Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Self-Reported Intentions to Offend: All Talk and No Action?

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To study criminal decision making, researchers commonly present hypothetical offending scenarios to participants and record their self-reported intentions to offend (SRIO). These SRIO scores are treated as an indicator of participants’ predisposition to commit the act described in the scenario. Drawing from the field of clinical measurement, the current study examines the diagnostic accuracy of SRIO scores by comparing participants’ intentions to acquire illegal music files from a designated distributor to their actual attempts to acquire such files. Approximately 7% of participants who read about a (bogus) music piracy opportunity reported strong—and at times definitive—intentions to seek out the illegal files. However, in actuality, no one in the study engaged in this behavior. Clinimetric indicators suggest that SRIO scores are better at predicting abstention from crime than actual criminal participation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We do not mean to imply that the hypothetical scenario method can only be used to study facets of deterrence or rational choice theory. At the same time, the method is a popular technique among perceptual deterrence and rational choice theorists.

  2. Some readers may view SRIO scores as measures of one’s propensity to commit the hypothetical criminal act in general, and not under the precise conditions depicted in the scenario. For example, some may regard a participant’s drunk driving SRIO score to be reflective of the participant’s likelihood to drive drunk in any context, and not solely in the context described in the hypothetical scenario. However, many studies using the hypothetical scenario method have employed a factorial survey approach in which elements of the criminal vignette are varied across participants. Examples of elements that have been varied include: the victim/offender relationship (Bachman et al., 1992), the time and location of the criminal opportunity (Thurman, 1986, Thurman, Jackson & Zhao, 1993), the financial incentive for offending (Klepper & Nagin, 1989a,b) and the risks/rewards associated with the criminal act (Elis & Simpson, 1995, Paternoster & Simpson, 1996, Piquero et al., 2005, Simpson & Piquero, 2002). Generally speaking, different scenario conditions produce different SRIO scores. This suggests SRIO scores are uniquely tied to the conditions depicted in the scenarios, and are not simply indicators of the participants’ propensities to offend more generically.

  3. Other scholars offer alternative formulas for calculating PPV and NPV that are based on the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic test, the prevalence of the disease in the population, and an application of Bayes’ theorem (Altman & Bland, 1994b, Fletcher et al., 1996, Pepe, 2003). The PPV and NPV values derived from these alternative formulas can (at times) differ from the values derived from the PPV and NPV values reported above. In the current study, we will rely on the formulas d/(c + d) and a/(a + b) to calculate PPV and NPV, respectively. As we will show, data from the current study do not allow for a calculation of PPV and NPV using the alternative formulas.

  4. If the offending conditions specified in the scenario differ dramatically from real world criminal opportunities, then the relationship between SRIO and actual involvement in crime may be compromised (see Klepper & Nagin, 1989b). See also Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) discussion of “levels of specificity” (p. 369).

  5. We should note that a large body of research finds SRIO scores to be positively related to prior involvement in the targeted behavior (Higgins et al., 2005, Loewenstein, Nagin & Paternoster, 1997, Nagin & Paternoster, 1993, 1994, Nagin & Pogarsky, 2001, Piquero & Pogarsky, 2002, Piquero & Tibbetts, 1996, Pogarsky, 2002, 2004, Tibbetts, 1999, Tibbetts & Herz, 1996, Tibbetts & Myers, 1999; and Wolfe et al., 2008). Some readers may view this finding as evidence in favor of the predictive validity of SRIO scores (see also Pogarsky, 2004:114). If SRIO scores are intended to be indicators of one’s propensity to commit the criminal act in general, then this interpretation would appear to be valid. However, as discussed earlier, SRIO scores are commonly treated as measures of one’s propensity to commit the criminal act under the precise conditions described in the scenario. As a result, using past involvement in the criminal act (generally) as the criterion on which to validate future intentions to commit the act (specifically) is problematic.

  6. Sources of illegal music files are not mutually exclusive.

  7. Recall that alternative formulas for PPV and NPV exist and are based, in part, on the sensitivity estimates for the diagnostic test. Because we were unable to compute an estimate of the SRIO score’s sensitivity in the current study, we were also unable to compute PPV and NPV using these alternative methods.

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50, 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1994a). Diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity and specificity. BMJ, 308, 1552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1994b). Diagnostic tests 2: predictive values. BMJ, 309, 102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andenaes, J. (1974). Punishment and deterrence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, C. J., Conner, M., Loach, J., & Willetts, D. (1999). Different perceptions of control: applying an extended theory of planned behavior to legal and illegal drug use. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 301–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachman, R., Paternoster, R., & Ward, S. (1992). The rationality of sexual offending: testing a deterrence/rational choice conception of sexual assault. Law & Society Review, 26, 343–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballard, R., Crino, M. D., & Rubenfeld, S. (1988). Social desirability response bias and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Psychological Reports, 63, 227–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 285–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: an economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouffard, J. A. (2002). The influence of emotion on rational decision making in sexual aggression. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 121–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouffard, J. A. (2007). Predicting differences in the perceived relevance of crime’s costs and benefits in a test of rational choice theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 461–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouffard, J., Exum, M. L., & Collins, P. (2010). Methodological artifacts in tests of rational choice theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 400–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouffard, J., Exum, M. L., & Paternoster, R. (2000). Whither the beast? The role of emotions in a rational choice theory of crime. In S. S. Simpson (Ed.), Crime and criminality: The use of theory in everyday life (pp. 159–178). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. D. (1986). Evaluations of self and others: self-enhancement biases in social judgments. Social Cognition, 4, 353–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmichael, S., & Piquero, A. R. (2004). Sanctions, perceived anger, and criminal offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20, 371–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson-Saunders, B., & Trapp, R. G. (1994). Basic & clinical biostatistics (2nd ed.). Norwalk: Appleton & Lange.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elis, L. A., & Simpson, S. S. (1995). Informal sanction threats and corporate crime: additive versus multiplicative models. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 399–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Exum, M. L. (2002). The application and robustness of the rational choice perspective in the study of intoxicated and angry intentions to aggress. Criminology, 40, 933–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Exum, M. L., & Bouffard, J. A. (2010). Testing theories of criminal decision making: Some empirical questions about hypothetical scenarios. In A. R. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 581–594). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein, A. R. (1983). An additional basic science for clinical medicine: IV. The development of clinimetrics. Annals of Internal Medicine, 99, 843–848.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, R. H., Fletcher, S. W., & Wagner, E. H. (1996). Clinical epidemiology: The essentials (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gavin, A., Dolk, H., Moore, W., & Yarnell, J. (2007). Screening for disease. In Yarnell John (Ed.), Epidemiology and Prevention: A System-Based Approach (pp. 43–56). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, J. P. (1968). Crime, punishment and deterrence. Southwest Social Science Quarterly, 48, 515–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grasmick, H. G., & Bursik, R. J., Jr. (1990). Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: extending the deterrence model. Law and Society Review, 24, 837–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. E. (1989). Measures of illegal behavior in individual-level deterrence research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 253–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, G. E. (2007a). Digital piracy: an examination of low self-control and motivation using short-term longitudinal data. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10, 523–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, G. E. (2007b). Digital piracy, self-control theory, and rational choice: an examination of the role of value. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 1, 33–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, G. E., Wilson, A. L., & Fell, B. D. (2005). An application of deterrence theory to software piracy. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 12, 166–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., & Hunter, J. E. (1993). Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior: a meta-analysis of past research, part 2. Communication Research, 20, 331–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S., & Nagin, D. (1989a). Tax compliance and perceptions of the risks of detection and criminal prosecution. Law and Society Review, 23, 210–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S., & Nagin, D. (1989b). The deterrent effect of perceived certainty and severity of punishment revisited. Criminology, 27, 721–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limayem, M., Khalifa, M., & Chin, W. W. (2004). Factors motivating software piracy: a longitudinal study. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51, 414–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 272–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., Nagin, D., & Paternoster, R. (1997). The effect of sexual arousal on expectations of sexual forcefulness. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 443–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., O'Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Projection bias in predicting future utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1209–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law & Society Review, 27, 467–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1994). Personal capital and social control: the deterrence implications of a theory of individual differences in criminal offending. Criminology, 32, 581–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky, G. (2001). Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: theory and evidence. Criminology, 39, 865–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogilvie, J., & Stewart, A. (2010). The integration of rational choice and self-efficacy theories: a situational analysis of student misconduct. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43, 130–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster, R., & Simpson, S. (1996). Sanction threats and appeals to morality: testing a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law & Society Review, 30, 549–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pepe, M. S. (2003). The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piliavin, I., Gartner, R., Thornton, C., & Matsudo, R. L. (1986). Crime, deterrence, and rational choice. American Sociological Review, 51, 101–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piquero, N. L., Exum, M. L., & Simpson, S. S. (2005). Integrating the desire-for-control and rational choice in a corporate crime context. Justice Quarterly, 22, 252–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piquero, A. R., & Pogarsky, G. (2002). Beyond Stafford and War’s reconceptualization of deterrence: personal and vicarious experiences, impulsivity, and offending behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 153–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S. G. (1996). Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offenders’ decision-making: toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice Quarterly, 13, 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogarsky, G. (2002). Identifying “deterrable” offenders: implications for research on deterrence. Justice Quarterly, 19, 431–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogarsky, G. (2004). Projected offending and contemporaneous rule-violation: implications for heterotypic continuity. Criminology, 42, 111–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogarsky, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2004). Studying the research of deterrence: Can deterrence theory help explain police misconduct? Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 371–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. J., & Christenson, R. H. (1999). Creatine kinase and its CK_MB isoenzyme: The conventional marker for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 17, 95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: a meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, S. S., & Piquero, N. L. (2002). Low self-control, organizational theory, and corporate crime. Law and Society Review, 36, 509–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sitren, A. H., & Applegate, B. K. (2005). Testing the deterrent effects of personal and vicarious experience with punishment and punishment avoidance. Deviant Behavior, 28, 29–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strelan, P., & Boeckmann, R. J. (2006). Why drug testing in elite sports does not work: perceptual deterrence theory and the role of personal moral beliefs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2909–2934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurman, Q. (1986). Estimating social-psychological effects in decisions to drink and drive: a factorial survey approach. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 47, 447–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurman, Q., Jackson, S., & Zhao, J. (1993). Drunk-driving research and innovation: a factorial survey study of decisions to drink and drive. Social Science Research, 22, 245–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tibbetts, S. G. (1999). Differences between women and men regarding decisions to commit test cheating. Research in Higher Education, 40, 323–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tibbetts, S. G., & Herz, D. C. (1996). Gender differences in factors of social control and rational choice. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 183–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tibbetts, S. G., & Myers, D. L. (1999). Low self-control, rational choice and student test cheating. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truman, B. I., & Teutsch, S. M. (1998). Screening in the community. In R. C. Brownson & D. B. Petitti (Eds.), Applied epidemiology: Theory to practice (pp. 213–247). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, N. S. (2006). Clinical epidemiology: The study of the outcome of illness (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, S. E., Higgins, G. E., & Marcum, C. D. (2008). Deterrence and digital piracy: a preliminary examination of the role of viruses. Social Science Computer Review, 26, 317–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, B. R. E., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Paternoster, R. (2004). Does the perceived risk of punishment deter criminally prone individuals? Rational choice, self-control, and crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 180–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. J. (1973). Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA

    M. Lyn Exum, Michael G. Turner & Jennifer L. Hartman

Authors
  1. M. Lyn Exum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael G. Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennifer L. Hartman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Lyn Exum.

Additional information

We are grateful to Dr. Jeffrey Bouffard for his comments on an earlier version of this paper. All errors remain our own.

Appendix A

Appendix A

Fictitious newspaper article as it appeared to participants

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Exum, M.L., Turner, M.G. & Hartman, J.L. Self-Reported Intentions to Offend: All Talk and No Action?. Am J Crim Just 37, 523–543 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-011-9148-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-011-9148-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation