Advertisement

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 215–236 | Cite as

Individual Differences in the Deterrence Process: Which Individuals Learn (Most) from Their Offending Experiences?

  • Sonja SchulzEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

To test whether individuals differ in deterrability by studying whether the effect of criminal experiences on perceived detection risk varies by criminal propensity.

Methods

Data from the British “Offending, Crime and Justice Survey”, a four-wave panel study on criminal behavior and victimization, are analyzed. Two subsamples for analyses are constructed: one of non-offenders at first measurement, to analyze the effect of gaining first offending experiences during the time of study (n = 1,279) and one sample of individuals who have committed offenses within the past year (n = 567), to analyze the effect of police contact among active offenders. Fixed-effects regressions of perceived detection risk on criminal experiences and interactions between criminal experiences and measures of criminal propensity (risk-affinity, impulsivity) are estimated.

Results

Analyses support learning models for the formation and change of risk perceptions, but individual differences by criminal propensity are present in the deterrence process: After gaining first offending experiences, impulsive individuals as well as risk-averse individuals are more likely to lower their perceptions about the probability of detection than less impulsive or risk-affine individuals are. A positive effect of police contact on expected detection risk is restricted to risk-averse individuals.

Conclusions

Findings support claims that deterrence works differently for crime-prone individuals. The differential effects of impulsivity and risk-affinity underline the importance of not combining constituent characteristics of criminal propensity in composite indices, because they might have differential effects on deterrence.

Keywords

Deterrence Perceptions Learning Individual differences Criminal propensity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The Offending, Crime and Justice Survey was commissioned by the UK Home Office (http://homeoffice.gov.uk/). Data for analyses in this paper were obtained via the UK Data Archive (http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/). Neither the original data creators nor the UK Data Archive bear responsibility for the present analysis or interpretation. I am grateful to Clemens Kroneberg, Harald Beier and the anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

  1. Akers RL, Sellers CS (2009) Criminological theories. Introduction, evaluation, and application. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison PD (2009) Fixed effects regression models. Sage Publications, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews DA, Bonta J, Wormith JS (2006) The recent past and near future of risk and/or need assessment. Crime Delinq 52:7–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anwar S, Loughran TA (2011) Testing a bayesian learning theory of deterrence among serious juvenile offenders. Criminology 49:667–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apospori E, Alpert G (1993) Research note: the role of differential experience with the criminal justice system in changes in perceptions of severity of legal sanctions over time. Crime Delinq 39:184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Apospori E, Alpert GP, Paternoster R (1992) The effect of involvement with the criminal justice system: a neglected dimension of the relationship between experience and perceptions. Justice Q 9:379–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bandura A (1977) Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  8. Becker GS (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Polit Econ 76:169–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bentham J (1970 [1781]) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Bjerk D (2009) How much can we trust causal interpretations of fixed-effects estimators in the context of criminality? J Quant Criminol 25:391–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Breen R (1999) Beliefs, rational choice and bayesian learning. Ration Soc 11:463–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cochran JK, Aleksa V, Sanders BA (2008) Are persons low in self-control rational and deterrable? Deviant Behav 29:461–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahlbäck O (2003) Analyzing rational crime. Models and methods. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eifler S, Schulz S (2007) Rational Choice, Handlungskontrolle und Alltagskriminalität. Soziale Probleme 18:139–162Google Scholar
  15. Fiske ST, Taylor SE (2008) Social cognition. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  16. Fry M (1951) Arms of the law. Victor Gollancz, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Gottfredson MR (2011) Sanctions, situations, and agency in control theories of crime. Eur J Criminol 8:128–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  19. Grasmick HG, Bryjak GJ (1980) The deterrent effect of perceived severity of punishment. Soc Forces 59:471–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grasmick HG, Tittle CR, Bursik JR, Arneklev B (1993) Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. J Res Crime Delinq 30:5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hales J, Nevill C, Pudney S, Tipping S (2009) Longitudinal analysis of the Offending, Crime and Justice Survey. Home Office Research Report 19. Retrieved 13 Aug 2012 from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/horr19c.pdf
  22. Hamlyn B, Maxwell C, Hales J, Tait C (2003) Crime & Justice Survey (England and Wales). Technical Report. National Centre for Social Research & BMRBGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamlyn B, Maxwell C, Phelps A, Anderson T, Arch J, Pickering K, Tait C (2004) Crime & Justice Survey 2004 (England and Wales). Technical Report. National Centre for Social Research & BMRBGoogle Scholar
  24. Home Office. Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. Offending Surveys and Research, National Centre for Social Research and BMRB. Social Research (2009) Offending, Crime and Justice Survey, 2003-2006: Longitudinal Analysis Data [computer file]. UK Data Archive [distributor], Colchester, EssexGoogle Scholar
  25. Horney J, Marshall IH (1992) Risk perceptions among serious offenders: the role of crime and punishment. Criminology 30:575–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kroneberg C, Heintze I, Mehlkop G (2010) The interplay of moral norms and instrumental incentives in crime causation. Criminology 48:259–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lochner L (2007) Individual perceptions of the criminal justice system. Am Econ Rev 97:444–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loughran T, Paternoster R, Piquero AR, Fagan J (2011) ‘A good man always knows his limitations’: overconfidence in criminal offending—Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 11-264. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1772185
  29. Loughran TA, Piquero AR, Fagan J, Mulvey EP (2012) Differential deterrence: studying heterogeneity and changes in perceptual deterrence among serious youthful offenders. Crime Delinq 58:3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matsueda RL, Kreager DA, Huizinga D (2006) Deterring delinquents: a rational choice model of theft and violence. Am Sociol Rev 71:95–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCarthy B (2002) New economics of sociological criminology. Annu Rev Sociol 28:417–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morgan SL (2005) On the edge of commitment—educational attainment and race in the United States. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Nagin D (1998) Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the 21st century. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 23. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–42Google Scholar
  34. Nagin DS, Paternoster R (1993) Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law Soc Rev 27:467–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nagin DS, Paternoster R (1994) Personal capital and social control: the deterrence implications of a theory of individual differences in offending. Criminology 32:581–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nagin DS, Pogarsky G (2001) Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extra-legal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: theory and evidence. Criminology 39:865–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nagin DS, Cullen FT, Lero-Jonson C (2009) Imprisonment and reoffending. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 38. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 115–200Google Scholar
  38. Paternoster R, Pogarsky G (2009) Rational choice, agency and thoughtfully reflective decision making: the short and long-term consequences of making good choices. J Quant Criminol 25:103–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Paternoster R, Pogarsky G, Zimmerman G (2011) Thoughtfully reflective decision making and the accumulation of capital: bringing choice back in. J Quant Criminol 27:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pilliavin I, Gartner R, Thornton C, Matsueda RL (1986) Crime, deterrence and rational choice. Am Sociol Rev 51:101–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Piquero AR, Paternoster R (1998) An application of Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence to drinking and driving. J Res Crime Delinq 35:3–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Piquero AR, Pogarsky G (2002) Beyond Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence: personal and vicarious experiences, impulsivity, and offending behavior. J Res Crime Delinq 39:153–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Piquero AR, Tibbetts SG (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 Q 13:481–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Piquero AR, Paternoster R, Pogarsky G, Loughran T (2011) Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 7:335–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pogarsky G (2002) Identifying deterrable offenders: implications for research on deterrence. Justice Q 19:431–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pogarsky G (2007) Deterrence and individual differences among convicted offenders. J Quant Criminol 23:59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pogarsky G, Piquero AR, Paternoster R (2004) Modeling change in perceptions about sanction threats: the neglected linkage in deterrence theory. J Quant Criminol 20:343–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pratt TC, Cullen FT, Blevins KR, Daigle LE, Madensen TD (2006) The empirical status of deterrence theory: a meta-analysis. In: Cullen FT, Wright JP, Blevins KR (eds) Taking stock: the status of criminological theory. Transaction, New Brunswick, pp 367–395Google Scholar
  49. Raine A (1996) Autonomic nervous system factors underlying disinhibited, antisocial, and violent behavior. Biosocial perspectives and treatment implications. Ann NY Acad Sci 794:46–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rotter JB (1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol Monogr 80:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sitren AH, Applegate BK (2007) Testing the deterrent effects of personal and vicarious experience with punishment and punishment avoidance. Deviant Behav 28:29–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stafford MC, Warr M (1993) A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. J Res Crime Delinq 30:123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thomas KJ, Loughran TA, Piquero AR (2012, online first) Do individual characteristics explain variation in sanction risk updating among serious juvenile offenders? Advancing the logic of differential deterrence. Law Hum BehavGoogle Scholar
  54. Tibbetts SG, Myers DL (1999) Low self-control, rational choice, and student test cheating. Am J Crim Justice 23:179–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tittle CR (1980) Sanctions and social deviance: the question of deterrence. Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Tittle CR, Botchkovar EV (2005) Self-control, criminal motivation and deterrence: an investigation using Russian respondents. Criminology 43:307–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Turanovic J, Pratt T (2012) “Can’t stop, won’t stop”: self-control, risky lifestyles, and repeat victimization. J Quant Criminol. doi: 10.1007/s10940-012-9188-4
  58. Wikström PH (2012) Breaking rules. The social and situational dynamics of young people’s urban crime. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  59. Williams KR, Hawkins R (1986) Perceptual research on general deterrence: a critical review. Law Soc Rev 20:545–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilson JQ, Herrnstein RJ (1985) Crime and human nature—the definitive study of the causes of crime. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  62. Wright BRE, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Paternoster R (2004) Does the perceived risk of punishment deter criminally prone individuals? Rational choice, self-control, and crime. J Res Crime Delinq 41:180–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zuckerman M (1979) Sensation seeking. Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mannheim Centre for European Social Research (MZES)University of MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations