Broken Windows

If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows.

Consider a building with a few broken windows.

If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows.

Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside.

Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars.

With this passage in the March 1982 edition of The Atlantic Monthly by James Wilson and George Kelling a new theory was born – the theory of Broken Windows

The idea remains a controversial one, not least because it is often difficult to account for other factors that could influence crime reduction, such as changes in poverty levels, housing conditions and sentencing policy.

An experimental test of the “broken windows theory” has – until now – never been undertaken.

A group of researchers in the Netherlands – Kees Keizer and his colleagues at the University of Groningen – has proven the theorem. They constructed a series of experiments designed to discover if signs of vandalism, litter or low-level lawbreaking could change the way people behave. They found that they could – by a lot: doubling the number who are prepared to litter and steal.

**

The tendency for people to behave in a particular way can be strengthened or weakened depending on what they observe others to be doing. This does not necessarily mean that people will copy bad behaviour exactly, reaching for a spray can when they see graffiti. Rather, says Dr Keizer, it can foster the “violation” of other norms of behaviour.

It was this effect that his experiments, which have just been published in Science, set out to test.

His group’s first study was conducted in an alley that is frequently used to park bicycles. As in all of their experiments, the researchers created two conditions: one of order and the other of disorder. In the former, the walls of the alley were freshly painted; in the latter, they were tagged with graffiti (but not elaborately, to avoid the perception that it might be art). In both states a large sign prohibiting graffiti was put up, so that it would not be missed by anyone who came to collect a bicycle.

All the bikes then had a flyer promoting a non-existent sports shop attached to their handlebars. This needed to be removed before a bicycle could be ridden.

When owners returned, their behaviour was secretly observed.

There were no rubbish bins in the alley, so a cyclist had three choices. He could take the flyer with him, hang it on another bicycle (which the researchers counted as littering) or throw it to the floor. When the alley contained graffiti, 69% of the riders littered compared with 33% when the walls were clean.

To remove one possible bias—that litter encourages more litter—the researchers inconspicuously picked up each castaway flyer. Nor, they say, could the effect be explained by litterers assuming that because the spraying of graffiti had not been prevented, it was also unlikely that they would be caught. Littering, Dr Keizer observes, is generally tolerated by the police in Groningen.

The most dramatic result, though, was the one that showed a doubling in the number of people who were prepared to steal in a condition of disorder.

In this case an envelope with a €5 note inside (and the note clearly visible through the address window) was left sticking out of a post box. In a condition of order, 13% of those passing took the envelope (instead of leaving it or pushing it into the box). But if the post box was covered in graffiti, 27% did.

Even if the post box had no graffiti on it, but the area around it was littered with paper, orange peel, cigarette butts and empty cans, 25% still took the envelope.

The researchers’ conclusion is that one example of disorder, like graffiti or littering, can indeed encourage another, like stealing. Dr Kelling was right.

**

Such empirical evidence has strong relevance to the improvement of a sound and robust internal control environment.

Ever noticed how a company that insists – as two major Australian mining companies do – that when you are walking down a flight of stairs that you hold onto the rail has a strong focus on occupational safety.

Essentially what the companies are trying to do is to create that environment of order so that variances from the expected norm are more obvious.

(Try walking down a flight of steps and not hold onto a rail with an employee from one of these Australian mining companies and see how long it takes for them to at least comment, if not correct you, on your behaviour).

From an internal controls perspective, there is a myriad of applications that can be considered.

When you next see a senior manager in your company ignoring an internal control deficiency remind them of the broken window theory!