You must answer two of the following questions. The content of the questions may overlap somewhat, but your answers should not have much overlap with each other. Your completed exam must be submitted
219Introduction
Criminal or delinquent subcultures symbolize certain groups in society that have norms, values, or attitudes
that are conducive to deviance, crime, and/or violence. Dating back to the works of the Chicago School
in the early- and mid-twentieth century, the study of criminal and delinquent subcultures has long been
of interest to sociologists and criminologists (Thrasher, 1927/1936; Cohen, 1955; Miller, 1958;). More
recently, Elijah Anderson’s (1994 , 1999) code of the street thesis on criminal values, and violent attitudes in
particular, has led to a renewed interest in understanding subcultures of violence. The purpose of this chap -
ter is to provide an overview of the empirical work that focuses on the causes and consequences of street
code attitudes. The chapter is divided into five main sections: (1) a brief history of criminal and delinquent
subcultures, (2) an overview of the street code, how different family structures embrace this value system,
and the characteristics of the code, (3) research on the causes of street code attitudes, (4) research on the
consequences of those who embrace the code, and (5) a conclusion summarizing the street code research
and providing suggestions for future avenues of inquiry.
A brief history of criminal and delinquent subcultures
Perhaps one of the earliest and well-known academic works on delinquent subcultures is Frederic Milton
Thrasher’s (1927/1936 ) The Gang: A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago . Based on research conducted for
his Ph.D. dissertation, Thrasher shed light on various subgroups of gangs, with one being a criminal gang
involved in delinquent and criminal behavior. In his pivotal work on gang behavior, Thrasher discussed
themes consistent to criminal subcultures such as codes of conduct that are reflective among individual
groups, rules governing deviant behavior such as fighting, and mechanisms of control through the use of
punishment. Other foundational work on subcultures contend that criminal/delinquent activity is a product of social
class and/or lack of economic opportunities. Indeed, Walter Miller (1958) wrote about class culture among
lower-class boys. According to Miller, young males learn and embrace the wider cultural traditions and
values found among their social class. He identified and described six values known as “focal concerns.”
These values include fate, autonomy, toughness, trouble, excitement, and smartness. Fate (or fatalism) refers
to individuals refusing to consider the consequences of their actions because they believe their future is
18
The code of the street
Causes and consequences
Jonathan Intravia Jonathan Intravia
220
already determined. Autonomy deals with being independent from others and authority figures and deal-
ing with issues personally. Toughness is concerned with masculinity and being able to face physical threats.
Trouble represents causing problems. Excitement refers to thrill-seeking behavior. Smartness involves using
verbal and psychological skills and abilities to outcon or outwit others. It is important to note that these
focal concerns are not the direct cause of criminal behavior; however, embracing these values may result in
some individuals committing criminal and deviant acts.Some scholars, for example, believed that criminal behavior from delinquent subcultures was due to a
reaction against middle-class values. For instance, Albert Cohen (1955) argued that lower-class boys often
had poor educational success, which resulted in a low status attainment as defined by mainstream values
and norms. As a result, delinquent subcultures formed (e.g., gangs) as a response to the “status frustration”
experienced by lower-class youth. Crime and deviant acts, such as fighting and vandalism, became ways
by which disadvantaged youths can achieve status within their own groups. Similarly, Cloward and Ohlin
(1960) also believed that criminal subcultures were an adaptation to discontent experienced by those resid -
ing in urban lower-class environments. Specifically, based on the amount of neighborhood cohesiveness
and illegitimate opportunities available, there are three distinct subcultures/gangs that young people can
join: criminal, conflict, and retreatist. Criminal subcultures develop in more cohesive neighborhoods that
contain adult criminals to teach and train youth to be involved in activities that generate income such as
theft and robbery. Conflict subcultures form in communities with less opportunities present (either legiti -
mate or illegitimate) and consists of youth looking to achieve alternative forms of success, such as respect,
through violence. Lastly, retreatist subcultures are considered “double failures” because they cannot be
successful legitimately or illegitimately. These youth are likely to be involved in drugs and hustling to gain
approval. Another classic formulation in criminal subcultures is found in Marvin Wolfgang and Franco Fer-
racuti’s (1967) Subculture of Violence. Their theory differs from those noted prior because they placed less
attention on social class or economic opportunities as an explanation in producing criminal subcultures;
rather, the authors emphasized the importance of understanding a culture of values and norms that favor
violent behavior found among specific groups. Grounding their theory from homicide statistics from
Philadelphia’s impoverished minority communities, Wolfgang and Ferracuti argued that violence was
not evenly distributed within society. Specifically, among some groups, violence is vital for protection
and survival. Thus, differing from mainstream culture, a subculture of violence that emphasizes the
justification and use of physical force or violence is established and passed down from one generation
to the next. In short, theories on delinquent subcultures paved the way for understanding criminal and violent
activity primarily among lower-class males. Yet, like many early theoretical explanations for crime and
delinquency, researchers lost interest in subcultural theories as new theoretical explanations for the etiol -
ogy of criminal behavior were developing. In the 1990s, however, Elijah Anderson’s (1994, 1999) code of
the street thesis renewed interest in understanding crime and violence through the lens of the subcultural
perspective.
The street code
Elijah Anderson’s (1994, 1999) “code of the street” intersects both social class structure and culture in
understanding violence in predominately inner-city, African American neighborhoods. Motivated by why
individuals, and particularly young people, residing in economically poor environments resort to violence
against one another, Anderson’s ethnographic field research in Philadelphia shed light on this very impor -
tant issue. According to Anderson (1999, p. 33), the street code is “a set of informal rules governing inter -
personal public behavior, particularly violence.” The street code is a cultural orientation that exists because
residents in the most disadvantaged segments in society are less inclined to rely on agents of social control, The code of the street221
such as the police and judicial system, for assistance. 1 As a result, violence is an approved mechanism for
governing interpersonal behavior in the inner-city environment outlined by Anderson.
Family orientations
In communities where the street code orientation permeates, there are two types of family structures,
“decent” and “street,” that interact and reside in the same neighborhood – and may also coexist in the same
family (Anderson, 1994). Although the majority of decent and street families encounter the same financial
struggles, they have contrasting moral values. Decent families are committed to middle-class standards by
valuing hard work, religion, education, and perseverance. Further, parents (and oftentimes only single
mothers) of decent households are more likely to instill mainstream values into their children by employ -
ing firm child-rearing practices, teaching them manners, to respect people of authority, and to have moral
standards of behavior ( Anderson, 1999, p. 39). Yet, at the same time, decent parents are well aware of the
violent street culture that permeates their community and stress that their children understand the code as
well, even if that means using violence to defend themselves. Street families, in contrast, are less considerate of others and have a narrow insight of family and com -
munity. In addition, street families may have more difficulty coping with parenthood and living in financial
deprivation, which creates frustration and a lack of patience toward others. These individuals are more
likely to embrace the street code and encourage their children to adopt the violent values that are associated
with it. Street mothers are often substance users/addicts and involved in abusive relationships. According to
Anderson (1999, p. 46), decent people often characterize street individuals as lowlife or bad people. Although most residents are considered to be decent people, children are exposed to the street code
early and often in social settings (e.g., school). Because the reality of the street code permeates the environ -
ment, decent children must learn how to “code switch,” or have the ability to adhere to the rules of the
street code when situations require it. Although it is important for decent kids to have the skill to code
switch, some decent children may neglect the lessons and values taught by their parents and embrace the
values of the code, including aggression and violence, on a regular basis. Thus, children raised in a decent
household does not guarantee that they will end up decent themselves.
Characteristics of the street code
There are several interrelated characteristics that embody the street code belief system: respect, reputation,
violence, and victimization. Respect is the foundation or core of the street code. As stated by Anderson (1999,
p. 66), “In the inner-city environment respect on the street may be viewed as a form of social capital that
is very valuable.” Individuals regularly campaign for respect in order to enhance their reputation amongst
their peers. Respect is often gained or earned through violent acts – whether it be initiating violence
toward others or seeking revenge for wrongdoings. However, respect can also be acquired through non -
violent means such as having a strong presentation (e.g., dressing nice, wearing expensive clothing, having
flashy jewelry), being talented in sports or school, having money through drug dealing, and taking owner -
ship of somebody’s sense of honor or even their girlfriend. Those who hold the most respect, or “juice,” in
the streets are believed to have a lower likelihood of being messed with or dissed. Therefore, respect leads
to a reputation that is considered a form of self-protection against victimization. Collectively, the characteristics noted here are all important ingredients that distinguish the street code
as a violent subculture. The street code is not just a set of attitudes or actions conducive to violence, but
a deeply embedded cultural belief system resulting from decades of isolation, deprivation, and racial dis-
crimination. In many ways, this belief system uses violence to combat violence in the inner cit\
y because
the police are believed to be inept or unresponsive in their efforts to protect residents from dangers that
permeate the inner-city environment. Jonathan Intravia
222
Research on the causes of street code attitudes 2
The themes discussed in Anderson’s (1999) Code of the Street have resulted in a growing body of research
examining the factors associated with adopting street code beliefs and attitudes. Looking at the prior work
from a broader standpoint, it is possible to categorize these assessments by three separate but interrelated
predictors of street code attitudes: individual and family factors, contextual factors, and theoretical factors.
Individual and family factors
As noted earlier, Anderson’s (1994, 1999) street code thesis focused primarily on inner-city, African Amer -
ican residents. As such, research on individual level predictors of street code attitudes has explored demo-
graphics consistent with the individuals highlighted in Anderson’s work in order to understand how these
characteristics influence one’s likelihood of embracing the street code. Many studies, however, have limited
samples that focus on African Americans, younger individuals, and/or males ( Brezina, Agnew, Cullen, &
Wright, 2004; Stewart & Simons, 2006; Intravia, Wolff, Stewart, & Simons, 2014 ; Moule, Burt, Stewart, &
Simons, 2015). Although these studies may examine samples that are consistent with the specific demo -
graphics outlined by Anderson, it is more difficult to assess which demographic groups, if any, are most
likely to adopt the street code belief system. On the other hand, assessments that use more diverse samples
of race/ethnicity or gender often dummy code for these characteristics, with “African American” and
“male” being the reference groups, respectively. With few exceptions (Intravia, Wolff, Gibbs, & Piquero,
2017; Intravia et al., 2018; McNeeley, Meldrum, & Hoskin, 2018), studies that control for race (e.g., Afri -
can American) either provide no support (Brezina et al., 2004; Keith & Griffiths, 2014) or show that the
significance of race is eliminated once other factors are controlled for in the analysis ( Piquero et al., 2012).
Similar patterns are also evident among males adopting street code attitudes, with some studies showing
that male is an important predictor ( Piquero et al., 2012; Keith & Griffiths, 2014 ; Intravia et al., 2018 ;
McNeeley et al., 2018 ) and others showing there is no significance ( Stewart & Simons, 2006; Intravia et al.,
2014, 2017). Yet, when comparing street code attitudes across various groups of race/ethnicity and gender,
Taylor, Esbensen, Brick, and Freng (2010) found African American and male youths have higher levels of
acceptance of street code-related violence compared to all other race/ethnicities examined (Whites, His -
panics, American Indian, Asian, other, and multiracial) and females, respectively. Anderson (1999) also notes the street code belief system is a cultural orientation that is a result of expe -
riencing discrimination and lack of assistance from the police. Research shows that police satisfaction is not
related to acquiring street code attitudes ( Intravia et al., 2017, 2018); however, those who have less respect
for – or have negative attitudes toward – the police are more likely to hold street code attitudes ( Piquero
et al., 2012; Keith & Griffiths, 2014). Regarding discrimination, studies support Anderson’s notion that
measures of racial discrimination is a key cause of adopting street code beliefs ( Stewart & Simons, 2006;
Moule et al., 2015). Further, a multilevel assessment focusing on racial discrimination from police person -
nel found that African Americans who perceived greater discrimination from the police were more likely
to adopt street code beliefs, and this relationship was more pronounced in neighborhoods characterized by
higher levels of violence (Intravia et al., 2014). Studies have also examined or controlled for family- and parenting-related factors that may predict
endorsement of street code values. As discussed earlier, Anderson (1999) contends that two types of family
orientations (e.g., street and decent), with contrasting parenting techniques, coexist in the same neighbor -
hoods. Perhaps the most detailed examination on family/parenting characteristics is found in Stewart and
Simons (2006) multisite assessment of African American youths. The authors characterized “street” fami -
lies as having inconsistent and harsh discipline, violence, verbal abuse, and child neglect and characterized
“decent” families as having consistent discipline, positive reinforcement, child monitoring, and warmth/
support. In their study, the authors found that being in a street family structure was positively related to The code of the street223
adopting street code beliefs, whereas being in a decent family structure yielded no significant effect. Other
studies that controlled for characteristics such as family structure (e.g., one versus two parent household),
family socioeconomic status, parental supervision, and parental discipline have found little to no support
that family and parenting factors are related to adopting the street code ( Brezina et al., 2004; Keith & Grif-
fiths, 2014; Moule et al., 2015).
Contextual factors
Anderson (1994, 1999) argues that the code of the street is a cultural orientation that is found in disad-
vantaged, urban locales that consist of primarily African American residents. Owing to the types of com -
munities that are believed to be permeated with the violent belief system, studies have examined whether
community context is an important factor in establishing the street code. When comparing the racial/
ethnic composition of neighborhoods, communities characterized by a higher concentration of African
Americans and Hispanic residents tend to be more code-oriented ( Matsueda et al., 2006). Furthermore,
research illustrates that neighborhoods characterized by disadvantage and/or violence are also strong pre -
dictors of the street code ( Matsueda et al., 2006; Stewart & Simons, 2006; Intravia et al., 2014). However,
there is less agreement about whether street code attitudes are a product of only urban environments.
Although Taylor and colleagues (2010) found that the street code belief system is more pronounced in
urban-dense areas (compared to other settings), other studies that control for urban locales show that
urbanicity is not associated with adopting the street code ( Brezina et al., 2004; Stewart & Simons, 2006 ). In
fact, a more comprehensive assessment examining the generalizability of street code attitudes across differ -
ent settings found that youths residing in highly urban areas were just as likely as youths living in suburban
and rural communities to endorse the street code belief system, suggesting that densely population settings
may not be a key cause of adopting the street code (Keith & Griffiths, 2014).
Theoretical factors
Scholarship has noted that many themes discussed in the Code of the Street are similar to other theoretical
perspectives in criminology and sociology. Although Anderson (1994, 1999) does not explicitly refer to
other theories in his explanation on why the street code belief system is widespread in disadvantaged com -
munities, a number of the arguments embedded in the code of the street thesis show similarities among
other crime-related theories. Due to these parallels between street code attitudes and other frameworks,
research has examined whether strain, social learning, and self-control theories are important predictors in
adopting the street code belief system. For instance, studies illustrate that measures consistent with strain
theory (e.g., failure to achieve positively valued stimuli, presentation of noxious stimuli, removal of posi-
tively value stimuli) predict adherence to the street code ( Stewart & Simons, 2006; Intravia et al., 2014,
2017; for lack of support, see Brezina et al., 2004). However, measures consistent with social learning
theory, such as associating with delinquent/violent peers, tend to show mixed support as being a key pre-
dictor of the street code (for support, see Brezina et al., 2004; Stewart & Simons, 2006; for lack of support,
see Moule et al., 2015; Intravia et al., 2017). Perhaps the theoretical perspective that has received the most attention in predicting adoption of street
code attitudes is self-control theory. This is not surprising given that low self-control has been shown to be
a significant predictor of crime, analogous acts, and victimization ( Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Pratt, Turanovic,
Fox, & Wright, 2014 ) – characteristics consistent with the street code. Despite the variations in how self-
control is operationalized, research shows that individuals with low self-control are more likely to adopt
code-related beliefs (Piquero et al., 2012; Moule et al., 2015; Intravia et al., 2018). In a more comprehen-
sive assessment on the self-control and street code relationship, McNeeley and colleagues (2018) utilized
various indicators of low self-control from two popular indices, the Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik Jr, & Arneklev Jonathan Intravia
224
(1993) and Tangney et al. (2004) scales, to determine the consistency of prior findings. In their assessment,
the authors found that regardless of what self-control scale was utilized to predict adoption of the code, low
self-control was found to have moderate to high variability in explaining street code attitudes.
Assessing the causes of street code attitudes
Certain factors are more salient in predicting street code attitudes than others. Looking at demographic
characteristics, there is mixed evidence that African Americans and males are more likely to adopt the
street code belief system compared to other races/ethnicities and females, respectively. Although a handful
of studies explicitly examined the street code thesis consistent with Anderson’s field research on mostly
African American youth, studies that utilized different sampling frames (e.g., general samples, young adults,
homeless youth, etc.) illustrate that the code of the street, or at least attitudes consistent with the violent
street code, are not the product of certain demographics such as race/ethnicity and gender. It is important
to note that age was not directly assessed as a predictor because the vast majority of studies consisted of
samples that were relatively young in age.Factors that tend to show the most consistent support on adopting street code attitudes include holding
negative attitudes toward the police, communities characterized by disadvantage and/or violence, expe -
riencing strain, and low self-control. In contrast, family and parenting-related factors, associating with
delinquent/violent peers, and living in an urban environment tend to show mixed to little support as key
predictors in the street code belief system.
Research on the consequences of street code attitudes
Studies on the street code have also explored several hypotheses related to the consequences of those who
embrace the code of the street belief system. As noted by Anderson (1994, 1999), individuals who hold
street code attitudes are more prone to committing violence in order to build respect, which is believed to be
a protective shield from victimization. As such, two of the most widely tested outcomes examined with the
street code include violent offending and victimization. In addition, mor\
e recent assessments have begun
to explore a number of additional outcomes that the street code-related attitudes may predict. Thus, the
research associated with the consequences of the street code attitudes will be discussed by addressing the
following themes: violence, victimization, and nonviolent crime and other relevant outcomes.
Violence
Collectively, research illustrates that individuals who hold values consistent with the street code belief system
are more likely to engage in violence ( Stewart et al., 2002; Stewart & Simons, 2006; Matsuda, Melde, Tay-
lor, Freng, & Esbensen, 2013 ; Mears, Stewart, Siennick, & Simons, 2013 ; Baron, 2017; Intravia et al., 2018 ;
Erickson, Hochstetler, & Dorius, 2019 ); and street code attitudes partially mediate important predictors
of violence such as neighborhood violence, neighborhood disadvantage, family characteristics, and racial
discrimination (Stewart & Simons, 2006). At the community level, studies also show that neighborhood
street culture is an important predictor of violence. That is, neighborhoods that are more entrenched with
the code of the street culture predict youth violence, independent of individual-level street code attitude –
and the effects of individual-level street code values on violence is more pronounced in neighborhoods
that embrace the street code ( Stewart & Simons, 2010). It is important to note that street code attitudes are
not the sole or key cause of violence. Although such attitudes show strong predictive power in explaining
violent acts, the street code’s relationship with violence may be best understood with the consideration of
other factors related to violence. The importance of moderators, or other variables that may strengthen
the relationship between street code attitudes and violence, was detailed in Baron’s (2017) assessment of The code of the street225
homeless youth. In his study, the author found that anger, not fearful of being a victim, history of physical
abuse, negative attitudes toward the police, lack of parental warmth, and length of homelessness (i.e., pov -
erty) are all salient factors that strengthen the relationship between the street code and violence relationship.
Victimization
According to Anderson (1999, p. 76), the code of the street is a belief system built on respect through
violent and nonviolent acts. Having a valuable reputation for violence is a form of self-protection believed
to deter an individual from being a victim of a violent crime. Although those who embrace the street
code are believed to be victimized less, research in this domain has failed to show support that street code
attitudes safeguard against victimization. In fact, those who embrace the street code belief system have a
higher likelihood of being assaulted ( Stewart et al., 2006). In addition, Stewart and colleagues (2006) found
that neighborhood violence moderated the positive effect between street code attitudes and victimization.
Specifically, those who more fully embraced the street code and resided in a neighborhood characterized
by high levels of violence had higher probabilities of being a victim of a violent crime compared to those
who did not fully embrace the code or did not embrace it at all (see al\
so, Berg et al., 2012). As stated by
the authors “the code of the street operates less as a protective factor . . . and more as a risk factor for vic -
timization” (Stewart et al., 2006, p. 443). Additional evidence shows that embracing the street code belief system predicts victimization beyond
violence. In fact, those who hold street code attitudes are not only susceptible to being victims of assault,
but are also more likely to be victims of property crime ( McNeeley & Wilcox, 2015a). Furthermore, the
street code and victimization relationship may differ based on one’s lifestyle choices. For example, research
illustrates individuals who embrace the code are more likely to be violently victimized if they spend more
time in public settings than those who engage in less public activities outside of their home ( McNeeley &
Wilcox, 2015b).
Nonviolent crimes and other outcomes
Studies have examined whether street code attitudes can predict criminal (and noncriminal) behavior
beyond acts of violence. Overall, there is mixed support on whether street code attitudes predict nonvio-
lent and/or noncriminal behaviors. While some evidence points to the street code predicting property
crime and various types of criminality measured in an index ( Intravia et al., 2017, 2018), there is also
evidence that street code attitudes do not predict drug use, theft, tax evasion, driving under the influ -
ence, and school misbehavior ( Intravia et al., 2017, 2018; Piquero et al., 2012 ). The mixed findings
on nonviolent crimes can be because, in part, street code attitudes may be limited in explaining many
crimes outside of violence. In the past few years, a number of assessments have been made to explore additional consequences
related to street code attitudes beyond crime and victimization. This limited but promising body of work
has linked those who embrace the street code belief system to an increased likelihood of being arrested
and convicted (Mears, Stewart, Warren, & Simons, 2017), an increased level of fear of crime ( McNee-
ley & Yuan, 2017), and having a lower probability of reporting crimes to the police ( Kwak, Dierenfeldt, &
McNeeley, 2019); however, the relationship between street code adherence and crime reporting was sig -
nificant for only African American respondents.
Assessing the consequences of street code attitudes
When it comes to assessing the consequences of those who embrace the str\
eet code, clearer patterns are
present. Violence is a key consequence of street code attitudes. That is, research supports the notion that Jonathan Intravia
226
those who adhere to the code of the street are significantly more likely to engage in violent-related behav-
ior, consistent with Anderson’s (1999) thesis. Further, being a victim is another consequence of embracing
the street code belief system. Although empirical research illustrates a pattern opposite to Anderson’s (1994,
1999) assertions on the code of the street serving as a buffer against victimization, those who hold attitudes
conducive to the street code have a higher likelihood of being a crime victim. Yet, when it comes to engag -
ing in crimes outside of violence, there is little support to show that street code attitudes are important
predictors of such nonviolent acts.
Conclusion
The goal of this chapter was to not only provide a brief account of subcultural theories in criminology/
sociology, but to introduce readers to an increasing popular subcultural perspective in social science, Elijah
Anderson’s (1999) Code of the Street thesis, by discussing the key characteristics of the street code and evalu -
ating the current state of empirical evidence of the street code. This was accomplished by dividing extant
research in two separate, but interrelated ways: (1) research testing the causes of street code attitudes and (2)
research testing the consequences of those who embrace such attitudes. Overall, findings indicate that there
are a number of factors that contribute to one’s likelihood of adopting street code attitudes, such as negative
police encounters, experiencing strain, having low self-control, and living in an adverse environment. As
for the consequences of individuals embracing the street code belief system, research shows strong support
that street code attitudes predict not only acts of violence but also being victims of such crimes. Given the dearth of research devoted to the causes and consequences of street code attitudes, it is impor -
tant that scholars continue to examine additional causes and consequences of the street code. As previous
studies have advocated, future efforts should be directed toward multilevel assessments, moderation factors,
mediation, and a broader level of theoretical correlates ( Brezina et al., 2004; Piquero et al., 2012; Baron,
2017). Further, it is recommended that research focus on additional themes that are discussed widely in
Anderson’s thesis such as the concept of “code-switching,” self-presentation (e.g., respect, status), decent
versus street family structures, alienation/deprivation, fate, and nonviolent means to gain and earn respect
amongst ones’ peers.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to give special thanks to Kevin Wolff for helpful comments and feedback on earlier
drafts.
Notes
1 It is important to note that a host of research has shown that minority residents in disadvantaged settings often have strained relationships with law enforcement personnel due to experiencing negative interactions with the police
(see, e.g., Brunson, 2007; Carr, Napolitano, & Keating, 2007; Stewart, Baumer, Brunson, & Simons, 2009; Weitzer,
1999).
2 The review of the literature is germane to research that explicitly focuses on testing hypotheses from Anderson’s (1999) code of the street thesis (i.e., causes of street code attitudes; consequences of street code attitudes). Thus,
empirical investigations on broader (sub)cultural contexts such as street culture, street criminality, or street gangs that
do not directly examine predictors of street code values are not discussed in this chapter.
References
Anderson, E. (1994). The code of the streets. Atlantic Monthly, 273(5), 81–94.
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. The code of the street227
Baron, S. W. (2017). It’s more than the code: Exploring the factors that moderate the street code’s relationship with violence. Justice Quarterly, 34(3), 491–516.
Berg, M. T., Stewart, E. A., Schreck, C. J., & Simons, R. L. (2012). The victim – offender overlap in context: Examin -
ing the role of neighborhood street culture. Criminology, 50(2), 359–390.
Brezina, T., Agnew, R., Cullen, F. T., & Wright, J. P. (2004). The code of the street: A quantitative assessment of Elijah Anderson’s subculture of violence thesis and its contribution to youth violence research. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice, 2(4), 303–328.
Brunson, R. K. (2007). “Police don’t like black people”: African-American young men’s accumulated police experi -
ences. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(1), 71–101.
Carr, P. J., Napolitano, L., & Keating, J. (2007). We never call the cops and here is why: A qualitative examination of legal cynicism in three Philadelphia neighborhoods. Criminology, 45(2), 445–480.
Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A theory of delinquent gangs. New York, NY: Free Press.
Cohen, A. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Erickson, J. H., Hochstetler, A., & Dorius, S. F. (2019). Code in transition? The evolution of code of the street adher -
ence in adolescence. Deviant Behavior, 1–19.
Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik Jr, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 5–29.
Intravia, J., Gibbs, B. R., Wolff, K. T., Paez, R., Bernheimer, A., & Piquero, A. R. (2018). The mediating role of street code attitudes on the self-control and crime relationship. Deviant Behavior, 39(10), 1305–1321.
Intravia, J., Wolff, K. T., Gibbs, B. R., & Piquero, A. R. (2017). Violent attitudes and antisocial behavior: Examining the code of the street’s generalizability among a college sample. Deviant Behavior, 38(9), 957–974.
Intravia, J., Wolff, K. T., Stewart, E. A., & Simons, R. L. (2014). Neighborhood-level differences in police discrimi -
nation and subcultural violence: A multilevel examination of adopting the code of the street. Journal of Crime and
Justice, 37(1), 42–60.
Keith, S., & Griffiths, E. (2014). Urban code or urban legend: Endorsement of the street code among delinquent youth in urban, suburban, and rural Georgia. Race and justice, 4(3), 270–298.
Kwak, H., Dierenfeldt, R., & McNeeley, S. (2019). The code of the street and cooperation with the police: Do codes of violence, procedural injustice, and police ineffectiveness discourage reporting violent victimization to the police?
Journal of Criminal Justice, 60, 25–34.
Matsuda, K. N., Melde, C., Taylor, T. J., Freng, A., & Esbensen, F. A. (2013). Gang membership and adherence to the “code of the street”. Justice Quarterly, 30(3), 440–468.
Matsueda, R. L., Drakulich, K., & Kubrin, C. E. (2006). Race and neighborhood codes of violence. The Many Colors
of Crime: Inequalities of Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America, 334–356.
McNeeley, S., Meldrum, R. C., & Hoskin, A. W. (2018). Low self-control and the adoption of street code values among young adults. Journal of Criminal Justice, 56, 118–126.
McNeeley, S., & Wilcox, P. (2015a). The code of the street and violent versus property crime victimization. Violence
and Victims, 30(6), 1049–1067.
McNeeley, S., & Wilcox, P. (2015b). Street codes, routine activities, neighbourhood context and victimization. British
Journal of Criminology, 55(5), 921–943.
McNeeley, S., & Yuan, Y. (2017). A multilevel examination of the code of the street’s relationship with fear of crime. Crime & Delinquency, 63(9), 1146–1167.
Mears, D. P., Stewart, E. A., Siennick, S. E., & Simons, R. L. (2013). The code of the street and inmate violence: Investigating the salience of imported belief systems. Criminology, 51(3), 695–728.
Mears, D. P., Stewart, E. A., Warren, P. Y., & Simons, R. L. (2017). Culture and formal social control: The effect of the code of the street on police and court decision-making. Justice Quarterly, 34(2), 217–247.
Miller, W. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 14(3), 5–19.
Moule Jr, R. K., Burt, C. H., Stewart, E. A., & Simons, R. L. (2015). Developmental trajectories of individuals’ code of the street beliefs through emerging adulthood.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(3), 342–372.
Piquero, A. R., Intravia, J., Stewart, E., Piquero, N. L., Gertz, M., & Bratton, J. (2012). Investigating the determinants of the street code and its relation to offending among adults. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(1), 19–32.
Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta- analysis. Criminology, 38(3), 931–964. Jonathan Intravia
228
Pratt, T. C., Turanovic, J. J., Fox, K. A., & Wright, K. A. (2014). Self-control and victimization: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 52(1), 87–116.
Stewart, E. A., Baumer, E. P., Brunson, R. K., & Simons, R. L. (2009). Neighborhood racial context and perceptions
of police-based racial discrimination among black youth. Criminology, 47(3), 847–887.
Stewart, E. A., Schreck, C. J., & Simons, R. L. (2006). “I ain’t gonna let no one disrespect me”. Does the code of the street reduce or increase violent victimization among African American adolescents? Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 43(4), 427–458.
Stewart, E. A., & Simons, R. L. (2006). Structure and culture in African American adolescent violence: A partial test of the “code of the street” thesis. Justice Quarterly, 23(1), 1–33.
Stewart, E. A., & Simons, R. L. (2010). Race, code of the street, and violent delinquency: A multilevel investigation of neighborhood street culture and individual norms of violence. Criminology, 48(2), 569–605.
Stewart, E. A., Simons, R. L., & Conger, R. D. (2002). Assessing neighborhood and social psychological influences on childhood violence in an African-American sample. Criminology, 40(4), 801–830.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324.
Taylor, T. J., Esbensen, F. A., Brick, B. T., & Freng, A. (2010). Exploring the measurement quality of an attitudinal scale of street code-related violence: Similarities and differences across groups and contexts. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice, 8(3), 187–212.
Thrasher, F. M. (1936[1927]). The gang: A study of one thousand three hundred thirteen gangs in Chicago . Chicago, IL: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Weitzer, R. (1999). Citizens’ perceptions of police misconduct: Race and neighborhood context. Justice Quarterly,
16(4), 819–846.
Wolfgang, M. E., & Ferracuti, F. (1967). The subculture of violence: Towards an integrated theory in criminology . London:
Tavistock.
