2579751

Urban Theory, Urbanism, and Suburban Residence
Author(s): Charles R. Tittle and Mark C. Stafford

Source: Social Forces, Vol. 70, No. 3 (Mar., 1992), pp. 725-744
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2579751
Accessed: 03-05-2015 13:45 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2579751?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 193.227.1.43 on Sun, 03 May 2015 13:45:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Urban Theory, Urbanism, and Suburban

Residence
CHARLESR. TITLE, WashingtonState University
MARK C. SrAFFORD,WashingtonState University
Abstract
Data from a 1972 three-statesurvey are used to comparecity, suburban,town, and
ruraldwellersin termsoffive urbanismcharacteristics:
(1) anonymity,(2) tolerance,(3)
communitysocialbonds,(4) alienation,and (5) deviantbehavior.Suburbanitesdisplayed
less urbanismthancity dwellers,but theydid not differmuchfrom othernoncitypeople
in this regard.In fact, residentsof the varioustypes of settlementdo notfall on a neat
continuumof urbanismfrom country to town to suburbto city. The dominantpattern
is simplya city-noncitydifferentiation,
althoughthereareafew anomalies.Theseresults
suggest that urbantheorieshave limitedusefulnessforunderstandingurbanismamong
suburbanites,but they also revealso little evidenceof suburbandistinctivenessthat it
may not requirea uniqueexplanationbeyondthat neededto accountforsimple urbannonurbandifferences.
Interest in the effects of large population size, high heterogeneity, and high
density continues to generate research (see, e.g., Sampson 1988; Tittle 1989). The
issue is addressed by three competing theories: (1) a classical theory postulating
these urban features to have distinct effects (urbanism), (2) a theory contending
that urban features have no causal effects independent of community foci linked
to social and demographic characteristics of residents, and (3) a subcultural
theory implying that urban features have some effects, but fewer than implied
by the classical argument, and in different ways than implied by either of the
other two theories.
Despite the prominence of these theories, it is unclear how they apply to
types of settlement not easily categorized by the three urban features. Suburbs
seem unusual in reflecting variable combinations of size, heterogeneity, and
density, as well as other demographic elements, at the same time that their
location potentially exposes residents to urban influences. Consequently,
ascertaining how the explanatory processes of the theories might operate for
suburbs is complicated, and none of the three is developed well enough to yield
unambiguous predictions.
* Direct correspondenceto CharlesR. Tittle, Departmentof Sociology, Washington State
University, Pullman, WA 99164.
C)The University of North CarolinaPress
Social Forces, March1992, 70(3):725-744
726 / Social Forces 70:3, March 1992
TheoreticalPredictions about Urbanismin Suburbs

CLASSICALTHEORY
Toennies ([18871 1957), Simmel ([1903] 1971), Wirth ([1938] 1969), and
Redfield ([1947] 1969) suggest that urban features cause social
disorganization, personality disorders, and deviance. The process involves
three related factorspresumablyfostered by large, diverse, and concentrated
populations (cf. Mayhew & Levinger 1976): (1) large numbers of social
interactions,often leading to superficialcontacts;(2) numerous encounters
with people not known personally; and (3) the capacity to remain
anonymous in many situations. These are said to weaken social bonds,
promote alienation and tolerance,and underminesocial control, permitting
deviant behavior.Thus, if classicists are correct,settlements that are larger,
more heterogeneous, and denser should display more urbanism (weaker
community social bonds, more anonymity, greatertoleranceand alienation,
and more deviant behavior) while smaller, more homogeneous, and less
dense places should have less urbanism.But these predictions,the research
stemming from them, and the classical argumentitself seem to assume that
settlements have consistent urban features,which may not always be true.
Many settlements do exhibit consistency. City populations are usually
large, heterogeneous, and dense, and seem to promote superficial,strangerto-stranger interactions as well as anonymity. Town populations, by
contrast,are generally relatively small, fairly homogeneous, and less dense,
and presumably engage in few transitoryor stranger-orientedinteractions.
Rural populations are typically even smaller, more homogeneous, and less
dense, with little anonymity or superficiality. Thus, standard tests of
classical ideas using population size or a rural-urbandichotomy (for a
review, see Tittle 1989) appear to be justified. However, conclusions about
the effects of urbanfeatureswill be incomplete,and may be distorted,if the
assumption that they are consistent in all types of settlement is incorrect.
Consistency is particularly problematic for suburbs. They appear
smaller, less heterogeneous, and less dense than cities (Baumgartner1988;
Duncan & Reiss 1956; Fischer1984), while tending to be larger and denser
than most towns and ruralareas. Because of proximity to - and functional
ties with - cities, their populations seem more likely to experience
superficialor stranger-orientedinteractionand anonymity than populations
in towns, and they are probablymore homogeneous (Choldin1985;Fischer
1984). Classical theoxy, then, seems to suggest that suburbs will have
strongersocial bonds, and less tolerance,alienation,anonymity,and deviant
behavior than cities (Fischer1984),but it is unclearwhether suburbs should
in all ways have more urbanism than towns. Hence, the only clear
prediction from classical theoxy about type of settlement is a limited,
dichotomous one that cities should differ from all other types of settlement,
including suburbs, in all forms of urbanism.
Urbanismand SuburbanResidence/ 727

THE COMPOSMTIONAL-SYSTEMIC
PERSPEC'IWE
Thomas, Park, and Burgess set forth a contraxy perspective (Kasarda &
Janowitz 1974) expressed best in the work of Gans (1962) (but see also
Gordon 1976;Lewis 1965;Reiss 1955). Accordingto it, urban features have
only indirect effects on urbanism by permitting parallel development of
many communities with distinct occupational, life-cycle, ethnic, and class
concerns.From this point of view, any differencesin attitudes, behavior,or
social relationshipsbetween residents of differenttypes of settlement can be
attributed to social and/or economic characteristics(composition) of the
populations that give rise to focal concerns,or to community characteristics
reflectedin such factors as population instabilitythat inhibit or delay social
bonding (Kasarda& Janowitz 1974;Sampson 1988).
An implication of this perspective is that suburbanitesshould display
no more or no less urbanism than residents of other types of settlement
once demographic and life-cycle variables influencing community foci are
controlled. Conversely, urbanism in suburbs and elsewhere should be
predictable from demographic and life-cycle variables independent of
population size, heterogeneity, and density. But exactly what those
predictions should be is unclear.Since suburbanpopulations tend to be of
higher socioeconomic status, of family-relevant age (more middle-aged
adults and children), and more consistently white (Baumgartner1988;
Duncan & Reiss 1956; Fischer 1984), they might be more conformist, less
alienated, and more involved in community affairs (have stronger
community bonds) than populations in any other type of settlement.
However, this predictionassumes that specificbehaviors/attitudes or beliefs
are easily predicted from demographiccharacteristics,an assumption often
challenged (see Tittle, Villemez & Smith 1978, on predicting crime from
socioeconomic status; McClosky& Schaar1965, on predictinganomie from
education and occupation;and Kluegel & Smith 1981, on predictingbeliefs
about the AmericanDreamfrom socioeconomicstatus). Moreover,suburban
populations have traits that might lead to contrarypredictionsabout some
aspects of urbanism. For example, suburbanitesmight have weaker social
bonds because of more frequent moving associated with occupational
mobility. In addition, suburban populations probably enjoy residential
spacing favorable to anonymity, which might encourage deviant behavior
(Baumgartner1988).
Similar contradictory expectations apply to other traits of urbanism.
Higher socioeconomic status might lead to greater tolerance of deviant
behavior,but parenthoodmight cause suburbanitesto be more intolerantof
potential corrupting influences. Thus, like the classical argument,
compositional-systemictheory provides only a partial basis for predicting
urbanismamong suburbanresidents. Indeed, the only defensible prediction
would be that controlling relevant sociodemographic variables should
eliminate all differencesin urbanismbetween types of settlement.
728
/ Social Forces 70:3, March1992
SUBCULTURALTHEORY
Fischer (1975, 1981, 1982, 1984) contends that both classical and
compositional theories contain important insights, but that each is flawed.
He believes some of the apparent differences between different types of
settlement are due to demographic, ethnic, or life-cycle factors, and he
grants that heterogeneity 'and large size may produce some superficial
interactionand anonymity. But he contends that neither competing theory
recognizes that urban features can strengthen social groups by promoting
and intensifying subcultures (1975) and by leading residents into private
worlds with close interpersonalbonds strengthenedby their voluntariness
and contrast with transitoxypublic contacts (1981).
Fischer maintains that urban features foster subcultures because their
"scale"provides "criticalmass," enabling practitionersof unusual behavior
to exist in sufficient numbers to find each other. Moreover, the urban
environmentcreatescompetitionamong subcultures,producingpressurefor
subculturalparticipantsto conform with the expectationsof their particular
groups, at the same time that tolerance increases. Urban diversity is also
said to produce more meaningful interpersonal networks by allowing
associations to be based on compatibility. Intimate cleavages as well as
subcultures, however, erode community cohesion (1984). Urban features,
therefore, lead to greater interpersonalbut less communitybondedness,
renderingurbanitesno less subject to social control or alienation,but more
tolerant and inclined toward deviant behavior.
Like the others, this theoxy does not produce clear predictions about
suburbs. Although smaller in size than central cities (but probably larger
than most towns), suburbs are geographically located such that residents
may be included as part of the metropolitan critical mass. Consequently,
suburbanites should be less subculturally involved than those in central
cities but more involved than town residents. On the other hand, suburbs
are more homogeneous than cities and perhaps more so than towns, so
there might be less subcultural involvement among suburbanites than
among city or town dwellers.
Predictions about tolerance are also problematic. Within residential
domains suburbanites may deal with fewer strangers than town residents
(Baumgartner 1988), although they may episodically encounter more
strangersas a consequence of forays into centralcities. Therefore,suburban
residents should be less stranger-orientedand less tolerant than urbanites,
but whether they should be more anonymous or tolerant than town people
is unclear.
Fischer's argument implies that greater homogeneity, fewer strangers,
and less opportunity for voluntary friendship (Baumgartner1988), as well
as less subcultural activity, will cause suburbanites to bond to their
communities and feel less alienated than city or town dwellers. But if
inclusion within a metropolitancriticalmass causes suburbanitesto be more
subculturally oriented than town residents, they might have fewer
Urbanismand SuburbanResidence/ 729

community bonds but perhaps no less alienation, unless it is a product of
a subculture. Fischer's theory, then, seems to predict that anonymity, low
community social bonding, and alienation will be less evident in suburbs
than in either cities or towns, but, at the same time, the subcultural
complication makes this prediction problematic.
Finally, the theory is ambiguous in predictions about deviance. If
suburbanitesare less anonymous, tolerant,and alienated and more bonded
to their communities than others, then there should be greatersocial control
in suburbs;and if suburbanitesare less subculturallyinvolved than others,
there should be less deviant behavior. But considerations of subcultural
involvement, community bonding, tolerance, and alienation do not
consistently differentiatesuburbs from other types of settlement.
Hence, the subculturaltheory would seem to yield only two predictions:
(1) community social bonding should be greater among suburbanitesthan
others, and (2) alienation should be less evident among suburbanites.
SUMMAY
The probable degree of urbanism (low community social bonding,

anonymity, tolerance, alienation, and deviance) among suburban
populations relative to populations of other types of settlement is not well
predicted by urban theories. Indeed, predictionsappear to be limited either
in the range of urbanism traits involved or in the types of settlement to
which they apply. Therefore, simply testing such predictions will not
enlighten us.
ResearchConcerningUrbanism among Suburbanites
Not only are theories unable to predict urbanism among suburbanites,but
empirical research is meager. Most ecological and survey studies have
concentratedon how urbanismvaries by size of place(see Fischer1984;Tittle
1989), not by type of settlement, and most research on suburban life has
ethnographicallydescribed particularsuburbs with only tangential interest
in urbanism (Choldin 1985; Fischer1984).
Some ethnographies document extensive conformity among
suburbanites (Baumgartner1988; Gans 1967; Seeley, Sim & Loosley 1956;
Whyte 1956), and police data suggest they comit fewer crimes than
urbanites (Stahura & Huff 1979, 1986). Similarly, some ethnographies
describe residents of suburbs as highly involved with neighbors and the
community (Berger 1960; Gans 1967; Whyte 1956). Comparative studies
have found more sociability among suburbanites than city dwellers
(Choldin 1980;Fava 1959;Fischer& Jackson1976;Tallman& Morgner1970;
Tomeh 1964), and Wilson (1985)reportsmore social "estrangement"in cities
than in suburbs. However, scant research has examined differences in
conformity and sociability between suburbs and types of settlement other
than cities (but see Fischer1982), and there is little comparativeevidence of
730 / Social Forces 70:3,March1992

how suburbanites differ from all other types of settlement residents,
including urbanites,in the specific urbanismtraits of deviance, anonymity,
anomie, tolerance,or social control. Hence, the relative degree of urbanism
among suburbanitesis scarcely known.
Given the magnitude of suburbanizationin recent years (Baumgartner
1988;Fischer1984) and the need to improve urbantheory, it is importantto
assess more systematically whether suburban living produces distinct
attitudes, behaviors, and social relationships.
The Present Research
We report descriptivedata from residentsof four types of settlement:cities,
suburbs, towns, and open country on five urbanismtraits:low community
bonding,feelings of anonymity,tolerance,alienation,and deviance.
While urbanismis usually conceivedin termsof aggregates,it can also be
individualisticif we consider the consequencesfor individualsof residing in
differenttypes of settlement.Forexample,theclassicalperspectivesuggeststhat
social control will be weaker in large places because of greateranonymity.
Although this means that aggregatesocial controlis ineffectivebecause total
anonymityis greater,it should also imply thatrandomlyselectedpersonsfrom
large cities will, on average, be more anonymous than randomly selected
individualsfrom smallerplaces.
Following this rationale,survey data from a randomlyselected sample of
residentsof threestates are used to constructindividual-levelmeasuresof the
five urbanismvariables.These five dependentvariablesare then analyzedby
the type of settlementin which respondentsresided,with and withoutcontrols
for demographicand social characteristicsof respondents.
DATA
Data are from a 1972 survey (N-1,993) of persons older than age 15 in New
Jersey, Iowa, and Oregon (Tittle 1980). Sampling was by area probability
techniqueswith randomselectionof respondentswithin sampledhouseholds.
Interviews were completed for 57% of the original targeted households,
representing77%of the screened individuals.The results comparefavorably
with the 1970census (Tittle1980:26),but the samplingstrategydid not produce
adequatesamples of particularsettlements,and thereis no informationon the
exact locale of each respondent.Therefore,we cannot estimate differential
refusalratesby type of settlementor makewithin-categorycomparisons.
Much of the informationrevolves around nine acts most respondents
regardedas morallywrong.They includesix criminalacts:petty theft,larceny,
illegal gambling,assault,marijuanause, and taxcheating,and threenoncriminal
acts: lying to a spouse or 'sweetheart;"remainingseated during the national
anthem;and committinga role-specificoffensefocusedon the principalactivity
of the respondent(self-employedovercharginga client, employees personally
using an employer'sequipment,studentcheatingon exams,and homemakers
using family economicresourcesfor themselves).
Urbanism and Suburban Residence / 731

Typeof Settlement
Our central variable is the type of settlement in which the respondent resides.
Information about settlements was originally coded as: (1) open country
(N=318), (2) places with a population up to 2,499 (N=161), (3) 2,500-9,999
(N=284), (4) 10,00049,999 (N=421), (5) 50,000-99,999 (N=252), (6)100,000-249,000
(N=101), (7) 250,000-499,999 (N=145), and (8) 500,000 or more (N=27), with an
additional category of "urban fringe" (N=284). Urban fringe corresponds to the
definition of suburb used in most studies and by the U.S. census - incorporated places with less than 50,000 population located within metropolitan
statistical areas (MSAs) but outside the core city or cities of the MSA.
We combine the data to distinguish four types of settlement: (1) cities with
a population of 50,000 or greater (427 respondents after listwise deletion of
missing cases), (2) suburbs (241 respondents), (3) incorporated places having a
population of less than 50,000 located outside MSAs (667 respondents), and (4)
open country (260 respondents). These distinctions follow naturally from census
designations, which define central cities as having a population of 50,000 or
greater, suburbs as having fewer than 50,000 residents but with locational and
economic ties to a central city, and towns (urban places that are not the core of
a metropolitan area) as having fewer than 50,000 residents. Nevertheless, they
are somewhat arbitrary since they do not reflect any theoretical rationale. There
is much debate about how to define settlement types, particularly suburbs, and
until there is agreement on a definition with theoretical focus and practical
application, researchers will be forced to rely on census definitions. At the same
time, one should recognize that our settlement-type distinctions may conceal
potential variation within categories. For example, there may be differences
between smaller and larger cities within the city category (see Tittle 1989), just
as differences may exist between smaller and larger suburbs. Our purpose,
however, is not to assess all variations across and within settlements; rather, it
is to compare general categories representing types of settlement, relying on the
most important practical source of settlement definitions.
Variables
Demographic-Systemic
There are 13 sociodemographic variables: (1) age (14-93);(2) parental status (the
respondent's number of living children); (3) size of family currently together
(from the respondent alone to 11 members); (4) education (number of years of
school); (5) family income (8 categories); (6) race (white-nonwhite); (7) marital
status (dummy coded as five variables - single, widowed, married, and
divorced, with separated suppressed); (8) socioeconomic status (a composite
index of occupation, education, and income, with scores 1-5 [for details, see
Tittle & Villemez 1977]); (9) gender; (10) religion (dummy coded as seven
separate variables - Catholic, Jewish, Evangelical Protestant, mainline Protestant, other religion, no religion, and the suppressed category of nondenominational Protestant); (11) state (with dummy codes for New Jersey and
Iowa and suppressed Oregon); (12) whether the respondent is a resident of at
least ten years; and (13) number of houses (apartments, etc.) the respondent
occupied during the past ten years (145).

DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Four of the urbanism variables - anonymity, tolerance, alienation, and social

bonds - are measured with composite factor score indices; deviant behavior is
measured by a series of single-item self-reports covering the previous five years.
To derive the composite indices, items logically reflecting a given urbanism trait
were identified, and confirmatory factor analysis was performed on a total pool
of 45 items indicative of the four concepts. In each instance, initial assumptions
were supported in that a major factor organized around the expected items
emerged. Employing the procedure described by Kim (1975), an overall
composite factor-weighted score was calculated for each individual. Accordingly, all items in the factor analysis (not simply the ones that loaded heavily)
contribute to the overall composite score on a given index measuring a
particular variable in proportion to its factor score coefficient (which is
multiplied by the standardized value of the item). This yields a normal
distribution with a mean of 0. To eliminate negative numbers, we added a
constant to each score (see Tittle 1989 for details).
Anonymity
For our purposes, an anonymous individual feels so free of surveillance by
others that he or she conceives little chance that potential misbehavior will be
discovered, much less responded to in a negative way. This conceptualization
is useful because one of the major consequences of urban features, according to
one perspective, is their negative effects on social control. Items relevant to such
a conceptualization of anonymity are the respondent's estimates of the chances
that (1) those he or she "knows personally would find out" if the respondent
were to commit each of the nine deviant acts, (2) "most people in the community would find out" if he or she were to commit each of the deviant acts,
and (3) "somebody who does not approve of it would find out" if the respondent were to commit each of the deviances.
Tolerance
A potential consequence of urban living is an increased willingness to allow and
adjust to unusual behavior and to accept people or views that are different or
objectionable. This process is especially important within the classical theory
because tolerance presumably contributes to weak social control of deviant
behavior.
Several items bear on tolerance. One set of items concerns the respondent's
agreement that there "ought to be a law" against various behaviors. Another
item involves whether the respondent thinks other people in the community
have the right to expect him or her to be completely honest with a spouse or
sweetheart. A third set of items has to do with the respondent's views on
whether various offenses are "morally wrong." Finally, there are items about the
"seriousness" of each offense. We contend that a respondent is relatively
intolerant who (1) thinks there ought to be laws prohibiting behaviors regarded
as among the least immoral and serious by most respondents, (2) grants the
community the right to intervene in private matters, and (3) regards offenses
that the majority judges as relatively nonserious and less immoral to be quite

