 2010. Social Networks and Health: Models, Methods and Applications Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
117. Valente TW, Pitts SR 2017. An appraisal of social network theory and analysis as applied to public health: challenges and opportunities. Annu. Rev. Public Health 38:103–18
     [Google Scholar]
118. Warr M 2002. Companions in Crime: The Social Aspect of Criminal Conduct Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
119. Wasserman S, Faust K 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
120. Weller SC, Romney AK 1988. Systematic Data Collection Newbury Park, CA: SAGE
121. Wheeler L 1966. Toward a theory of behavioral contagion. Psychol. Rev. 73:179–92
     [Google Scholar]
122. Whitehead H, Dufault S 1999. Techniques for analyzing vertebrate social structure using identified individuals. Adv. Study Behav. 28:33–74
     [Google Scholar]