Advertisement

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 201–226 | Cite as

The Sanctions-Perceptions Link in a Model of School-based Deterrence

  • Robert ApelEmail author
  • Greg Pogarsky
  • Leigh Bates
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper reports a study examining associations between objective indicators of the level of discipline within schools and students’ perceptions of the strictness of discipline. Data were analyzed from the National Education Longitudinal Survey (NELS), a nationally representative panel study of eighth grade students attending public and private schools in 1988. We find evidence for an association between objective and perceived risk of discipline in models that examine the covariation of these two constructs at several cross sections, and in models of change in perceptions as a function of change in school sanctioning climate. Moreover, these associations were strongest in small and less disordered schools.

Keywords

Deterrence theory Sanctions and perceptions Perceptual change Authorized vs. enforced sanctions Objective vs. experienced sanctions NELS 

References

  1. Alpert GP, Dunham RG (2004) Understanding police use of force: officers, suspects, and reciprocity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Astor RA, Meyer HA, Behre WJ (1999) Unowned places and times: maps and interviews about violence in high schools. Am Educ Res J 36:3–42Google Scholar
  3. Bridges GS, Stone JA (1986) Effects of criminal punishment on perceived threat of punishment: toward an understanding of specific deterrence. J Res Crime Delinq 23:207–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryk AS, Driscoll ME (1988) The high school as community: theoretical foundations, contextual influences, and consequences for students and teachers. National Center on Effective Secondary Schools, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  5. Cernkovich SA, Giordano PC (1992) School bonding, race, and delinquency. Criminology 30:261–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Curtin TR, Ingels SJ, Wu S, Heuer R, Owings J (2002) National education longitudinal study of 1988: base-year to fourth follow-up data file user’s manual (NCES 2002-323). National Center for Educational Statistics, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. Dugan L, Nagin DS, Rosenfeld R (2003) Exposure reduction or retaliation? The effects of domestic violence resources on intimate partner homicide. Law Soc Rev 27:169–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eitle DJ, Eitle TM (2004) School and county characteristics as predictors of school rates of drug, alcohol, and tobacco offenses. J Health Soc Behav 45:408–421Google Scholar
  9. Felson RB, Liska AE, South SJ, McNulty TL (1994) The subculture of violence and delinquency: individual vs. school context effects. Social Forces 73:155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geerken MR, Gove WR (1975) Deterrence: some theoretical considerations. Law Soc Rev 9:497–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibbs JP (1975) Crime, punishment, and deterrence. Elsevier Scientific Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Gottfredson GD, Gottfredson DC (1985) Victimization in schools. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Gottfredson GD, Gottfredson DC, Payne AA, Gottfredson NC (2005) School climate predictors of school disorder: results from a national study of delinquency prevention in schools. J Res Crime Delinq 42:412–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am J Sociol 91:481–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grasmick HG, Bursik RJ Jr (1990) Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: extending the deterrence model. Law Soc Rev 24:837–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hirschi T (1969) Causes of delinquency. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  17. Horney J, Marshall IH (1992) Risk perceptions among serious offenders: the role of crime and punishment. Criminology 30:575–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Iyengar R (2007) Does the certainty of arrest reduce domestic violence? Evidence from mandatory and recommended arrest laws (NBER Working Paper No. 13186). National Bureau of Economic Research, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Jenkins PH (1997) School delinquency and the school social bond. J Res Crime Delinq 34:337–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahneman D, Ritov I, Schkade D (1999) Economic preferences or attitude expressions? An analysis of dollar responses to public issues. J Risk Uncertain 19:220–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kleck G, Sever B, Li S, Gertz M (2005) The missing link in general deterrence research. Criminology 43:623–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krohn MD, Massey JL (1980) Social control and delinquent behavior: an examination of the elements of the social bond. Sociol Quart 21:529–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lochner L (2007) Individual perceptions of the criminal justice system. Am Econ Rev 97:444–460Google Scholar
  24. Mastrofski SD, Snipes JB, Parks RB, Maxwell CD (2000) The helping hand of the law: police control of citizens on request. Criminology 38:307–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matsueda RL, Kreager DA, Huizinga D (2006) Deterring delinquents: a rational choice model of theft and violence. Am Sociol Rev 71:95–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  27. McDowall D, Loftin C, Wiersema B (1992) A comparative study of the preventative effects of mandatory sentencing laws for gun crimes. J Crim Law Criminol 83:378–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McDowall D, Loftin C, Wiersema B (1995) Easing concealed firearms laws: effects on homicide in three states. J Crim Law Criminol 86:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nagin DS (1998) Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 23. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–42Google Scholar
  30. Nagin DS (2008) Thoughts on the broader implications of the “miracle of the cells”. Criminol Public Policy 7:37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Paternoster R, Simpson S (1996) Sanction threats and appeals to morality: testing a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law Soc Rev 30:549–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paternoster R, Saltzman LE, Waldo GP, Chiricos TG (1985) Assessments of risk and behavioral experience: an exploratory study of change. Criminology 3:417–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Payne AA, Gottfredson DC, Gottfredson GD (2003) Schools as communities: the relationships among communal school organization, student bonding, and school disorder. Criminology 41:749–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Piliavin I, Thornton C, Gartner R, Matsueda RL (1986) Crime, deterrence and rational choice. Am Sociol Rev 51:101–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Piquero AR, Paternoster R (1998) An application of Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence to drinking and driving. J Res Crime Delinq 35:5–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Pogarsky G (2007) Deterrence and individuals differences among convicted offenders. J Quant Criminol 23:9–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pogarsky G, Kim K, Paternoster R (2005) Perceptual change in the National Youth Survey: lessons for deterrence theory and offender decision-making. Justice Quart 22:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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: advances in criminological theory, vol 15. Transaction, New Brunswick, pp 367–396Google Scholar
  40. Rumberger RW (1995) Dropping out of middle school: a multilevel analysis of students and schools. Am Educ Res J 32:583–625Google Scholar
  41. Shaw CR, McKay HD (1972) Juvenile delinquency and urban areas (revised ed). University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  42. Stafford MC, Warr M (1993) A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. J Res Crime Delinq 30:123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tittle CR, Paternoster R (2000) Social deviance and crime: an organizational and theoretical approach. Roxbury, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  44. Walker SE (1993) Taming the system: the control of discretion in criminal justice. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Way SM (2003) For their own good? The effects of school discipline and disorder on student behavior and academic achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, TusconGoogle Scholar
  46. Weisburd D, Einat T, Kowalski M (2008) The miracle of the cells: an experimental study of interventions to increase payment of court ordered financial obligations. Criminol Public Policy 7:9–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Welsh WN (2001) Effects of student and school factors on five measures of school disorder. Justice Quart 18:911–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williams KR, Hawkins R (1986) Perceptual research on general deterrence: a critical overview. Law Soc Rev 20:545–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson JQ, Kelling G (1982) Broken windows. Atl Mon 249:29–38Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminal JusticeUniversity at AlbanyAlbanyUSA
  2. 2.New York State Office of Children and Family ServicesBureau of Evaluation and ResearchRensselaerUSA

Personalised recommendations