serious and immoral. The emergent tolerance factor is negatively related to
beliefs in the wrongness and seriousness of marijuana smoking and illegal
gambling, to the opinion that there ought to be laws against marijuana smoking
and gambling, and to a belief that the community has a right to expect one to
be completely honest with a spouse or sweetheart.
Alienation
Fischer (1984), drawing on Seeman (1959), defines alienation as a prevailing
sense of psychic separation from society, and he describes it as "emotional
distance," "interpersonal estrangement," "cynicism," and a sense of "powerlessness." He focuses specifically on three dimensions: (1) powerlessness "that people cannot determine the outcomes of their own behavior"; (2)
normlessness - "people's sense of detachment from social norms or rules"; and
(3) social isolation, often expressed by distrust or suspicion of others (191-94).
The survey contains five relevant items: the individual's (1) perception of
having been deprived of opportunity; and beliefs that (2) laws benefit only
special groups, (3) people with power use it only for selfish purposes, (4) society
is unfair and unjust, and (5) revolution would be a good thing. These items
focus mainly on powerlessness, with some bearing on distrust.
SocialBonds
There are different networks of social attachment (Wellman & Leighton 1979),
but the relevant items in this survey focus only on social bonds with communities. They include the respondent's (1) perception of the amount of
community spirit in the area, (2) "sense of belonging in the area," (3) perception
of the "amount of interest you think most people in the community have in
how people like yourself act," and (4) estimate of the number of people in the
neighborhood that the respondent knows personally.
Deviant Behavior
For a behavior to be considered deviant most people must believe it is unacceptable. Since a majority of respondents regarded all the nine behaviors as morally
wrong, these behaviors would all seem to qualify as deviant. Hence, our
measure is the respondent's report of the number of times in the past five years
that he or she had committed each of the behaviors. Responses were given in
eight categories, from "never" to "more than 50 times." Since the nine behaviors
are ostensibly very different, each offense is treated separately.
The accuracy of reports about unacceptable behavior, of course, may be
problematic; but various studies suggest carefully planned and executed surveys
can produce reasonably accurate self-reports about criminal or deviant behavior
(e.g. Akers et al. 1983; Chaiken & Chaiken 1984; Hindelang, Hirschi & Weis
1981; Petersilia 1978), and their use has become widely accepted. The major
concern in this study is not the absolute accuracy of the self-reports, but
whether the error is similar for respondents in various types of settlement. More
accurate self-reports might come from those in cities, because elsewhere
respondents could be more concerned about how disclosures of deviant
behavior might affect their community standing. It is possible, however, that
city residentswould reportmore dishonestlybecauseurbanlife is conduciveto

deception.If eitherof thesepatternsof errorpredominate,our estimateswill be
biased.But the resultsdo not prove consistentacrosstypes of offenseas would
be expectedif disclosurebias distortedthe data,and the patternof findings is
such that this type of bias is unlikely.
ANALYSiS
The analysis involves three steps. First, we use ordinaryleast squares with
dummy coded predictors representing town, suburb, and city, with the
excluded referencecategorybeing country dwellers, to estimate the effect of
settlement type on each of the 13 dependent variables.These analyses are
conductedonce with the type-of-settlementdummiesbeing the only independent variables,and again incorporating13 sociodemographicvariablessuggested by compositional-systemictheory as indicatorsof communityfactors
responsiblefor variationsin urbanism.Equationsincorporatingthese controls
contain25 predictors,the 13 sociodemographicvariablesdescribedearlier(10
single variablesand 3 dummy coded into 12 separatedichotomousvariables),
along with the type-of-settlementdummies.Comparingcoefficientsgenerated
by these two sets of equationswill show whethervariationsin urbanismamong
types of settlement are consequencesof living conditions or of the sociodemographiccharacteristicsof the residents.
Second, we compare the significanceof differencesamong the types of
settlementfor the 13 indicatorsof urbanismto see if suburbanitesare distinct.
Third,we examinepatternsamong the "controlled"coefficientsto identify
departuresfrom a linear model of urbanismacross types of settlement,from
open country to towns to suburbsto centralcities. To ascertainif departures
fromlinearityarechanceoccurrences,we estimatethesignificanceof differences
between the regressioncoefficientsrepresentingeach of the 13 measures of
urbanismfor adjacentsettlementtypes.
Results
THE EFFECI OF CONTROLLINGFOR SOCIODEMOGRAPHICFACIORS
To see how urbanismvaries across settlementtypes, we estimatethe effect of

settlement type on the urbanism variables with and without controls for
sociodemographicvariables.Table1 reportsthe results.
Since the regression coefficients are based on dummy variables, the
excluded reference category of open country is representedas a 0. Each
coefficient,then, representsthe effect of type of settlementrelative to open
country.For example,the figures in the first row (the "a"columns)show that
withoutcontrolsforsociodemographics,suburbanitesexhibitthemostanonymity (5.9),followed by city residents(5.2)and town residents(3.8).However,the
figuresin this row representingthe effectsof type of settlement,controllingfor
sociodemographics(the"b"columns),show a monotonicpatternin anonymity
from country(0) to town (2.4)to suburb(2.6)to city (3.4).

TABLE1: Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Representing Effects of
Type of Settlement on Measures of Urbanism, Relative to OpenCountry Residence
Country
Town
Suburb
city
Bivar.a Cntrl.b Bivar.a Cntrl.b Bivar.a Cntrl.b
Urbanism
Anonymity
Tolerance
Alienation
Weak comm. bonds
0
0
0
0
3.80+ 2.40+
.69+ .59+
-.19 -.05
.31+ .28+
5.90+
1.10+
.14
.13
2.60+
.36
.18
.03
Deviance
Petty theft
Larceny
Marijuanause
Illegal gambling
Assault
Lying to spouse
Tax cheating
Anthem violation
Occup. specific dev.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.02
.02
.18+
.18
-.01
.31+
.07
.01
.17
.05
.01
.12
.15
-.03
.33+
.00
-.07
.21
.02
-.02
-.05
.22
-.03
.16
-.07
-.08
.20
260
.05
.03
.14
.26+
.02
.31+
.04
.02
.22+
667
5.20+ 3.40+
1.40+ 1.00+
.71+ .59+
.43+ .41+
.19+
.11+
.62+
.42+
.07
.57+
.19+
.23+
.29+
241
.16+
.09+
.47+
.44+
.07
.49+
.16+
.15+
.30+
427
Thesecoefficientsare based on equationscontainingonly the type-of-settlement

variableand the dependentvariable.
b Thesecoefficientsrepresenteffectswith 13 sociodemographic
variablesincludedin
the equationsas controls.
+ The coefficientis significantlydifferentfromthe referencecategory.
Table 1 shows that some of the differences between types of settlement in
degree of urbanism are due to the sociodemographics of the populations - the
coefficients often change substantially when the controls are included. For
example, the effect of town residence on anonymity is reduced from 3.8 to 2.4,
while the effect of suburban residence on anonymity is reduced from 5.9 to 2.6.
Of the 39 coefficients (3 settlements, 13 urbanism measures), the values of 25 are
reduced, and 11 increased when the control variables are introduced, indicating
that compositional-systemic factors are important in producing the different
degrees of urbanism in various types of settlement.
In many instances, however, the changes are slight. Only 3 of the 20
originally significant coefficients are reduced to nonsignificance with controls,
and controlling for the sociodemographic factors transforms two nonsignificant
coefficients into significant ones. Thus, even with controls for demographicsystemic variables, there are still 19 significant differences in urbanism. This
suggests that the life styles associated with different types of settlement have an
independent effect on urbanism. These results also make clear that comparisons
of the effects of type of settlement must be free of the influence of individuallevel sociodemographic factors.

THE EFFECISOF IYPE OF SETILEMENTON URBANLSM
By consideringthe significanceof differencesbetweenthe controlledcoefficients,

we can determine how the types of settlement differ from each other in
urbanism(whetherthe coefficientsreflectnonchancedifferencesbetween the
types of settlement).Eachcolumnin Table2 reportsthe resultsof comparisons
of two types of settlement.For example,column 1 reportsthe significanceof
differencesbetween suburbandwellers and country residents,while the last
column shows a comparisonof city residentswith countryresidents.
Table2 shows thatsuburbandwellersdiffersignificantlyfromcity dwellers
for four of the five urbanismtraits,if we interpretsignificantdifferencesfor
seven of nine offensesas reflectingoverallgreaterdeviance.Onlyfor anonymity
do suburbanand city dwellers not differsignificantly.
Suburbanresidents,however, do not seem to differmuch from countryor
town residents.They show significantdifferencesfrom countryresidentsonly
in degreeof anonymityand fromtown dwellersonly for two formsof deviance,
marijuanause and tax cheating,in both instancesreportingsignificantlyless of
the behavior than town residents. Hence, the uniqueness of suburbanites
suggestedby past researchappearsto have been exaggerated,perhapsbecause
comparisonsbetweensuburbandwellersand otherswere not made,or, if made,
becausecomparisonswere made only with centralcity dwellers.
Indeed, the most striking feature of the patterns in Table 2 is not the
uniquenessof suburbanites,but ratherthe uniquenessof city dwellers.Not only
do urbanitesdiffer significantlyfrom suburbanitesfor most of the urbanism
measures,but they also differ from country dwellers for all of the urbanism
measures except assault. Furthermore,for three of the five urbanismtraits,
urbanites differ significantly from town residents, being similar only for
alienationand deviance (no significantdifferencesfor six of nine acts).Thus it
appearsthatthe traditionalurban-nonurban
dichotomyis still importantdespite
contraryarguments(Fischer1984).
Yet, despite these generalpattems, thereare two anomalies.First,suburbs
and central cities are not significantlydifferent in anonymity despite their
differencefrom countryresidentsand to some extentfrom town residents(city
residentsdifferfrom town dwellers,althoughtown and suburbanresidentsdo
not differsignificantlyon this variable).Thisfindingreversesthe typicalpattern
where the nonurbanplaces show similarity,and it seems to contradictconventional thinkingaboutlife in differenttypes of settlement.However,this finding
is consistentwith Baumgartner's(1988)ethnographicstudy of a New YorkCity
suburb,which foundsuburbanitesto be committedto "moralminimalism"such
that they struggled to avoid involvementin conflictsor other people's affairs.
As a result, despite being bonded to the community,her suburbanitesmaintaineda high level of personalatomizationand supportedindividualanonymity. Our data suggest that these traitsmay characterizesuburbanitesin general,
and it may be somewhat true of towns as well. Thus, despite our findings
confirmingthe generaluniquenessof cities in generatingurbanism,it appears
that cities create no more anonymity than suburbs, although the basis of
anonymitymay differ between cities and suburbsor other noncountrysettlements.

TABLE2: Statistically Significant Differences among Types of Settlement for
Measures of Urbanisma
Suburb Suburb Suburb Town
Town
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
City Country City
Country Town
Urbanism
Anonymity
Tolerance
Alienation
Weak comm. bonds
Deviance
Petty theft
Larceny
Marijuanause
Illegal gambling
Assault
Lying to spouse
Tax cheating
Anthem violation
Occup. specific deviance
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
City
vs.
Country
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
a An asteriskindicatesa statisticallysignificantdifferencefor a particularurbanism

trait.
Second, even though town residents and suburbanites both generally differ
from urbanites in deviant behavior, the nature of those differences is interesting.
While suburbanites differ from urbanites in the most serious and some of the
least serious offenses, town residents differ from urbanites only in the less
serious offenses of illegal gambling, lying to a spouse or sweetheart, and rolespecific deviance, and they differ from suburbanites only in the less serious acts
of marijuana use and tax cheating (with the town dwellers exhibiting significantly moreof these two behaviors). It appears, then, that suburbanites are
quite conforming - in fact, rather like country residents - while town
residents seem to be more like urbanites, especially in committing serious
offenses, than conventional wisdom suggests.
IS THEREA LINEAR PATrERN OF VARIAT[ON ACROSSTYPE OF SETLEMENT1
Table 2 not only challenges the idea of general suburban distinctiveness, but it
also raises questions as to whether types of settlement can be arrayed in a
meaningful way on a continuum of urbanism. If types of settlement reflect
proximity to urban influences, then they should form a continuum from open
country to town to suburb to city. And if these differences in proximity to urban
738 / Social Forces 70:3, March1992
influenceshave correspondingconsequenceson traitsof urbanism,then there

should be a monotonicincreasein urbanismof residentsas one successively
considerscountry,town, suburban,and city dwellers.
Figures1 and 2 presentgraphsof the patternsrevealedin Tables1 and 2,
using one graph for each of the 13 measuresof urbanism.Since the scale for
each graphis different,they permitus only to observepatterns,not to judge the
relativemagnitudeof effectsacrossthe differenturbanismtraits.
The solid lines depict patternsformedby the coefficientsrepresentingthe
effectsof the varioustypes of settlementon the differentmeasuresof urbanism.
Asterisksindicatesignificantdifferencesbetweenadjoiningtypes of settlement,
and the brokenlines indicatethat,given the lack of significance,the patternis
really nondifferentiatedbetween settlements.These graphs show no linear
patternof urbanismacross types of settlement.
Lookingfirstat the size of the coefficients(thesolid lines),we note thatthe
most prominentpattern,shown for 11 of the 13 measures of urbanism(all
except anonymity and alienation), is one in which town residents exceed
countryand suburbanresidents,but not city residents,in the urbanismtraitsin
question. Moreover,it appears that suburbandwellers actually exhibit less
urbanismthan country dwellers for five of the deviance measures (larceny,
marijuanause, assault,tax cheating,and anthemviolation),althoughthey show
greateranonymityand alienationthantown or countrydwellers.It is obvious,
however,thatcity residentsexceedresidentsof all the othertypes of settlement
in urbanism.
The absenceof linearityis furtherconfirmedby the patternof significant
differencesbetween adjacentsettlementtypes. For only six measuresdo town
residents differ in nonchance ways from the adjacentcategory of country
dwellers(anonymity,tolerance,weakcommunitybonds,illegalgambling,lying
to a spouse or sweetheart,and occupationallyspecific deviance),and only for
marijuanause and tax cheating do suburbanitesdiffer significantlyfrom the
adjacenttown residents. Suburbanresidents do differ from urbaniteswith
respectto 10 of the 13 urbanismmeasures,but since suburbanitesshow so little
differencefrom town dwellers,these suburban-citydifferencesrevealonly that
urbanitesare distinctfrom all others.In summary,suburbanitesare far more
similar to town dwellers than to city dwellers;yet they appear to be more
distinctfromurbanitesthantown residentsin reportingless marijuanause and
tax cheating.
Discussion
Our results (1) confirmthat theoriesof urbanismhave only limitedusefulness,
(2) show that suburbanitesdiffer from city residents but that they are not
unique in their degree of urbanism,and (3) demonstratethat with respect to
urbanism,settlementsdo not fall neatly on a continuumfrom countryto town
to suburbto city.
First,urbantheoriesonly partiallyapply to variationsin urbanismacross
several types of settlement,and even the limited predictionsthey provide are
not fully supported by the data. The inadequacyof urban theories is most

FIGURE1: Graphs Portraying the Relative Magnitudes of the Unstandardized
Regression Coefficients Representing the Effects of the Type of
Settlement on Various Measures of Urbanisme
Alienation
Anonymity
Country Town Suburb CitY
Country Town Suburb City

3.4
2.6
2.4
0.0
.59
.18-*
0---------
..O5
Weak CommunityBonds
Tolerance
CountrY Town Suburb CitY
Country Town Suburb City
1.0
.36
4
*
.28
.03
.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a
An asterisk indicates that the difference between two adjacent points is statistically
significant.
clearly revealed by the failure of any of them to account for the finding that
suburbanites are statistically different from town residents only in their lesser
tendency to cheat on income taxes or to use marijuana.
The only clear prediction from classical theory about variations in urbanism
across different types of settlement is that suburbanites should differ from city
residents in all forms of urbanism. Although that prediction is generally upheld,
it lacks applicability to other types of settlement. Cities exceed all other types in
urbanism, significantly so in most cases, but consistent distinctions among
noncity settlements cannot be demonstrated.
Second, implications from compositional-systemic theory (which indicate
that urbanism differences among types of settlement will be contingent on
sociodemographic variables) are not supported, although sociodemographic
factors are found to have some impact on variations in urbanism among
settlement types.
And, third, the only prediction from subcultural theory (that community
bonding will be greater and alienation less among suburbanites than among
others) is only partially supported. Suburban dwellers do differ in these respects
from city dwellers but not from town dwellers, or even from country residents
in the way predicted. Moreover,.since these predictions are limited to only two
urbanism traits, the theory still provides limited understanding of suburbs even
if they had been fully supported.
These results are largely consistent with previous characterizations of
suburbs and comparisons of suburbanites with city dwellers. Like others, we
find suburbanites more conforming. For seven of nine forms of deviance,

FIGURE2: Graphs Portraying the Relative Magnitudes of the Unstandardized
Regression Coefficients Representing the Effects of the Type of
Settlement on Various Measures of DevianceA
Petty Theft
Larceny
CountryTown Suburb City
.16
.09
.05
.02
0
*.03
0
02
.--------
Use
Marijuana
.47
.14 --0
-.05
Assault
.07
.02
*
0
-.03
IllegalGambling
.44
.26
.22
0
Lieto Spouse or Sweetheart

.49
.31
.16*
0
Tax Cheating
.16
AnthemViolation
.15
.04 ----.02*
0
-.07
0
-.08
.-_
Occupationally
SpecificDeviance
.30
.22
.20o
0
An asterisk indicates that the difference between two adjacent points is statistically
significant.
suburbanites differ significantly from city people in their tendency to conform.

However, only for marijuana use and tax cheating, does their conformity
significantly differ from town dwellers. Despite a tendency for suburbanites to
report less deviance than residents of other types of settlement - even less than
country dwellers for five of nine offenses - these differences could be chance

