Sampson et al. (1997) conceptualized a collective efficacy scale comprising two dimensions: social cohesion and informal control. In the current study, the focus is on both scales to measure the collective efficacy dimension suggested by Sampson et al. (1997). Social cohesion is defined as a concept that represents the residents’ willingness to help other neighbors, perceptions of trust, and shared values in the neighborhood. In this study, this measure examines the perceptions of individuals to account for the differences in how residents may experience their neighborhood and whether signs of neighborhood disorder influence individual ratings of social cohesion. The scale measures the perception of residents on the actual behavior of other neighbors, such as “people in my neighborhood talk together.” The scale of social cohesion for the present study was adopted from the work of Sampson et al. (1997), which was later replicated in multiple studies (e.g., Baum, Zierscha, Zhangb, & Osborne, 2009; Brown, Perkins, & Brown, 2003; Carpiano & Hystad, 2011; Cohen, Inagami, & Finch, 2008; Swatt et al., 2013; Table 2). The responses were measured on a 7-point scale with 1 representing “strongly agree,” 7 representing “strongly disagree,” and 4 representing “neutral.” cheap software keys,

Informal control refers to the casual but vigilant observation of residents on street activities to prevent crime and disorderly conduct through direct intervention. Four items refer to the informal control dimension (adopted from Bellair & Browning, 2010; Sampson et al., 1997; and Greenberg, Rohe, & Williams, 1982). Respondents were asked to respond about the likelihood that their neighbors could be counted on to intervene in various ways using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely)