Individual Differences in the Deterrence Process: Which Individuals Learn (Most) from Their Offending Experiences?
- 886 Downloads
To test whether individuals differ in deterrability by studying whether the effect of criminal experiences on perceived detection risk varies by criminal propensity.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsDeterrence Perceptions Learning Individual differences Criminal propensity
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.
- Akers RL, Sellers CS (2009) Criminological theories. Introduction, evaluation, and application. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Allison PD (2009) Fixed effects regression models. Sage Publications, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
- Bandura A (1977) Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
- Bentham J (1970 ) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Eifler S, Schulz S (2007) Rational Choice, Handlungskontrolle und Alltagskriminalität. Soziale Probleme 18:139–162Google Scholar
- Fiske ST, Taylor SE (2008) Social cognition. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
- Fry M (1951) Arms of the law. Victor Gollancz, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Gottfredson MR, Hirschi T (1990) A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Hamlyn B, Maxwell C, Hales J, Tait C (2003) Crime & Justice Survey (England and Wales). Technical Report. National Centre for Social Research & BMRBGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Morgan SL (2005) On the edge of commitment—educational attainment and race in the United States. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Tittle CR (1980) Sanctions and social deviance: the question of deterrence. Praeger, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Wikström PH (2012) Breaking rules. The social and situational dynamics of young people’s urban crime. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Wilson JQ, Herrnstein RJ (1985) Crime and human nature—the definitive study of the causes of crime. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Zuckerman M (1979) Sensation seeking. Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar