Belief in the Code of the Street and Individual Involvement in Offending: A Meta-Analysis

AuthorRichard K. Moule,Bryanna Fox
Date01 April 2021
Published date01 April 2021
DOI10.1177/1541204020927737
Subject MatterArticles
YVJ927737 227..247 Article
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
2021, Vol. 19(2) 227-247
Belief in the Code of the Street
ª The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
and Individual Involvement
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1541204020927737
journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj
in Offending: A Meta-Analysis
Richard K. Moule Jr1 and Bryanna Fox1
Abstract
Anderson’s Code of the Street thesis suggests that stronger belief in, and adherence to, subcultural
“street code” norms increases the risk of criminal and aggressive behaviors, particularly among
adolescents and young adults in urban communities. This study uses a meta-analysis to assess the
overall relationship between individual belief in the street code and risk of offending. Effect sizes (n ¼
38) from 20 unique studies produced a weighted correlation (r) of .11, indicating a belief in the street
code had a positive association with offending across all studies. The effect is strongest for violent
offending (.13) and among samples comprised of adolescents (.14), as predicted by Anderson’s
theory. Even after accounting for competing theoretical and established correlates of offending,
modest effects of street code beliefs on offending remained. These findings indicate that overall, the
street code is a more general theory than Anderson originally predicted. Directions for future
research on the code are discussed.
Keywords
code of the street, cultural turn, meta-analysis, offending, violence
For the past two decades, criminology has been experiencing a “cultural turn,” with renewed attention
being directed to how subcultural norms and codes of conduct influence individual involvement in
crime (Copes et al., 2013; see also Sampson & Bean, 2006; Small & Newman, 2001). Central to this
turn were Anderson’s (1994, 1997, 1998, 1999) writings on the code of the street. Based on extensive
ethnographic work conducted throughout the 1980s in Philadelphia, Anderson (1999) elaborated on
“the code” as a means of explaining high rates of violence, particularly among adolescents and young
adults, in urban communities. The street code was suggested to develop in disadvantaged commu-
nities, where conventional opportunities for success were scarce (Anderson, 1999; see also Wilson,
1987). Owing to a distrust of police and isolation from other major social institutions (e.g., Brunson,
2007; Carr et al., 2007), a subset of residents in these communities turned to violence to gain status on
the street and discourage their own victimization. In the two decades since its elaboration, a sizable
1 Department of Criminology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Richard K. Moule Jr., Department of Criminology, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., SOC 327, Tampa,
FL 33620, USA.
Email: rmoule@usf.edu

228
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 19(2)
literature has examined the correlates and consequences of belief in the street code (e.g., Baron, 2017;
Hirschinger et al., 2002; McNeeley et al., 2018; Moule et al., 2015, 2019; Stewart & Simons, 2006).
The growing body of research on the street code has corresponded with a broader view and
assessment of the code, the individuals who may adhere to it, and its relative influence on offending.
Some research has examined the influence of the code beyond “the street” to college, prison, and
web-based settings; in doing so, this research has also moved beyond just examining interpersonal
violence among urban residents (e.g., Allen & Lo, 2012; Henson et al., 2017; Intravia, Wolff, et al.,
2017). Does the expansion of the code to more diverse contexts and types of offending dampen its
effects on individual involvement in crime, or is the street code more generalizable than originally
described by Anderson?
In addition to these considerations, much of the early research on the code was conducted using
the Family and Community Health Study (FACHS), which is comprised entirely of African
American youth (e.g., Stewart & Simons, 2006, 2010). The expansion of street code research to
more diverse populations and contexts has enhanced the need to understand how the racial
composition of samples (predominately White vs. non-White) influences the relationship between
belief in the code and offending. Finally, we consider the extent to which the street code–offend-
ing relationship might vary across model specifications, particularly its influence when other
prominent correlates of crime are accounted for (e.g., Akers, 2009; Gottfredson & Hirschi,
1990). Overall, given the accumulating body of research examining the street code and its influ-
ential place in criminology’s “cultural turn,” it is timely and necessary to “take stock” and evaluate
its effects on individual involvement in crime.
To that end, the current study assesses the empirical status of Anderson’s (1999) theory of the code
of the street in relation to criminal behavior. To do so, we conduct a meta-analysis of empirical studies
examining the relationship between individual belief in the street code and involvement in offending
(Borenstein et al., 2009; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Sutton & Higgins, 2008). We aim to address four
research questions: (1) What is the general relationship between the code of the street and offending?
(2) Does this relationship vary across types of offending (e.g., violent, nonviolent, mixed)? (3) Does
this relationship vary by sample composition? and (4) Does this relationship vary by data and model
specification? Our overall goal is to quantitatively evaluate the empirical status of the code of the
street, a core component of the cultural turn in criminology (Copes et al., 2013). We begin by briefly
discussing the cultural turn in criminology, and extant theory and research on the code of the street.
Specific attention is paid to the research components examined in the current analysis.
The Cultural Turn in Criminology and the Code of the Street
The cultural turn in criminology reflects renewed interest in the developmental antecedents and
criminal consequences associated with subcultural norms or beliefs (Copes et al., 2013; Sampson &
Bean, 2006). “First-generation” subcultural theories emphasized place- or group-specific value
systems (e.g., Cohen, 1955; Miller, 1958) but were criticized as either being overly deterministic
or as simple post hoc justifications for antisocial behavior (e.g., Hirschi, 1969; Kornhauser, 1978;
Matza, 1964; see Sampson & Bean, 2006). “Second-generation” subcultural theories, including
Anderson’s (1999) code of the street, held that these norms emerged in response to deteriorating
conditions associated with the deindustrialization of major U.S. cities (see also Small & Newman,
2001; Wilson, 1987). Recent interpretations of subcultural norms suggest these norms influence
subjective understandings of situations and constrain choices within those situations (e.g., the
appropriateness of violence; Copes et al., 2013; see Sampson & Bean, 2006; Swidler, 1986). The
cultural turn in criminology concentrates primarily on “second-generation” subcultural theories,
such as the code of the street.

Moule and Fox
229
Drawing on ethnographic work conducted in Philadelphia, Anderson (1999) elaborated on the
code of the street, an influential subcultural theory. The code was suggested to develop in disad-
vantaged communities, where deindustrialization and unemployment were commonplace (Wilson,
1987, 2009). Declining neighborhood conditions, the absence of conventional opportunities for
success, isolation from mainstream social institutions, rising crime rates, and mistreatment by law
enforcement (Anderson, 1999; see also Brunson, 2007; Carr et al., 2007; Parker & Reckdenwald,
2008; Stewart & Simons, 2006, 2010) all provided the foundation for the code. The street code that
developed in these communities emphasized self-help as a means of generating respect and protect-
ing oneself from violence on the street (Anderson, 1999; Jacobs & Wright, 2006).
At its core, the code of the street refers to a series of norms governing interpersonal behavior in
public spaces (Anderson, 1999; Stewart & Simons, 2006; but see Wacquant, 2002). These norms
involve treating people with the deference and respect they feel they are entitled. Individuals,
particularly adolescents and young adults, campaign and compete for respect on the street, demon-
strating they are not to be trifled or messed with (Anderson, 1999, p. 130). They do so through
displays of toughness and nerve (Anderson, 1999; Baron, 2017), the presentation of a threatening or
aggressive demeanor in public (Mears et al., 2017), and by defending themselves against instances
of disrespect and interpersonal aggression. Through these behaviors, individuals expect to dissuade
any possible future problems on the street.
As respect plays a central role in the street code, to disrespect someone is to invite violence.
Indeed, seemingly innocuous behaviors—prolonged eye contact, an unintended jostle, or a sneer—
can spur conflict and interpersonal violence (see, e.g., Hughes & Short, 2005; Luckenbill, 1977;
Moule & Wallace, 2017). These acts can appear to challenge the status or standing of an individual.
To not address these slights, or to not “get even,” is to mark oneself as a “chump” or a “sucker,” and
invite violence in the future (Jacobs & Wright, 2006; Stewart et al., 2006). These motivations
associated with the street code—developing a reputation for toughness, responding to disrespect,
and dissuading future victimization—all correspond with increased individual involvement...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT