[feet]

The page also lists how Zimbardo demonstrated the principle by interfering with his "study"

That's alongside numerous other critiques and criticisms which are generally more recent on the wikipedia page that we are commenting on. All you have to do is scroll down.

[ChrisLomont]

>Zimbardo demonstrated the principle by interfering with his "study"

After he broke the car window, he noted that others would jump in and do the same. And he is by far not the only researcher to test the hypothesis on many, many areas.

As to how recent work is, the Google scholar literature is more recent than any on Wikipedia. I provided a link. Look at some.

There are thousands of papers on Google scholar, a huge amount form this year, about where the hypothesis applies. Almost none claim it is not a valid effect. The research centers around where it shows up and detailed causal effects.

A criticism of some hypothesis is not an invalidation, especially when the majority of the literature overrides.

There's published critiques of a everything from general relativity to climate change. It doesn't invalidate the overriding evidence in those cases, nor does criticism invalidate this.

[feet]

From the first paper on the google scholar search you posted, which is a recent meta-analysis from 2019

>Further examination revealed that support for BWT-related hypotheses has been overstated owing to data censoring and the failure to consistently include critical covariates, like socioeconomic status and collective efficacy

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02779...

I'm getting the feeling that you did not read the articles you posted. And yes, I trust the word of a large scale meta-analysis over individual studies as a general rule

[ChrisLomont]

> for BWT-related hypotheses has been overstated

Overstated does not mean the hypothesis is invalid, does it?

Also you realize this paper is not about the BWT as a hypothesis for more crime, which is the BWT hypothesis, but is instead applying BWT to health outcomes, right? Seems a bit odd that this is what you select.

If you want some recent papers actually about the BWT, try [1]: "The findings reported here lend support to propositions derived from broken windows theory to a major extent."

>And yes, I trust the word of a large scale meta-analysis over individual studies as a general rule

Good. Maybe read the next sentence after the one you quoted that you conveniently forgot:

"Even where there is evidence that BWT impacts outcomes, it is driven by studies that measured disorder as the perceptions of the focal individual, potentially conflating pessimism about the neighborhood with mental health."

So there is some evidence that BWT impacts outcomes, even health ones, in some situations?

When you select a paper not on topic, pull a quote out of context to make it look on topic, ignore the following sentence, that level of dishonesty is not worth dealing with. Looking at the 14 of your posts (out of 32 total posts) in this thread so far, you are not being honest with anyone here. So I'm done.

[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418825.2017.13...

[feet]

>The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of the proactive policing of disorder on crime-related calls for service (CFS) in Houston, Texas. A principal feature of the organizational structure of the Houston Police Department is the strategic deployment of a Differential Response Team (DRT) at the patrol division whose task is to target and take action against social and physical disorder (without prioritizing arrests)

>This study was a partial test of broken windows thesis by examining the association between disorder policing activities and crime-related calls in Houston.

>There is an obvious difference between the current study and previous studies on testing the effectiveness of police intervention derived from the broken windows thesis. A review of the literature revealed that most studies on this topic have used one of two popular approaches. The first approach relies on the study of police intervention in a geographic area such as a patrol district (e.g., Hoover et al., 2016; McGarrell et al., 1999) or a block/intersection (e.g., Lawton et al., 2005). In these studies, the police intervention was often measured as the strategic allocation of additional resources to a given geographic area/location. Additional patrol officers, for example, were made available to enhance police presence and increase the number of arrests as a way of deterring crimes. Many of the intervention programs studied were supported by external grant funding received from federal, state, or local governments (e.g., Lawton et al., 2005). It is noteworthy that almost all of the studies were carried out in a short period of time from 1-day interventions (Nunn et al., 2006), 1-month interventions (Novak et al., 1999), to a period of 2 years (Caeti, 1999). The average range of period of intervention among these studies was about 12 months (e.g., Braga et al., 2015). Most recently, in a review of aggressive policing studies, particularly in hotspots, Nagin and Sampson (2019) noted that the short-time frame of intervention can lead to inaccurate research results regarding the effectiveness of a program.

>Our findings suggest that the DRT overall did not produce significant effects on crime-related calls, with only one out of five space-time patterns showing demonstrable benefit.

>The findings also suggested that overall, the DRT intervention process did not achieve the anticipated objective of a significant reduction in crime-related calls over the period of the study. Only DRT intervention in sporadic places—where the DRT activity is an on-again then off-again intervention—showed a statistically significant decline in crime-related CFS, and the DRT intervention in the rest of the four areas failed to yield any significant effect.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10986111221092...