occurrences. Thus, suburbanites appear remarkable in their conformity mainly
when compared with city residents. Unlike conclusions from previous research,
our results suggest that suburbanites are not exceptional conformists; rather,city
dwellers are exceptional nonconformists. Of course, most other research about
conformity in suburbs has focused on the kind of conformity reflected in
similar, or homogeneous, patterns of everyday behavior, styles of dress,
interests, and life styles. Perhaps if we had measured conformity in those terms,
our results would have been consistent with earlier work that portrayed
suburbanites as exceptionally conforming, even compared with town and
country residents. Previous researchers, however, have not investigated
conformity, conceived as "similarity," across all types of settlement. If such a
comparison had been made, it might have revealed results similar to ours.
Our results, however, are fully in accord with previous research concerning
the social relationships of suburbanites. We find that suburban people not only
exhibit stronger community bonds than city dwellers but that these bonds are
even stronger than those among town residents.
If urban features and sociodemographics do not explain variation among
types of settlement in attitudes, behavior, and social relationships, and if types
of settlement cannot be arrayed on a continuum of urbanism, then how can we
account for patterns of urbanism? Obviously, some theoretical reorientation is
necessary. Even the most recent thinking about suburbs, while suggestive, does
not provide the theoretical key. Baumgartner's (1988) ethnographic research
describes suburbanites as avoiding conflict and reluctant to exercise social
control. She interprets this as a product of independence, individuation, social
fragmentation, and high physical and interpersonal mobility that permits
suburban dwellers to escape from conflicts that would otherwise ensue.
Generalizing her argument, entangling social alliances develop when people are
confined to a local area and are dependent upon others for social support and
the satisfaction of needs. Social alliances, in turn, create conflicts that lead to
many of the traits urban theorists have traditionally called "urbanism,"
including deviant behavior, intolerance, and alienation. Stated briefly, the
suburban features Baumgartneridentifies - independence, individuation, social
fragmentation, and social fluidity - might be characterized as freedom, broadly
conceived.
If she is correct, then we might predict that urbanism will in general be
negatively related to freedom. This principle seems to explain some of our
at least those that show suburbanites with less urbanism than
findings
urbanites. Since city residents are inherently interdependent, they might have
little freedom from entangling social alliances or from physical deprivation.
According to the Baumgartner argument, then, we would expect city residents
to exhibit greater urbanism than suburbanites, as the data indicate. But it is not
so obvious that towns provide for approximately the same amount of, or
slightly less, freedom as suburbs, which would have to be true if Baumgartner's
argument is to provide the complete key to our findings. Of course, this might
prove to be true if satisfactory measures of freedom could be developed for
residents of various types of settlement. In this connection, it is easy to concede
that rurality might provide maximum freedom and therefore should have the
least urbanism, as our data suggest.
742 / Social Forces 70:3,March1992

Hence, Baumgartner'sideas appearto have some potentialfor stimulating
a more general theory of urban-communityphenomena.Moreover,they are
especiallyinterestingbecausethey invertpart of the classicaltheory.Whereas
classicistsview the effectsof freedom- erosion of social ties and community
disorganization-to contributeto ineffectivesocialcontrolthatin turnleads to
moredeviance, Baumgartnersuggests that greaterfreedom and weak social
controlproducelessdeviance.
Synthesizing Baumgartner'sideas with those of other urban theories,
therefore,may be impossible,and if scholarsare to extendher argumentinto a
moregeneraltheory,theymust contendwith at least one contradictionbetween
Baumgartner's
observationsandempiricalevidence.Shehasfoundsuburbanites
to be socially atomized,lacking cohesive bonds. Yet most other researchhas
reportedgreat social involvementamong suburbanites.We find community
bonds strongeramong suburbanitesthan among eithercity dwellers or town
residentsand only slightlylower thanamongcountryresidents.Hence,despite
some promising features, Baumgartner'sunderlying argument may not
constitutethe core of a theoryadequateto explainurbanism.
Summaryand Conclusion
Urbantheoriesareincapableof explainingor predictingthe degreeof urbanism
amongsuburbanitesrelativeto residentsof othertypes of settlement.Our data
suggest that suburbanitesin general,at least as representedby those in three
states in 1972,are quite differentfrom city dwellers,with the majorexception
being the high degree of anonymity among suburban residents. Overall,
however,suburbanitesdo not seem to differmuchfromothernoncityresidents.
Inapplicabilityof urbantheoriesand the remarkablepatternsin some of the
datasuggest the need forbettertheoryapplicableto varioustypes of settlement.
Yet discovery that the most outstandingpatternof variationamong types of
settlementis a simple differentiationof city dwellersfrom otherssuggests that
we might devote our efforts to refining extant theories so that they more
adequately account for simple urban-nonurbandifferences that are often
discountedin contemporaryliterature.
References
Akers,RonaldL.,JamesMassey,WilliamClarke,and RonaldM. Lauer.1983."AreSelf-Reports
of Adolescent Deviance Valid? BiochemicalMeasures, Randomized Response and the
Bogus Pipeline in SmokingBehavior.' SocialForces62:234-51.
Baumgartner,M.P. 1988. TheMoralOrderof a Suburb.OxfordUniversityPress.
Berger,Bennett.1960. WorkingClassSuburb.Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Chaiken,MarciaR., and Jan M. Chaiken.1984. "OffenderTypes and Public Policy."Crimeand
30:195-226.
Delinquency
Choldin, Harvey M. 1980. "SocialParticipationin SuburbanApartmentEnclaves."Pp. 156-69
in TheConsumer
Experience
of Housing,edited by ClareUngersonand ValerieKam.Gower.
__.
1985. Cities and Suburbs.McGraw-Hill.

of Urbanand Rural
Duncan, Otis Dudley, and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. 1956. SocialCharacteristics
1950. Wiley.
Communities,
Fava, Sylvia F. 1959. 'Contrastsin Neighboring New YorkCity and a SuburbanCounty.' Pp.
122-31 in Suburban
Community,
edited by WilliamB. Dobriner.Putnam.
Fischer, Claude S. 1975. "Towarda SubculturalTheoiy of Urbanism.' AmericanJournalof
Sociology80:1319-41.
Review46:306-16.
.1981. 'The Publicand PrivateWorldsof City Life."AmericanSociological
1982. To DwellAmongFriends:PersonalNetworksin Townand City.Universityof Chicago
Press.
2d ed. HarcourtBraceJovanovich.
. 1984. TheUrbanExperience.
Fischer,Claude S., and RobertM. Jackson.1976. "Suburbs,Networks,and Attitudes."Pp. 279307 in TheChangingFaceof the Suburbs,edited by BarxySchwartz.University of Chicago
Press.
Gans, Herbert J. 1962. 'Urbanism and SuburbanismAs Ways of Life: A Reevaluation of
Definitions."Pp. 625-48in HumanBehaviorandSocialProcesses,edited by Arnold M. Rose.
Houghton Mifflin.
RandomHouse.
.1967. TheLevittowners.
Gordon,RobertA. 1976. "Prevalence:The RareDatum in DelinquencyMeasurementand Its
Implicationsfor the Theory of Delinquency."Pp. 201-84 in ThejuvenileJusticeSystem,
edited by MalcolmKlein.Sage.
Sage.
Hindelang,MichaelJ., Travis Hirschi,and JosephWeis. 1981. MeasuringDelinquency.
Kasarda,John D., and Morris Janowitz. 1974. "CommunityAttachment in Mass Society."
AmericanSociological
Review39:328-39.
Kim,Jae-On.1975. "FactorAnalysis."Pp. 468-514in SPSS.2d ed., edited by Norman H. Nie.
McGraw-Hill.
Kluegel,JamesR., and Eliot R. Smith. 1981. "Beliefsabout Stratification."Pp. 20-56 in Annual
Reviewof Sociology.Vol. 7, edited by Ralph H. Turnerand James F. Short, Jr. Annual
Reviews.
Lewis, Oscar. 1965. "FurtherObservationson the Folk-UrbanContinuumand Urbanization:
WithSpecialReferenceto MexicoCity."Pp. 491-503in TheStudyof Urbanization,
edited by
Philip H. Hauser and Leo Schnore.Wiley.
Mayhew, BruceH., and Roger L. Levinger.1976. "Size and Density of Interactionin Human
Aggregates."AmericanJournalof Sociology82:86-110.
McClosky,Herbert,and JohnH. Schaar.1965."PsychologicalDimensionsof Anomy."American
Review30:14-40.
Sociological
Petersilia,Joan.1978."TheValidityof CriminalityData Derived fromPersonalInterviews."Pp.
3047 in QuantitativeStudiesin Criminology,
edited by CharlesWeliford.Sage.
Redfield,Robert.[1947]1969. "TheFolkSociety."Pp. 180-205in aassic EssaysOn theCultureof
Cities,edited by RichardSennett.Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Reiss,AlbertJ. 1955."An Analysis of UrbanPhenomena."Pp. 41-51in TheMetropolisin Modem
Life,edited by RobertM. Fisher.Doubleday.
Sampson,RobertJ.1988. "LocalFriendshipTies and CommunityAttachmentin Mass Society."
AmericanSociological
Review53:766-79.
Heights:A Study
Seeley, JohnR., R. AlexanderSim, and ElizabethW. Loosley.1956. Crestwood
of theCultureof Suburban
Life.Wiley.
Review24:783-91.
Seeman,Melvin. 1959. "On the Meaningof Alienation."AmericanSociological
Simmel,Georg. [1903]1971. "TheMetropolisand MentalLife."Pp. 324-39 in On Individuality
and SocialForms,edited by Donald N. Levine.Universityof ChicagoPress.
744
/ Social Forces 70:3, March1992
Stahura,John M., and C. Ronald Huff. 1979. "The New 'Zones of Transition':Gradients of
Crime in MetropolitanAreas."PublicData Use 7:4148.
. 1986. "Crimein Suburbia,1960-1980."Pp. 55-70 in Metropolitan
CrimePatterns,edited by
RobertM. Figlio, Simon Hakim, and GeorgeF. Rengert.CriminalJusticePress.
Tallman, Irving, and Ramona Morgner. 1970. "Lifestyle Differences among Urban and
SuburbanBlue-CollarFanmlies."SocialForces48:33448.
Tittle, CharlesR. 1980. Sanctionsand SocialDeviance.Praeger.
. 1989. "Influenceson Urbanism:A Test of Predictionsfrom Three Perspectives."Social
Problems36:270-87.
Tittle, Charles R., and Wayne J. Villemez. 1977. 'Social Class and Criminality."SocialForces
56:474-502.
Tittle, CharlesR., Wayne J. Villemez, and Douglas A. Smith.1978. "TheMyth of Social Class
and Cinminality:An Empirical Assessment of the Empirical Evidence." American
Review43:643-56.
Sociological
and Gesellschaft).
Toennies, Ferdinand. [1887] 1957. Communityand Society (Gemeinschaft
Translatedand edited by Charles P. Loomis. East Lansing, Michigan:State University
Press.
Tomeh, Aida K. 1964. "InformalGroup Participationand Residential Patterns."American

Journalof Sociology70:28-35.
Wellman, Barry, and BarnyLeighton. 1979. "Networks, Neighborhoods, and Communities:
Approachesto the Study of the CommunityQuestion."UrbanAffairsQuarterly14:363-90.
Man.Simon & Schuster.
Whyte,William H. 1956. 77teOrganization
Wilson, Thomas C. 1985. "SettlementType and InterpersonalEstrangement:A Test of the
Theoriesof Wirthand Gans."SocialForces64:139-50.
Wirth, Louis. [1938] 1969. "UrbanismAs a Way of Life." Pp. 143-64 in aassic Essayson the
Cultureof Cities,edited by RichardSennett.Appleton-Century-Crofts.

2579751

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2579751

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urban Theory, Urbanism, and Suburban Residence

Author(s): Charles R. Tittle and Mark C. Stafford

Urban Theory, Urbanism, and Suburban

C)The University of North CarolinaPress

Social Forces, March1992, 70(3):725-744

726 / Social Forces 70:3, March 1992

TheoreticalPredictions about Urbanismin Suburbs

Urbanismand SuburbanResidence/ 727

/ Social Forces 70:3, March1992

Urbanismand SuburbanResidence/ 729

The probable degree of urbanism (low community social bonding,

730 / Social Forces 70:3,March1992

Urbanism and Suburban Residence / 731

732 / Social Forces 70:3, March 1992

Four of the urbanism variables - anonymity, tolerance, alienation, and social

Urbanism and Suburban Residence / 733

734 / Social Forces 70:3, March 1992

city residentswould reportmore dishonestlybecauseurbanlife is conduciveto

To see how urbanismvaries across settlementtypes, we estimatethe effect of

Urbanism and Suburban Residence / 735

Thesecoefficientsare based on equationscontainingonly the type-of-settlement

736 / Social Forces 70:3, March 1992

By consideringthe significanceof differencesbetweenthe controlledcoefficients,

Urbanism and Suburban Residence / 737

a An asteriskindicatesa statisticallysignificantdifferencefor a particularurbanism

738 / Social Forces 70:3, March1992

influenceshave correspondingconsequenceson traitsof urbanism,then there

Urbanism and Suburban Residence / 739

Country Town Suburb CitY

Country Town Suburb City

CountrY Town Suburb CitY

Country Town Suburb City

740 / Social Forces 70:3, March 1992

CountryTown Suburb City

CountryTown Suburb City

Lieto Spouse or Sweetheart

suburbanites differ significantly from city people in their tendency to conform.

Urbanism and Suburban Residence / 741

742 / Social Forces 70:3,March1992

1985. Cities and Suburbs.McGraw-Hill.

Urbanism and Suburban Residence / 743

/ Social Forces 70:3, March1992

Tomeh, Aida K. 1964. "InformalGroup Participationand Residential Patterns."American

You might also like