The study found that individuals who approved of aggression between intimate partners were likely to support aggressive discipline strategies for children. Also, approval of intimate partner violence varied by level of crime within a neighborhood, but did not vary by level of perceived social disorder. This suggests that attitudes are not necessarily shaped by the lack of perceived social control within an area; rather, attitudes may be influenced by the existence of actual crime. Individuals who live in neighborhoods with increased violent activity may by more likely to accept violence and aggression as normal behavior. Social-control agents should be aware that neighborhood crime is a risk factor for violence within the families that live in those neighborhoods. Support for the physical punishment of children did not vary by neighborhood crime levels, but did differ by level of perceived social disorder. Those who live in high-crime neighborhoods are no more likely to approve of spanking than those who live in low-crime neighborhoods; however, in communities perceived by residents as socially disordered, the use of corporal punishment to manage children is viewed more favorably. Perhaps parents living in such neighborhoods fear the loss of control over their own children. Attitudes toward family violence (approval of intimate partner violence and corporal punishment of children) did not differ by residents' perceived level of collective efficacy. Since collective efficacy is based on the sharing of comparable values and ideals, when those shared values include acceptance of family violence, then collective efficacy exists, but with negative effects. 5 tables and 59 references