See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328890992

Gang Violence

Chapter · November 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 1,464

1 author:

Timothy Lauger
Niagara University
22 PUBLICATIONS   184 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Timothy Lauger on 10 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Gang Violence

Timothy R. Lauger

Niagara University

Routledge International Handbook of Violence Studies,

edited by DeKeseredy, W.S., Rennsion, C., & Sanchez, A.

GANG VIOLENCE

The image of a violent gang or gang member is common in popular culture, news

media, political arenas, and law enforcement circles (McCorkle & Miethe, 2002). Gangs

are dramatic (Klein 1971) and fit well into public narratives explaining patterns of local

violence. Gang research has historically provided a complex depiction of the relationship

between gangs and violence. Thrasher’s (1965 [1927]) seminal study described gangs as

conflict groups that struggle for existence in a competitive street environment, developing

through strife, thriving on warfare, and engaging in retaliatory violence with other

groups. Yet much of Thrasher’s work also described gang members as pursuing

adventure and being involved in youthful fantasies that exaggerated or romanticized their

conflicts with other groups. Violence was both a real and fictional part of gang life. The

focus on violence in ensuing gang literature ranged from being nonexistent (e.g. Whyte,

1943) to describing gang members as psychopaths who view gang membership both as

an outlet for their violent proclivities and an opportunity to gain social status (Yablonsky,

1967). Early and influential subcultural theories described gang culture in opposition to

social conventions so that gang members embraced an array of delinquent norms and

values conducive to crime and violence (e.g. Cloward & Ohlin, 1960; Cohen, 1955;

Miller, 1958). Cohen (1955) notably described gang culture as being a negativistic and

malicious normative system that allowed gang members to achieve status through

criminal and violent behavior. Gang culture was, in essence, violent.

Initial efforts to empirically examine gang violence found that it is not a frequent

event in the lives of gang members. Nearly fifty years ago, Klein (1971) observed that on

a day-to-day basis gang members mostly just stand around, which has not changed in the

ensuing decades. In one of the first systematic studies of gang violence, Miller (1966)

1
GANG VIOLENCE

identified that although gang members are involved in more violence than their peers,

assaultive incidents by gang members are “characterized by considerably more smoke

than fire” (pp. 100). Gang members talked about violence much more than they engaged

in violence, a finding that is still true for contemporary gang members (e.g. Lauger, 2012;

2014). A challenge for understanding gang violence is to recognize the empirical reality

that gang members are heavily involved in violence while also not overstating or

overdramatizing the role of violence in gang members’ lives. This chapter will examine

the research on gangs and violence, noting important trends about the spatial distribution

of gangs in cities, the role of social networks in gang violence, and the influence of gang

culture on potentially violent interactions between gangs. Gang members are more

violent than their peers, but they also create violent personas that distort reality and

exaggerate the amount of violence in their lives.

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN GANGS AND VIOLENCE

Researchers rely on an array of data sets from different cities to examine the

relationship between gang membership and violent behavior. Findings consistently

indicate that self-defined gang members engage in significantly higher levels of violence

and are more likely to use and carry weapons than non-gang members (e.g. Bjerregaard

& Lizotte, 1995; Esbensen & Weerman, 2005). Studies examining the effects of gang

membership on violence over time also reveal that violent behavior significantly

increases after individuals join gangs, which implies that something about gang life is a

causal force for violence (e.g. Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, & Tobin, 2003).

Assessing the intensity of violence in gang members’ lives is more challenging. Data

from 11 different cities in the U.S. finds that 76 percent of gang members in eighth grade

2
GANG VIOLENCE

have carried a gun and 27 percent have shot at people (Esbensen & Lynskey, 2001). In

Rochester, NY gang members were about 2 times more likely than non-gang members to

have ever engaged in violence and 7-12 times more likely to carry guns (Thornberry et

al., 2003). Seattle gang members reported being 7 times more likely than their peers to

have committed an act of violence in the previous year (Battin, Hill, Abbott, Catalano, &

Hawkins, 1998). Such trends are not unique to the United States, as studies throughout

Europe and in China find that gang membership increases participation in crime and

violence (e.g. Esbensen & Weerman, 2005; Pyrooz & Decker, 2013); worldwide

estimates indicate that gang members are 100 times more likely than their peers to be

involved in homicide (Decker & Pyrooz, 2010).

Gang members are also more likely than their peers to be the victims of violence

(e.g. Melde, Taylor, & Esbensen, 2009; Taylor, 2008). Some qualitative researchers have

offered accounts of violent victimization and found that gang members in their study

were likely to be murdered. In one Chicago study, gang members who remained in the

gang for 4 years had a 1 in 4 chance of being murdered (Levitt & Venkatesh, 2000).

Three years after completing a study on St. Louis gang members, Miller and Decker

(2001) conservatively estimated that 20 percent of their study participants had been

murdered. Quantitative research has also confirmed high rates of victimization within

gangs. For example, 32 percent of middle school aged gang members in St. Louis

reported being threatened with a gun, 27 percent had been shot at, and 12 percent had

been shot. These numbers are about 4-8 times higher than non-gang peers (Curry, Decker

& Egley, 2002). Eighth grade gang members in 11 different cities reported being 3-4

times more likely to experience violent victimization than peers and approximately 3-5

3
GANG VIOLENCE

times more likely to be the victim of robbery and aggravated assault (Peterson, Taylor,

Esbensen, 2004; Taylor, Peterson, Esbensen, & Feng, 2007). There is a general consensus

in gang literature that joining a gang increases an individual’s chances for violent

victimization.

Researchers have also examined the prevalence and relative uniqueness of gang

murders, which is difficult because cities define gang murder differently. When

definitions remain similar, the prevalence of gang-related murder varies by city. Whereas

only 10 percent of all murders are gang-related (involve a gang member) in Oakland, CA

and Newark, NJ, those numbers increase to 22 percent in San Antonio, and to 40-42

percent in Los Angeles and Long Beach, CA (McDaniel, Egley, & Logan, 2014). When

compared to non-gang homicides, gang murders are somewhat unique regardless of the

city. They are more likely to involve younger suspects and victims, multiple suspects,

strangers, racial and ethnic minorities, occur in public settings, and involve the use of a

gun (e.g. Decker & Curry, 2002; Pyrooz, 2012; Rosenfeld, Bray, Egley, 1999). In

Chicago, gang murders are also more likely to be reciprocal, signifying a pattern of

shootings between gangs, and motivated by expressive (e.g. insults) rather than

instrumental (e.g. money) concerns (Papachristos, 2009). There is good reason to suggest

that murders involving gang members are different than other types of murders and have

a unique causal process.

THE IMPORTANCE OF PLACE: SPATIAL CONCENTRATION OF VIOLENCE

Scholars have historically recognized that adverse social structural conditions

within disadvantaged neighborhoods produce and sustain gangs (for a review see

Papachristos & Hughes, 2015). Research generally supports this premise, reinforcing the

4
GANG VIOLENCE

idea that neighborhoods matter. Decreases in the job market help predict the presence of

gangs in cities (Jackson, 1991), and gangs tend to be concentrated in impoverished areas

of cities (Katz & Schnebly, 2011). Yet, marginalized and impoverished communities

exhibit substantial diversity, as living conditions and community dynamics can change on

a block-by-block basis. All areas in a community may not experience the presence of

gangs equally. Gangs in Pittsburgh, for example, often congregate in “set spaces” or

specific locations within the gang’s territory or neighborhood where members frequent

and hang out. These areas are geographically smaller than an entire neighborhood and are

ecologically unique in that they display higher levels of social disorganization, economic

disenfranchisement, and minority populations than other parts of the community (Tita,

Cohen, & Engberg, 2005). They also tend to exhibit higher levels of violence than other

parts of cities.

The amount of violence is not just influenced by the number of gang members in

the area, but also by the spatial distribution of gangs within the community. Physical and

symbolic geographical boundaries constrain gang member’s movement through space,

influencing levels of interaction, awareness, and conflict with other gangs (Tita, Riley, &

Greenwood, 2003). A geographically isolated gang has fewer opportunities for conflict

and will likely engage in less violence, but opportunities for conflict increase when gangs

exist in close proximity. In the Hollenbeck community of Los Angeles, for example, gang

rivalries are geographically organized, and neighborhoods that have a high density of

gangs also experience the most violence between gangs (Radil, Flint, & Tita, 2010).

Interactions between gangs in these areas are more frequent and gangs often share

territorial boundaries, which increases the probability of conflict. Further research in

5
GANG VIOLENCE

Hollenbeck indicates that although gang set spaces exhibit concentrated violence, a

disproportionate amount of violence also happens along territorial boundaries and in

areas located between conflicting gangs where gang members inevitably encounter

adversaries (Brantingham, Tita, Short, & Reid, 2012; Radil, Flint, and Tita, 2010). In

Camden, NJ drug-dealing corners that are dominated by one gang experience two times

the amount of violence as other corners, but where multiple gangs converge to deal drugs,

violence increases to three times the expected rate (Taniguchi, Ratcliffe, & Taylor, 2011).

Locations where gangs are bound to meet tend also to be where violence occurs.

Not all gangs are territorial (Klein & Maxson, 2010), but territory contributes to

gang violence when it becomes either a symbol of a gang’s dominance or a defined space

for illicit money making endeavors (Papachristos, 2009; Levitt & Venkatesh, 2000). The

relationship between gangs, territory, and drug dealing is complex, as gangs differ in both

their focus on and methods used for dealing drugs (Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Levitt

& Venkatesh, 2000). Although many gang members deal drugs independently and do not

try to monopolize turf, some more organized gangs work to establish and defend

territory. One uniquely organized gang in Chicago during the mid 1990’s expanded its

drug selling turf and tripled its monthly profits by winning a violent war with nearby

gangs. Yet, profits substantially dropped during the gang war because violence deterred

buyers from coming into the area (Levitt & Venkatesh, 2000). Territorial violence has the

potential to expand turf and increase profits, but it may come with financial losses during

the expansion phase. Despite the experiences of this gang, research on murders in

Chicago between 1994 and 2002 indicated that most gang-related murders were not

motivated by drug turf or financial gain. In fact, murders involving gang members were

6
GANG VIOLENCE

less likely to be motivated by drugs or money than murders not involving gang members

(Papachristos, 2009). Over 90 percent of gang murders in Chicago were instead caused

by expressive motivations in which turf disputes focused on exhibiting dominance and

gaining or maintaining social status within the community (Papachristos, 2009; See also

Hughes & Short, 2005).

SOCIAL NETWORKS AND THE TRANSMISSION OF VIOLENCE

Gang violence is clustered within social networks and moves through both those

networks and physical space similar to an infectious disease (Green, Horel, &

Papachrisos, 2017; Zeoli, Pizarro, Grady, & Melde, 2014). Much like with the common

cold, a person is at risk of infection if he or she has direct contact with someone who has

already been exposed to the “disease,” in this case, violence (Tracy, Braga, &

Papachristos, 2016; Zeoli et al., 2014). To study this effect, researchers examine carriers

of violence, or people who have been perpetrators/victims of violence, and the relative

exposure to violence people have within their immediate and extended social network. In

one small community in Boston, 85 percent of all gunshot injuries were found in one

small social network, and the probability of becoming a murder victim increased the

closer a person was relationally to a murder victim. This effect was stronger for gang

members, indicating that the contagious nature of violence is more prominent in gangs

(Papachristos, Braga, & Hureau, 2012). Researchers also found within co-offending

networks in Chicago that the probability of shooting victimization, relative to the rest of

the sample, was 344 percent higher for gang members and 94 percent higher for people

who knew gang members (Papachristos, Braga, Piza, & Grossman, 2015). Street gangs

7
GANG VIOLENCE

may, in some communities, be primary transmitters or hosts that expose individuals to

violence (see also Papachristos, 2009).

Unlike the common cold, the source of gang violence is not a virus but a cultural

idea that violence is an accepted or expected response to interpersonal or group disputes

(Papachristos, 2009). Street gangs are immersed in a local culture that emphasizes honor

and respect while also aligning violence with idealized conceptions of masculinity and

social status (Anderson, 1999; Horowitz, 1983; Matsueda, Taylor, Freng, & Esbensen,

2013; Papachristos, 2009; Stretesky & Pogrebin, 2007). Interpersonal challenges that

undermine a person’s honor or masculinity, therefore, reduce his (or her) status (see

Miller, 2002), which could lead to harassment and victimization. Gang members

understand the meaning and consequences of peers’ insults, or other disrespectful actions,

and can anticipate how their behavior, in turn, influences their place in the social order

(Lauger, 2012; 2014). They understand violence is a tool that allows them to either

preemptively demonstrate their dominance over members of other gangs or reassert their

dominance after an affront has already occurred (Papachristos, 2009). Successful

assertions of dominance help gang members elevate their social status, which builds

street capital or a gang’s share of social and economic influence (Harding, 2014).

Gang life involves a complex negotiation of interpersonal and group dynamics

during social interactions in public settings. To survive, thrive, or even dominate the

social situation, gang members, or other participants of street life, may work to develop a

reputation for violence (Densley, 2012; Harding, 2014; Horowitz, 1983, Lauger, 2012;

Papachristos, 2009; Stretesky & Pogebin, 2007). Being known as violent is, theoretically,

an effective deterrent against external threats, and it allows gang members to navigate

8
GANG VIOLENCE

social situations with some authority, at times demonstrating their toughness by

intimidating peers. Gang culture contains an array of meaningful labels or categories that

reinforce the importance of establishing a reputation for violence and aggression. If gang

members are labeled as “being loco” (crazy), peers understand that they are willing and

able to use violence and should not be messed with (Moore, 1991; Vigil, 2002). Or, gang

members align violent behavior with legitimacy so that “real gang members” are willing

and able to be violent (Lauger, 2012). Developing such reputations generally happens

when gang members participate in social performances in which they talk aggressively,

challenge peers, or act violently in public places. They “do gang” or perform in a way

that a gang member should perform so that a wide audience of peers can observe them.

Such performances have historically been limited to physical spaces, like street corners,

school cafeterias, or clubs, that involve face-to-face contact with other gang members,

but developments in technology also allow gang members to perform in virtual space.

They develop personal and collective identities on social media (e.g. Twitter or

YouTube) by both highlighting the gang’s capacity for violence and making

inflammatory or threatening comments about other gangs (Lauger & Densley, 2017;

Patton, Eschmann, & Butler, 2013; Storrod & Densley, 2017). Violence does not have to

occur in order for someone to further develop his or her violent reputation, but any

comment in public forums, whether online or in person, may antagonize other gangs and

initiate, maintain, or intensify potentially violent conflicts.

As gang members negotiate the realities of street life with their peers, they

construct and transmit cultural ideas through street socialization, (Lauger, 2014; Stretesky

& Pogrebin, 2007; Vigil, 1988, 2002). This involves collective efforts to understand and

9
GANG VIOLENCE

manage social, cultural, and economic marginalization (e.g. Vigil, 1991, 2002), but it also

includes discussions about violence and how to survive in an adversarial social setting.

Gang members openly converse about when, why, and how they should use violence and,

more specifically, gun violence. By telling personal stories about violence, for example,

they communicate how violence is a rational and inevitable response to insults from

peers. These stories also clarify the appropriate use of violent retaliation or when to shoot

at adversaries, and they communicate the negative social consequences for failing to act

violently (Lauger, 2014). Sanders (1994) found that gang members in Los Angeles

understood drive-by shootings to be a strategic resource for responding to contentious

interactions with other gangs, and they communicated this idea by telling stories about

prior shootings. The notion that violence is an accepted or expected response to

interpersonal disputes is, therefore, transmitted from person to person, which creates

concentrated violence within specific social networks.

Violence is not only transmitted across networks through street socialization, but

also through repetitious interactions between conflicting parties that can escalate when a

single violent incident leads to more intense violence. Previous events may influence a

potentially violent encounter between gang members, and conflicts are likely to continue

after the resolution of a single incident. Both parties involved in a conflict use the event

to further their own reputations by publically disparaging the other participant. As street

gossip circulates and a gang hears that members of another gang are “talking shit” about

them, the probability of future conflicts increase (Lauger, 2012). The desire for

retribution is strong and sometimes becomes an endless pursuit when conflicts arise

(Jacobs & Wright, 2006). At times, this leads to a seemingly endless flow of “shit

10
GANG VIOLENCE

talking” or “internet banging,” as gang members are content to match insult with insult.

Other times it leads to an escalating pattern of violence in which insults progress into

threats, fights, shootings, and murders. Conflicts can be self-perpetuating when a gang

member’s efforts to win a dispute maintains or intensifies hostility.

One of the reasons why violence occurs more frequently in gangs and amongst

gang members is that it becomes a collective act in which group processes, beyond

socialization, draw members into conflicts and intensify the desire for violence. Decker

(1996) argues that interpersonal disputes and/or the threat of violence influences group

cohesion and the general focus of group members. Identifying an external threat

reinforces the centrality of violence to gang life and increases group cohesion. The gang

then encounters a mobilizing event, which confirms the existence of an external threat

and escalates the activity of the group. Violence occurs when a mobilizing event “pushes

a ready and willing group beyond the constraints against violence” (Decker, 1996, pp.

262). An act of violence leads to a de-escalation process for the offending gang, but it

also becomes motivation for the victimized group to retaliate. When retaliation occurs,

each act of violence becomes a mobilizing event that maintains a cycle of violence so that

violence becomes a contagious element of intergang conflicts. Any gang member may be

pulled into a gang conflict even if he or she was not involved in any of the interpersonal

disputes that started or maintained the conflict. Research on patterns on gun violence in

urban areas supports Decker’s (1996) contagion hypothesis, as quantitative studies in

Chicago and St. Louis have found reciprocal patterns of gun violence between gangs

(Papachristos, 2009; Rosenfeld, Bray, Egley, 1999), and qualitative research in places

like St. Louis, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, and London describe escalating patterns of

11
GANG VIOLENCE

violence between conflicting gangs (Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Harding, 2014;

Lauger, 2012; Sanders, 1994).

CONCLUSION: THE PERCEPTION OF VIOLENCE IN GANG LIFE MAY BE

WORSE THAN REALITY

This chapter began with the observation that although gang members are more

violent than their peers, actual violence in gang life is more “smoke than fire.” Research

clearly indicates that gang members are indeed violent, and decades of studies have

provided substantial insights about the role of place, social networks, and culture in

facilitating gang violence. Yet, one must understand the reality of violence within the

context of daily life and not over-predict how often violence actually occurs. A reader

may be tempted to think that every potentially hostile encounter leads to a conflict and

every conflict leads to violence, which then contributes to a pattern of violence between

gangs. A person may also get the impression that gang members are dangerous all the

time and should be feared if encountered. Those impressions are not accurate.

Researchers who have spent a substantial amount of time with gang members

consistently note that much of what they do on a day-to-day basis does not involve

violence (Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Fleisher, 1998; Garot, 2010; Klein, 1971; Lauger,

2012; Miller, 1966), and that gang members often choose to walk away from conflicts,

risking damage to their reputations (Garot, 2009). The findings and ideas covered in this

chapter rely on probabilistic logic in which researchers note the increased likelihood of

violence in gang life and offer explanations for those trends. Further research is needed to

better account for how these findings and theoretical ideas intersect with the daily lives

and behaviors of gang members. Not all conflicts between gangs lead to violence, not all

12
GANG VIOLENCE

gang members are violent, and those gang members who are involved in violence are not

violent most of the time.

Although local gang and street culture influences how gang members interpret

situations and encourages them to use violence to deal with conflicts, gang members do

not ubiquitously embrace such ideas all the time. Early subcultural theories, which

typically focused on gangs, conceptualized delinquent subcultures as being detached

from conventional culture so that gang members were fully immersed in values or norms

incompatible with mainstream society (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960; Cohen, 1955; Miller,

1958). Contemporary arguments depict gang culture as merely one tool that members

have at their disposal to navigate an array of social situations (e.g. Lauger, 2014). This

idea was first developed when Horowitz and Swartz (1974) noted that gang members are

exposed to competing culture systems and share many of the same values as members of

conventional society. Gang members can navigate different types of social situations

without resorting to violence, but when conflicts emerge, they may rely on ideas found in

gang culture and strategically employ threatening or violent behavior to defend their

honor. Activating gang (or street) culture in these situations is conditional upon context

so that violence becomes an option only when someone is physically threatened or may

suffer harm to his or her social status (reputation). Most situations that gang members

encounter do not require the utilization of cultural codes that trigger violent behavior.

Gang researchers also rely on ideas from social psychology to better understand

how identity intersects with gang membership to produce variations in member behavior

(Bulbolz & Lee, 2018; Garot, 2010; Hennigan & Spannovic, 2012; Vigil, 1988, 1991).

Identity is a person’s sense of self or how one defines him/herself, and it can be

13
GANG VIOLENCE

comprised of many different roles. Gang identity is, therefore, a role that some members

perform selectively, as they may perform other roles in different situations. They do not

“do gang” very often. The level of commitment that gang members have to their gang

identity is contingent on their degree of integration to the group. While the gang identity

of core members may be salient so that they perform like a gang member across many

situations, less committed peripheral members may activate their gang identity on a more

limited basis. If idealized notions of gang membership within a local setting align with

violence, then gang identity performances will involve either violent behavior or violent

posturing. These performances may not actually involve violence. Some gang members,

especially less committed members, may adeptly navigate gang life without engaging in

much violence by publically performing as if they are violent. They are able to cultivate a

violent public persona, and are perceived to be more violent than what reality suggests.

REFERENCES

Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Battin, S.R., Hill, K.G., Abbott, R.D., Catalano, R.F., & Hawkins, J.D. (1998). The

contribution of gang membership to delinquency beyond delinquent friends.

Criminology, 36, 93.

Bjerregaard, B. & Lizotte, A.J. (1995). Gun ownership and gang membership. The

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 37.

Brantingham, P.J., Tita, G.E., Short, M.B., & Reid, S.E. (2012). The ecology of gang

territorial boundaries. Criminology, 50, 851.

Bulbolz B., & Lee, S. (2018). Putting in work: The application of identity theory to gang

violence and commitment. Deviant Behavior, advanced online publication.

14
GANG VIOLENCE

https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1437655

Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity. NY: Free Press.

Cohen, A. (1955). Delinquent Boys. NY: Free Press.

Curry, G.D., Decker, S.H., & Egley, A. Jr. (2002). Gang involvement and delinquency in

a middle school population. Justice Quarterly, 19, 275.

Decker, S. (1996). Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Quarterly,

13, 243.

Decker, S.H., & Curry, G.D. (2002). Gangs, gang homicides, and gang loyalty:

Organized crimes or disorganized criminals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 343.

Decker, S.H., & Pyrooz, D.C. (2010). Gang violence worldwide: Context, culture, and

country. In G. McDonald, (Ed.). Small arms survey. 129-155. London: Oxford

University Press.

Decker, S. H., & Van Winkle, B. (1996). Life in the gang. Cambridge, England:

Cambridge University Press.

Densley, J.A. (2013). How gangs work. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Esbensen, F.-A., & Lynskey, D.P. (2001). Youth gang members in a school survey. In

M.W. Klein, H.-J. Kerner, C.L. Maxson and E.G.M. Weitekamp (Eds.), The

European paradox: Street gangs and youth groups in the U.S. and Europe, 93-

114. Dordecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Esbensen, F-A., & Weerman, F.M. (2005). Youth gangs and troublesome youth groups in

the United States and the Netherlands: A cross-national comparison. European

Journal of Criminology, 2, 1477.

Fleisher, M.S. (1998). Dead end kids. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

15
GANG VIOLENCE

Garot, R. (2009). Reconsidering retaliation: Structural inhibitions, emotive dissonance,

and the acceptance of ambivalence among inner-city young men. Ethnography,

10, 63.

Garot, R. (2010). Who you claim. New York; New York University Press.

Green, B., Horel, T., & Papachristos, A.V. (2017). Modeling contagion through social

network analysis to explain and predict gunshot violence in Chicago, 2006 to

2014. JAMA Internal Medicine, 177, 326.

Harding, S. (2014). The street casino. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Hennigan, K., & Spanovic, M. (2012). Gang dynamics through the lens of social

identity theory. In F.A. Esbensen and C.L. Maxson (Eds.). Youth Gangs in

international perspective: Results from the Eurogang program of research, 127-

149. New York: Springer.

Horowitz, R. (1983). Honor and the American dream. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University Press.

Horowitz, R. & Schwartz, G. (1974). Honor, normative ambiguity and gang violence.

American Sociological Review, 39, 238.

Hughes, L.A., & Short, J.F. (2005). Disputes involving youth street gang members:

Micro-social contexts. Criminology, 43, 43.

Jackson, P.I. (1991). Crime, youth gangs, and urban transition: The social dislocations of

postindustrial economic development. Justice Quarterly, 8, 379.

Jacobs, B.A., & Wright, R. (2006). Street justice: Retaliation in the criminal underworld.

New York, Cambridge University Press.

Katz C.M., & Schnebly, S.M. (2011). Neighborhood variation in gang member

16
GANG VIOLENCE

concentrations. Crime and Delinquency, 57, 377.

Klein, M. W. (1971). Street gangs and street workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall, Inc.

Klein, M.W. & Maxson, C. (2010). Street gang patterns and policy. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Lauger, T.R. (2012). Real gangstas. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Lauger, T.R. (2014). Violent stories: Personal narratives, street socialization, and the

negotiation of street culture among street-oriented youth. Criminal Justice

Review, 39, 182.

Lauger T.R., & Densley, J.A. (2017). Broadcasting badness: Violence, identity, and

performance in the online gang rap scene. Justice Quarterly, advanced online

publication: doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1341542

Levitt, S.D., & Venkatesh, S.A. (2000). An economic analysis of a drug-selling gang’s

finances. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 755.

Matsueda, 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, 440.

McCorkle, R.C., & Miethe, T.D. (2002). Panic: The social construction of the street

gang problem. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

McDaniel, D., Egley, A. Jr., & Logan, J. (2014). Gang homicides in five U.S. cities,

2003-2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 61, 46.

Melde, C., Taylor, T.J., & Ebsensen, F. (2009). “I got your back”: An examination of the

protective function of gang membership in adolescence. Criminology, 47, 565.

Miller, J. (2002). The strengths and limits of ‘doing gender’ for understanding street

17
GANG VIOLENCE

crime. Theoretical Criminology, 6, 433.

Miller, J., & Decker, S.H. (2001). Young women and gang violence: Gender, street

offending, and violent victimization in gangs. Justice Quarterly, 18, 115.

Miller, W. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency.

Journal of Social Issues, 14, 5.

Miller, W.B. (1966). Violent crimes in city gangs. The ANNALS of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 364. 96.

Moore. J.W. (1991). Going down the barrio. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Papachristos A. (2009) Murder by structure: Dominance relations and the social structure

of gang homicide. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 74.

Papachristos, A.V., Braga, A.A., & Hureau, D.M. (2012). Social networks and the risk

of gunshot injury. Journal of Urban Health; Bulletin of the New York Academy of

Medicine, 89, 992.

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, 54, 624.

Papachristos, A. & Hughes, L. (2015). Neighborhoods and street gangs. In S. H. Decker

and D. C. Pyrooz (Eds.), The handbook of gangs, 98–117. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Patton, D.U., Eschmann, R.D., & Butler, D.A. (2013). Internet banging: New trends in

social media, gang violence, masculinity and hip hop. Computers in Human

Behavior, 29, A54.

Peterson, D, Taylor, T.J., Esbensen, F-A. (2004). Gang membership and violent

victimization. Justice Quarterly, 21, 793.

18
GANG VIOLENCE

Pyrooz, D.C. (2012). Structural covariates of gang homicide in large U.S. cities. Journal

of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49, 489.

Pyrooz D.C., & Decker, S.H. (2013). Delinquent behavior, violence, and gang

involvement in China. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29, 251.

Radil, S.M. Flint, C. & Tita, G.E. (2010). Spatializing social networks: Using social

network analysis to investigate geographies of gang rivalry, territory, and violence

in Los Angeles. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100, 307.

Rosenfeld, R.; Bray, T.M., & Egley, A. (1999). Facilitating violence: A comparison of

gang-motivated, gang affiliated, and nongang youth homicides. Journal of

Quantitative Criminology, 15, 495.

Sanders, W.B. (1994). Gangbangs and drive-bys. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

Stretesky, P.B., & Pogrebin, M.R. (2007). Gang-related gun violence: Socialization,

identity, and self. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 36, 85.

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, 677.

Taniguchi, T.A., Ratcliffe, J.H., & Taylor, R.B. (2011). Gang set space, drug markets,

and crime around drug corners in Camden. Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency, 48, 327.

Taylor, T.J. (2008). The boulevard ain’t safe for your kids…: Youth gang membership

and violent victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24, 125.

Taylor, T.J., Peterson, D., Esbensen, F., & Freng, A. (2007). Gang membership as a risk

factor for adolescent violent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and

19
 GANG VIOLENCE

Delinquency, 44, 351.

Thornberry, T.P., Krohn, M.D., Lizotte, A.J., Smith, C.A., & Tobin, K. (2003). Gangs

and Delinquency in Developmental Perspective. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Thrasher, F. (1927). The gang. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tita, G., Riley, J.K., & Greenwood, P. (2001). From Boston to Boyle Heights: The

process and prospects of a ‘pulling levers’ strategy in a Los Angeles barrio. In

S.H. Decker (Ed.). Policing street gangs and youth violence, 102-130. Belmont,

CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.

Tita, G. E., Cohen, J., & Engberg, J. (2005). An ecological study of gang “set space.”

Social Problems, 52, 272.

Tracy, M., Braga, A.A., & Papachristos, A.V. (2016). The transmission of gun and other

weapon-involved violence within social networks. Epidemiologic Reviews, 38, 70.

Vigil, J.D. (1988). Group processes and street identity: Adolescent Chicano gang

members. Ethos, 14, 421.

Vigil, J. D. (1991). Barrio gangs. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Vigil, J.D. (2002). A rainbow of gangs. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Whyte, W.F. (1943). Street corner society. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Yablonsky, Lewis. (1967). The violent gang. Baltimore, Penguin.

Zeoli, A.M., Pizarro, J.M., Grady, S.C., & Melde, C. (2014). Homicide as infectious

disease: Using public health methods to investigate the diffusion of homicide.

Justice Quarterly, 31, 609.

20

View publication stats