Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-995ml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-27T17:30:12.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Rivalries, reputation, retaliation, and repetition: Testing plausible mechanisms for the contagion of violence between street gangs using relational event models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2023

Jason Gravel
Affiliation:
Department of Criminal Justice, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Matthew Valasik
Affiliation:
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA
Joris Mulder
Affiliation:
Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tillburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands
Roger Leenders
Affiliation:
Department of Organization Studies, Tillburg Univerity, Tilburg, Netherlands
Carter Butts
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
P. Jeffrey Brantingham
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
George E. Tita*
Affiliation:
Department of Criminology, Law and Society, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
*
Corresponding author: George E. Tita; Email: gtita@uci.edu

Abstract

The hypothesis that violence—especially gang violence—behaves like a contagious disease has grown in popularity in recent years. Scholars have long observed the tendency for violence to cluster in time and space, but little research has focused on empirically unpacking the mechanisms that make violence contagious. In the context of gang violence, retaliation is the prototypical mechanism to explain why violence begets violence. In this study, we leverage relational event models (REMs)—an underutilized yet particularly well-suited modeling technique to study the dynamics of inter-gang violence. We use REMs to examine gang violence’s tendency to replicate—for which retaliation is but one plausible mechanism—and its tendency to diffuse to other groups. We rely on data on conflicts between gangs in a region of Los Angeles over 3 years. We consider how the characteristics of gangs, their spatial proximity, networks of established rivalries, and the evolving history, directionality, and structure of conflicts predict future inter-gang conflicts. While retaliation is an important mechanism for the replication of violence, established rivalries, and inertia—a gang’s tendency to continue attacking the same group—are more important drivers of future violence. We also find little evidence for an emerging pecking order or status hierarchy between gangs suggested by other scholars. However, we find that gangs are more likely to attack multiple gangs in quick succession. We propose that gang violence is more likely to diffuse to other groups because of the boost of internal group processes an initial attack provides.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Guest Editors (Special Issue on Relational Event Models): Alessandro Lomi, Tom Snijders, Christoph Stadtfeld

References

Abt, T. (2019). Bleeding out: The devastating consequences of urban violence-and a bold new plan for peace in the streets. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Amati, V., Lomi, A., & Mascia, D. (2019). Some days are better than others: Examining time-specific variation in the structuring of interorganizational relations. Social Networks, 57, 1833. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2018.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Aspholm, R. R. (2020). Views from the streets: The transformation of gangs and violence on Chicago’s South Side. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Barton, M. S., Valasik, M. A., & Brault, E. (2021). Disorder or disadvantage: Investigating the tension between neighborhood social structure and the physical environment on local violence. Criminal Justice Review, 46(2), 134155. doi: 10.1177/0734016821996798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, M. S., Valasik, M. A., Brault, E., & Tita, G. E. (2020). Gentefication, in the barrio: Examining the relationship between gentrification and homicide in East Los Angeles. Crime & Delinquency, 66(13-14), 18881913. doi: 10.1177/0011128719860835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bearman, P. (1997). Generalized exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 102(5), 13831415. doi: 10.1086/231087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, F., Stivala, A., & Lomi, A. (2022). Multiple clocks in network evolution. Methodological Innovations, 15(1), 2941. doi: 10.1177/20597991221077877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bichler, G., Norris, A., & Ibarra, C. (2020). Evolving patterns of aggression: Investigating the structure of gang violence during the era of civil gang injunctions. Social Sciences, 9(11), Article11. doi: 10.3390/socsci9110203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92(5), 11701182. doi: 10.1086/228631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, M., & Spindler, A. (2010). Groups, gangs, and delinquency: Does organization matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 921933. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.06.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braga, A. A., Kennedy, D. M., Waring, E. J., & Piehl, A. M. (2001). Problem-oriented policing, deterrence, and youth violence: An evaluation of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(3), 195225. doi: 10.1177/0022427801038003001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braga, A. A., & Weisburd, D. L. (2012). The effects of focused deterrence strategies on crime: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(3), 323358. doi: 10.1177/0022427811419368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brantingham, P. J., Carter, J., MacDonald, J., Melde, C., & Mohler, G. (2021). Is the recent surge in violence in American cities due to contagion? Journal of Criminal Justice, 76, 101848. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2021.101848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brantingham, P. J., Tita, G. E., Short, M. B., & Reid, S. E. (2012). The ecology of gang territorial boundaries. Criminology, 50(3), 851885. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00281.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brantingham, P. J., Valasik, M. A., & Tita, G. E. (2019). Competitive dominance, gang size and the directionality of gang violence. Crime Science, 8(1), 7. doi: 10.1186/s40163-019-0102-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brantingham, P. J., Yuan, B., & Herz, D. (2020). Is gang violent crime more contagious than non-gang violent crime? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 37(4), 953977. doi: 10.1007/s10940-020-09479-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bubolz, B. F., & Lee, S. (2019). Putting in work: The application of identity theory to gang violence and commitment. Deviant Behavior, 40(6), 690702. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2018.1437655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology, 92(6), 12871335. doi: 10.1086/228667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, C. T. (2008). A relational event framework for social action. Sociological Methodology, 38(1), 155200. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9531.2008.00203.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, C. T. (2017). Comment: Actor orientation and relational event models. Sociological Methodology, 47(1), 4756. doi: 10.1177/0081175017728929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, C. T. (2022). relevent: Relational Event Models (1.1) [R].Google Scholar
Butts, C. T., & Marcum, C. S. (2017). A relational event approach to modeling behavioral dynamics. In Pilny, A., & Poole, M. S. (Eds.), Group processes: Data-driven computational approaches (pp. 5192). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-48941-4_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, D. C., Peterson, D., & Esbensen, F. (2013). Youth gang desistance: An examination of the effect of different operational definitions of desistance on the motivations, methods, and consequences associated with leaving the gang. Criminal Justice Review, 38(4), 510534. doi: 10.1177/0734016813511634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, I. D. (1980). Social process and hierarchy formation in small groups: A comparative perspective. American Sociological Review, 45(6), 905924. doi: 10.2307/2094909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, I. D. (1982). Behavioral sequences during dominance hierarchy formation in chickens. Science, 216(4544), 439440. doi: 10.1126/science.216.4544.439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2013). Social contagion theory: Examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Statistics in Medicine, 32(4), 556577. doi: 10.1002/sim.5408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., & Tita, G. E. (1999). Diffusion in homicide: Exploring a general method for detecting spatial diffusion processes. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15(4), 451493. doi: 10.1023/A:1007596225550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 43(5), 721739. doi: 10.2307/2094546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, K. S., Emerson, R. M., Gillmore, M. R., & Yamagishi, T. (1983). The distribution of power in exchange networks: Theory and experimental results. American Journal of Sociology, 89(2), 275305. doi: 10.1086/227866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, K. S., & Whitmeyer, J. M. (1992). Two approaches to social structure: Exchange theory and network analysis. Annual Review of Sociology, 18(1), 109127. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.000545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooney, M. (1998). Warriors and peacemakers: How third parties shape violence. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Decker, S. H. (1996). Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Quarterly, 13(2), 243264. doi: 10.1080/07418829600092931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decker, S. H., & Curry, G. D. (2002). Gangs, gang homicides, and gang loyalty: Organized crimes or disorganized criminals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(4), 343352. doi: 10.1016/s0047-2352(02)00134-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decker, S. H., Katz, C. M., & Webb, V. J. (2008). Understanding the black box of gang organization: Implications for involvement in violent crime, drug sales, and violent victimization. Crime & Delinquency, 54(1), 153172. doi: 10.1177/0011128706296664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decker, S. H., Melde, C., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2013). What do we know about gangs and gang members and where do we go from here? Justice Quarterly, 30(3), 369402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decker, S. H., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2010). On the validity and reliability of gang homicide: A comparison of disparate sources. Homicide Studies, 14(4), 359376. doi: 10.1177/1088767910385400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decker, S. H., Pyrooz, D. C., & Densley, J. A. (2022). On gangs. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Decker, S. H., & Van Winkle, B. (1996). Life in the gang: Family, friends and violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Densley, J. A. (2013). How gangs work: An ethnography of youth violence. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Densley, J. A. (2020). Collective violence online. In Ireland, C. A., Lewis, M., Lopez, A. C., & Ireland, J. L. (Eds.), The handbook of collective violence (1st ed., pp. 305316). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429197420-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Densley, J. A., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2020). The matrix in context: Taking stock of police gang databases in London and beyond. Youth Justice, 20(1-2), 1130. doi: 10.1177/1473225419883706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descormiers, K., & Corrado, R. R. (2016). The right to belong: Individual motives and youth gang initiation rites. Deviant Behavior, 37(11), 13411359. doi: 10.1080/01639625.2016.1177390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descormiers, K., & Morselli, C. (2011). Alliances, conflicts, and contradictions in Montreal’s street gang landscape. International Criminal Justice Review, 21(3), 297314. doi: 10.1177/1057567711418501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DuBois, C., Butts, C. T., McFarland, D., & Smyth, P. (2013). Hierarchical models for relational event sequences. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 57(6), 297309. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2013.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31. doi: 10.2307/2089716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1), 335362. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagan, J., Wilkinson, D. L., & Davies, G. (2007). Social contagion of violence. In: Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., & Waldman, I. D. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression (pp. 688724). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511816840.037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faust, K., & Tita, G. E. (2019). Social networks and crime: Pitfalls and promises for advancing the field. Annual Review of Criminology, 2(1), 99122. doi: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. London: Tavistock Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleisher, M. S. (1998). Dead end kids: Gang girls and the boys they know. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, D. R. (2005). Taking turns and talking ties: Networks and conversational interaction. American Journal of Sociology, 110(6), 15611597. doi: 10.1086/428689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Stein, S. K. (2018). Beyond social contagion: Associative diffusion and the emergence of cultural variation. American Sociological Review, 83(5), 897932. doi: 10.1177/0003122418797576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gravel, J., Allison, B., West-Fagan, J., McBride, M., & Tita, G. E. (2018). Birds of a feather fight together: Status-enhancing violence, social distance and the emergence of homogenous gangs. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 34(1), 189219. doi: 10.1007/s10940-016-9331-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gravel, J., & Tita, G. E. (2015). With great methods come great responsibilities: Social network analysis in the implementation and evaluation of gang programs. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(3), 559572. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, B., Horel, T., & Papachristos, A. V. (2017). Modeling contagion through social networks to explain and predict gunshot violence in Chicago, 2006 to 2014. JAMA Internal Medicine, 177(3), 326333. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, E., & Tita, G. E. (2009). Homicide in and around public housing: Is public housing a hotbed, a magnet, or a generator of violence for the surrounding community? Social Problems, 56(3), 474493. doi: 10.1525/sp.2009.56.3.474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagedorn, J., & Macon, P. (1998). People and folks: Gangs, crime, and the underclass in a rustbelt city (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Lake View Press.Google Scholar
Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Horowitz, R. (1983). Honor and the American dream: Culture and identity in a Chicano community. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Horowitz, R., & Schwartz, G. (1974). Honor, normative ambiguity and gang violence. American Sociological Review, 39(2), 238251. doi: 10.2307/2094235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huebner, B. M., Martin, K., Moule, R. K., Pyrooz, D. C., & Decker, S. H. (2016). Dangerous places: Gang members and neighborhood levels of gun assault. Justice Quarterly, 33(5), 836862. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2014.984751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huff, C. R., & Barrows, J. S. (2015). Documenting gang activity intelligence databases. In Decker, S. H., & Pyrooz, D. C. (Eds.), The handbook of gangs. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hughes, L. A. (2013). Group cohesiveness, gang member prestige, and delinquency and violence in Chicago, 1959-1962. Criminology, 51(4), 795832. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, L. A., Schaible, L. M., & Kephart, T. (2022). Gang graffiti, group process, and gang violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 38(2), 365384. doi: 10.1007/s10940-021-09507-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, L. A., & Short, J. F. (2005). Disputes involving youth street gang members: Micro-social contexts. Criminology, 43(1), 4376. doi: 10.1111/j.0011-1348.2005.00002.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, L. A., & Short, J. F. (2014). Partying, cruising, and hanging in the streets: Gangs, routine activities, and delinquency and violence in Chicago, 1959–1962. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30(3), 415451. doi: 10.1007/s10940-013-9209-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutson, H. R., Anglin, D., & Eckstein, M. (1996). Drive-by shootings by violent street gangs in Los Angeles: A five-year review from 1989 to 1993. Academic Emergency Medicine, 3(4), 300303. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1996.tb03441.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, B. A. (2004). A typology of street criminal retaliation. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41(3), 295323. doi: 10.1177/0022427803262058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, B. A., & Wright, R. (2006). Street justice: Retaliation in the criminal underworld. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, C. M., & Webb, V. J. (2006). Policing gangs in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, C. M., Webb, V. J., & Schaefer, D. R. (2000). The validity of police gang intelligence lists: Examining differences in delinquency between documented gang members and nondocumented delinquent youth. Police Quarterly, 3(4), 413437. doi: 10.1177/109861110000300404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, D. M., Piehl, A. M., & Braga, A. A. (1996). Youth violence in Boston: Gun markets, serious youth offenders, and a use-reduction strategy. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59(1), 147. doi: 10.2307/1192213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitts, J. A., Lomi, A., Mascia, D., Pallotti, F., & Quintane, E. (2017). Investigating the temporal dynamics of interorganizational exchange: Patient transfers among italian hospitals. American Journal of Sociology, 123(3), 850910. doi: 10.1086/693704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, M. W. (1971). Street gangs and street workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Klein, M. W. (1997). The American street gang: Its nature, prevalence, and control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, M. W., & Crawford, L. Y. (1967). Groups, gangs, and cohesiveness. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 4(1), 6375. doi: 10.1177/002242786700400105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, M. W., & Maxson, C. L. (2006). Street gang patterns and policies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasley, J. R. (1998). “Designing out” gang homicides and street assaults. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauger, T. R. (2012). Real gangstas: Legitimacy, reputation, and violence in the intergang environment. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Lauger, T. R. (2017). The reality and myth of weapons and violence in gang life. In: Information Resources Management Association (Ed.), Violence and society: Breakthroughs in research and practice (pp. 847867). Hersey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauger, T. R. (2020). Gangs, identity, and cultural performance. Sociology Compass, 14(4). 10.1111/soc4.12772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leenders, R. T. A. J., Contractor, N. S., & DeChurch, L. A. (2016). Once upon a time: Understanding team processes as relational event networks. Organizational Psychology Review, 6(1), 92115. doi: 10.1177/2041386615578312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leverso, J., & Hsiao, Y. (2021). Gangbangin on the [Face]book: Understanding online interactions of Chicago Latina/o gangs. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 58(3), 239268. doi: 10.1177/0022427820952124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, K., & Papachristos, A. V. (2020). Rules of the game: Exponential random graph models of a gang homicide network. Social Forces, 98(4), 18291858. doi: 10.1093/sf/soz106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loeffler, C., & Flaxman, S. (2018). Is gun violence contagious? A spatiotemporal test. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 34(4), 9991017. doi: 10.1007/s10940-017-9363-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loftin, C. (1986). Assaultive violence as a contagious social process. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 62(5), 550555.Google ScholarPubMed
Marsden, P. (1998). Memetics and social contagion: Two sides of the same coin. Journal of Memetics-Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, 2(2), 171–185.Google Scholar
Matsuda, K. N., Melde, C., Taylor, T. J., Freng, A., & Esbensen, F. (2013). Gang membership and adherence to the “Code of the Street”. Justice Quarterly, 30(3), 440468. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2012.684432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGloin, J. M. (2005). Policy and intervention considerations of a network analysis of street gangs. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(3), 607635. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2005.00306.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulder, J., & Leenders, R. T. A. J. (2019). Modeling the evolution of interaction behavior in social networks: A dynamic relational event approach for real-time analysis. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 119, 7385. doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2018.11.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakamura, K., Tita, G. E., & Krackhardt, D. (2020). Violence in the “balance”: A structural analysis of how rivals, allies, and third-parties shape inter-gang violence. Global Crime, 21(1), 327. doi: 10.1080/17440572.2019.1627879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niezink, N. M. D., & Campana, P. (2022). When things turn sour: A network event study of organized crime violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 10.1007/s10940-022-09540-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouellet, M., Bouchard, M., & Charette, Y. (2019). One gang dies, another gains? The network dynamics of criminal group persistence. Criminology, 57(1), 533. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papachristos, A. V. (2005). Interpreting inkblots: Deciphering and doing something about modern street gangs. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(3), 643651. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2005.00301.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papachristos, A. V. (2009). Murder by structure: Dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide. American Journal of Sociology, 115(1), 74128. doi: 10.1086/597791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papachristos, A. V. (2013). The importance of cohesion for gang research, policy, and practice. Criminology & Public Policy, 12(1), 4958. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papachristos, A. V., Braga, A. A., & Hureau, D. M. (2012). Social networks and the risk of gunshot injury. Journal of Urban Health, 89(6), 9921003. doi: 10.1007/s11524-012-9703-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papachristos, A. V., Braga, A. A., Piza, E., & Grossman, L. S. (2015). The company you keep? The spillover effects of gang membership on individual gunshot victimization in a co-offending network. Criminology, 53(4), 624649. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papachristos, A. V., Hureau, D. M., & Braga, A. A. (2013). The corner and the crew: The influence of geography and social networks on gang violence. American Sociological Review, 78(3), 417447. doi: 10.1177/0003122413486800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papachristos, A. V., & Kirk, D. S. (2015). Changing the street dynamic: Evaluating Chicago’s group violence reduction strategy. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(3), 525558. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papachristos, A. V., & Wildeman, C. (2013). Network exposure and homicide victimization in an African American community. American Journal of Public Health, 104(1), 143150. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, A., Pallotti, F., & Lomi, A. (2022). New network models for the analysis of social contagion in organizations: An introduction to autologistic actor attribute models. Organizational Research Methods, 25(3), 513540. doi: 10.1177/10944281211005167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patton, D. U., Pyrooz, D. C., Decker, S. H., Frey, W. R., & Leonard, P. (2019). When Twitter fingers turn to trigger fingers: A qualitative study of social media-related gang violence. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 1(3), 205217. doi: 10.1007/s42380-019-00014-w.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pizarro, J. M., Terrill, W., & LoFaso, C. A. (2020). The impact of investigation strategies and tactics on homicide clearance. Homicide Studies, 24(1), 324. doi: 10.1177/1088767918816741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randle, J., & Bichler, G. (2017). Uncovering the social pecking order in gang violence. In: LeClerc, B., & Savona, E. U. (Eds.), Crime prevention in the 21st century: Insightful approaches for crime prevention initiatives (pp. 165186). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-27793-6_12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, S. E., & Valasik, M. (2020). Alt-right gangs: A hazy shade of white. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Reid, S. E., Valasik, M., & Bagavathi, A. (2020). Examining the physical manifestation of alt-right gangs: From online trolling to street fighting. In Gangs in the era of internet and social media (pp. 105134). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberto, E., Braga, A. A., & Papachristos, A. V. (2018). Closer to guns: The role of street gangs in facilitating access to illegal firearms. Journal of Urban Health, 95(3), 372382. doi: 10.1007/s11524-018-0259-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roman, C. G., Link, N. W., Hyatt, J. M., Bhati, A., & Forney, M. (2019). Assessing the gang-level and community-level effects of the Philadelphia focused deterrence strategy. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15(4), 499527. doi: 10.1007/s11292-018-9333-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez-Jankowski, M. (1991). Islands in the street: Gangs and American urban society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, J. F. (1985). The level of explanation problem in criminology. In: Meier, R. F. (Ed.), Theoretical methods in criminology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Short, J. F. (1998). The level of explanation problem revisited-The American Society of Criminology 1997 Presidential address. Criminology, 36(1), 336. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01238.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, J. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1965). Group process and gang delinquency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Slutkin, G., Ransford, C., & Zvetina, D. (2018). How the health sector can reduce violence by treating it as a contagion. AMA Journal of Ethics, 20(1), 4755. doi: 10.1001/journalofethics.2018.20.1.nlit1-1801.Google ScholarPubMed
Storrod, M. L., & Densley, J. A. (2017). Going viral and Going country: The expressive and instrumental activities of street gangs on social media. Journal of Youth Studies, 20(6), 677696. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2016.1260694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, F. (2020a). Ballad of the bullet: Gangs, drill music, and the power of online infamy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stuart, F. (2020b). Code of the tweet: Urban gang violence in the social media age. Social Problems, 67(2), 191207. doi: 10.1093/socpro/spz010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suttles, G. D. (1968). The social order of the slum: Ethinicity and territory in the inner city. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (Eds.), Organizational identity: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thrasher, F. M. (1927). The gang: A study of 1,313 gangs in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tillburg Network Group (2021). remstats: Compute statistics for relational event history data (2.0) [R]. https://github.com/TilburgNetworkGroup/remstats Google Scholar
Tita, G. E., & Radil, S. M. (2011). Spatializing the social networks of gangs to explore patterns of violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27(4), 521545. doi: 10.1007/s10940-011-9136-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tita, G. E., Riley, K. J., & Ridgeway, G. (2003). Reducing gun violence: Results from an intervention in East Los Angeles. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, P., Charest, M., Charette, Y., & Tremblay-Faulkner, M. (2016). Le délinquant affilié: La sous-culture des gangs de rue haïtiens de Montréal. Montréal: Éditions Liber.Google Scholar
Tsvetkova, M., & Macy, M. W. (2014). The social contagion of generosity. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e87275. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Urbanik, M.-M., & Roks, R. A. (2021). Making sense of murder: The reality versus the realness of gang homicides in two contexts. Social Sciences, 10(1), 17. doi: 10.3390/socsci10010017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valasik, M. (2018). Gang violence predictability: Using risk terrain modeling to study gang homicides and gang assaults in East Los Angeles. Journal of Criminal Justice, 58, 1021. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valasik, M., & Reid, S. E. (2021). East side story: Disaggregating gang homicides in East Los Angeles. Social Sciences, 10(2), Article2. doi: 10.3390/socsci10020048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vecchio, J. M., & Carson, D. C. (2022). Understanding the role of violence and conflict in the stages of gang membership. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 21(1), 2743. doi: 10.1177/15412040221116305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigil, J. D. (1988). Barrio gangs: Street life and identity in Southern California. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vigil, J. D. (2020). Multiple marginality and gangs: Through a prism darkly. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Vilalta, C., Lopez-Ramirez, P., & Fondevila, G. (2021). The spatial diffusion of homicide in Mexico City: A test of theories in context. Global Crime, 22(3), 222239. doi: 10.1080/17440572.2021.1909480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vu, D., Pattison, P., & Robins, G. (2015). Relational event models for social learning in MOOCs. Social Networks, 43, 121135. doi: 10.1016/j.socnet.2015.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfgang, M. E., & Ferracuti, F. (1967). The subculture of violence: Towards an integrated theory in criminology. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Yamagishi, T., & Cook, K. S. (1993). Generalized exchange and social dilemmas. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56(4), 235. doi: 10.2307/2786661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeoli, A. M., Grady, S., Pizarro, J. M., & Melde, C. (2015). Modeling the movement of homicide by type to inform public health prevention efforts. American Journal of Public Health, 105(10), 20352041. doi: 10.2105/ajph.2015.302732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed