Advertisement

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 67–101 | Cite as

Sanctions, Perceptions, and Crime: Implications for Criminal Deterrence

  • Robert ApelEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

A survey of empirical research concerning the determinants of an individual’s perceptions of the risk of formal sanctions as a consequence of criminal behavior. The specific questions considered are: (1) How accurate is people’s knowledge about criminal sanctions? (2) How do people acquire and modify their subjective probabilities of punishment risk? (3) How do individuals act on their risk perceptions in specific criminal contexts?

Methods

Three broad classes of extant studies are reviewed. The first is the relationship between objective sanctions, sanction enforcement, and risk perceptions—research that includes calibration studies and correlational studies. The second is the relationship between punishment experiences (personal and vicarious) and change in risk perceptions, in particular, research that relies on formal models of Bayesian learning. The third is the responsiveness of would-be offenders to immediate environmental cues—a varied empirical tradition that encompasses vignette research, offender interviews, process tracing, and laboratory studies.

Results

First, research concerning the accuracy of risk perceptions suggests that the average citizen does a reasonable job of knowing what criminal penalties are statutorily allowed, but does a quite poor job of estimating the probability and magnitude of the penalties. On the other hand, studies which inquire about more common offenses (alcohol and marijuana use) from more crime-prone populations (young people, offenders) reveal that perceptions are consistently better calibrated to actual punishments. Second, research on perceptual updating indicates that personal experiences and, to a lesser degree, vicarious experiences with crime and punishment are salient determinants of changes in risk perceptions. Specifically, individuals who commit crime and successfully avoid arrest tend to lower their subjective probability of apprehension. Third, research on the situational context of crime decision making reveals that risk perceptions are highly malleable to proximal influences which include, but are not limited to, objective sanction risk. Situational risk perceptions appear to be particularly strongly influenced by substance use, peer presence, and arousal level.

Conclusions

The perceptual deterrence tradition is theoretically rich, and has been renewed in the last decade by creative empirical tests from a variety of social scientific disciplines. Many knowledge gaps and limitations remain, and ensuing research should assign high priority to such considerations as sampling strategies and the measurement of risk perceptions.

Keywords

Perceptual deterrence Crime decision making Rational choice 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Portions of this article were presented at the Deterrence and the Death Penalty workshop, in April 2011 at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC. The author is thankful for constructive comments provided by meeting participants, and would like to specifically thank Daniel Nagin and Philip Cook.

References

  1. Albert D, Steinberg L (2011) Judgment and decision making in adolescence. J Res Adol 21:211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andenaes J (1974) Punishment and deterrence. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson DA (2002) The deterrence hypothesis and picking pockets at the pickpocket’s hanging. Am Law Econ Rev 4:295–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anwar S, Loughran TA (2011) Testing a Bayesian learning theory of deterrence among serious juvenile offenders. Criminology 49:667–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Apel R, Nagin DS (2011) General deterrence: a review of recent evidence. In: Wilson JQ, Petersilia J (eds) Crime and public policy, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 411–436Google Scholar
  6. Apel R, Pogarsky G, Bates L (2009) The sanctions-perceptions link in a model of school-based deterrence. J Quant Criminol 25:201–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Apospori E, Alpert G (1993) The role of differential experience with the criminal justice system in changes in perceptions of severity of legal sanctions over time. J Res Crime Delinq 39:184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Apospori E, Alpert G, Paternoster R (1992) The effect of involvement with the criminal justice system: a neglected dimension of the relationship between experience and sanctions. Justice Q 9:379–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ariely D, Lowenstein G (2006) The heat of the moment: the effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision making. J Behav Decis Making 19:87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Assembly Committee on Criminal Procedure (1968) Deterrent effects of criminal sanctions. Assembly of the State of California, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  11. Bachman R, Paternoster R, Ward S (1992) The rationality of sexual offending: testing a deterrence/rational choice conception of sexual assault. Law Soc Rev 26:343–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beccaria C (1764/1963) On crimes and punishments. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York (translated by Henry Paolucci)Google Scholar
  13. Becker GS (1968) Crime and punishment: an economic approach. J Polit Econ 76:169–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bennett T, Wright R (1984a) Burglars on burglary. Gower, BrookfieldGoogle Scholar
  15. Bennett T, Wright R (1984b) Constraints to burglary: the offender’s perspective. In: Clarke R, Hope T (eds) Coping with Burglary: research perspectives on policy. Kluwer-Nijhoff, Boston, pp 181–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bentham J (1789/1988) The principles of morals and legislation. Prometheus Books, Amherst.Google Scholar
  17. Beyth-Marom R, Austin L, Fischoff B, Palmgren C, Jacobs-Quadrel M (1993) Perceived consequences of risky behaviors: adults and adolescents. Dev Psychol 29:549–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brantingham PJ, Brantingham PL (1984) Patterns in crime. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Carmichael SE, Piquero AR (2006) Deterrence and arrest ratios. Int J Offend Therapy Compar Criminol 50:71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carroll JS (1978) A psychological approach to deterrence: the evaluation of crime opportunities. J Pers Soc Psychol 36:1512–1520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carroll J, Weaver F (1986) Shoplifters’ perceptions of crime opportunities: a process-tracing study. In: Cornish DB, Clarke RV (eds) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer, New York, pp 19–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cherbonneau M, Copes H (2006) “Drive it like you stole it”: auto theft and the illusion of normalcy. Br J Criminol 46:193–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clarke RV (1983) Situational crime prevention: its theoretical basis and practical scope. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Crime and justice: an annual review of research, vol 4. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 225–256Google Scholar
  25. Clarke RV, Cornish DB (1985) Modeling offenders’ decisions: a framework for research and policy. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Crime and justice: an annual review of research, vol 6. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 147–185Google Scholar
  26. Claster DS (1967) Comparison of risk perception between delinquents and non-delinquents. J Crim Law Criminol 58:80–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cook PJ (1977) Punishment and crime: a critique of current findings concerning the preventive effects of punishment. Law Contemp Prob 41:164–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cook PJ (1980) Research in criminal deterrence: laying the groundwork for the second decade. In: Morris N, Tonry M (eds) Crime and justice: an annual review of research, vol 2. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 211–268Google Scholar
  29. Cornish DB, Clarke RV (eds) (1986) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Cromwell PF, Olson JN, Avar DW (1991) Breaking and entering: an ethnographic analysis of burglary. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  31. Crouch BM (1993) Is incarceration really worse? Analysis of offenders’ preferences for prison over probation. Justice Q 10:67–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dominitz J, Manski CF (1997) Perceptions of economic insecurity: evidence from the survey of economic expectations. Public Opin Q 61:261–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Doob AN, Webster CM (2003) Sentence severity and crime: accepting the null hypothesis. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 30. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 143–195Google Scholar
  34. Erickson ML, Gobbs JP (1978) Objective and perceptual properties of legal punishment and the deterrence doctrine. Soc Probl 25:253–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Feeney F (1986) Robbers as decision-makers. In: Cornish DB, Clarke RV (eds) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer, New York, pp 53–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fischhoff B, Bruine de Bruin W (1999) Fifty-fifty = 50%? J Behav Decis Making 12:149–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Freeman RB (1999) The economics of crime. In: Ashenfelter O, Card D (eds) Handbook of labor economics, vol 3C. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 3529–3571Google Scholar
  38. Gardner M, Steinberg L (2005) Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: an experimental study. Dev Psychol 41:625–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Geerken MR, Gove WR (1975) Deterrence: some theoretical considerations. Law Soc Rev 9:497–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gibbs JP (1975) Crime, punishment, and deterrence. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Grasmick HG, Bryjak GJ (1980) The deterrent effect of perceived severity of punishment. Soc Forces 59:471–491Google Scholar
  42. Greenberg DF (1981) Methodological issues in survey research on the inhibition of crime. J Crim Law Criminol 72:1094–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Grube JW, Kearney KA (1983) A “mandatory” jail sentence for drinking and driving. Eval Rev 7:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Haase CM, Silbereisen RK (2011) Effects of positive affect on risk perceptions in adolescence and young adulthood. J Adol 34:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hjalmarsson R (2009) Crime and expected punishment: changes in perceptions at the age of criminal majority. Am Law Econ Rev 11:209–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Holt TJ, Blevins CR, Kuhns JB (in press) Examining diffusion and arrest avoidance practices among johns. Crime DelinqGoogle Scholar
  47. Horney J, Marshall IH (1992) Risk perceptions among serious offenders: the role of crime and punishment. Criminology 30:575–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Howe ES, Brandau CJ (1988) Additive effects of certainty, severity, and celerity of punishments on judgments of crime deterrence scale value. J Appl Soc Psychol 18:796–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jacobs BA (1999) Dealing crack: the social world of streetcorner selling. Northeastern University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  50. Jacobs BA (2010) Serendipity in robbery target selection. Br J Criminol 50:514–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jacobs BA, Wright R (1999) Stick-up, street culture, and offender motivation. Criminology 37:149–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jensen GF (1969) Crime doesn’t pay: correlates of a shared misunderstanding. Soc Probl 17:189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Johnson E, Payne J (1986) The decision to commit a crime: an information-processing analysis. In: Cornish DB, Clarke RV (eds) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer, New York, pp 170–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG (1981) Cannabis decriminalization: the impact on youth 1975–1980. Monitoring the future occasional paper no. 13. Institute for Social Research, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  55. Kahneman D (2003) Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Am Econ Rev 93:1449–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kleck G, Barnes JC (in press, a) Deterrence and macro-level perceptions of punishment risks: is there a “collective wisdom”? Crime DelinqGoogle Scholar
  58. Kleck G, Barnes JC (in press b) Do more police lead to more crime deterrence? Crime DelinqGoogle Scholar
  59. Kleck G, Sever B, Li S, Gertz M (2005) The missing link in general deterrence research. Criminology 43:623–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Klepper S, Nagin D (1989) Tax compliance and perceptions of the risks of detection and criminal prosecution. Law Soc Rev 23:209–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lattimore P, Witte A (1986) Models of decision making under uncertainty: the criminal choice. In: Cornish DB, Clarke RV (eds) The reasoning criminal: rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer, New York, pp 129–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lee DS, McCrary J (2005) Crime, punishment, and myopia. NBER working paper no. 11491. National Bureau of Economic Research, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  63. Levitt SD (1998) Juvenile crime and punishment. J Polit Econ 106:1156–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lochner L (2007) Individual perceptions of the criminal justice system. Am Econ Rev 97:444–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Loughran TA, Paternoster R, Piquero AR, Pogarsky G (2011) On ambiguity in perceptions of risk: implications for criminal decision-making and deterrence. Criminology 49:1029–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Loughran TA, Piquero AR, Fagan J, Mulvey EP (in press) Differential deterrence: studying heterogeneity and changes in perceptual deterrence among serious youthful offenders. Crime DelinqGoogle Scholar
  67. Lowenstein G (1996) Out of control: visceral influences on behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 65:272–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lowenstein G, Nagin D, Paternoster R (1997) The effect of sexual arousal on expectations of sexual forcefulness. J Res Crime Delinq 34:443–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lowenstein G, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N (2001) Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull 127:267–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. MacCoun R, Pacula RL, Chriqui J, Harris K, Reuter P (2009) Do citizens know whether their state has decriminalized marijuana? Assessing the perceptual component of deterrence theory. Rev Law Econ 5:347–371Google Scholar
  71. Manski CF (2004) Measuring expectations. Econometrica 72:1329–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Manski CF, Molinari F (2010) Rounding probabilistic expectations in surveys. J Bus Econ Stat 28:219–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Matsueda RL, Kreager DA, Huizinga D (2006) Deterring delinquents: a rational choice model of theft and violence. Am Sociol Rev 71:95–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. McClelland KA, Alpert GP (1985) Factor analysis applied to magnitude estimates of punishment seriousness: patterns of individual differences. J Quant Criminol 1:307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Minor WW, Harry J (1982) Deterrent and experiential effects in perceptual deterrence research: a replication and extension. J Res Crime Delinq 19:190–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Myers DG, Lamm H (1976) The group polarization phenomenon. Psychol Bull 83:602–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Nagin D (1978) General deterrence: a review of the empirical evidence. In: Blumstein A, Cohen J, Nagin D (eds) Deterrence and incapacitation: estimating the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  78. 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
  79. Nagin DS (2007) Moving choice to center stage in criminological research and theory: the American society of criminology 2006 Sutherland address. Criminology 45:259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Nagin DS, Paternoster R (1993) Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law Soc Rev 27:467–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Nagin DS, Pogarsky G (2001) Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: theory and evidence. Criminology 39:865–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Nagin DS, Pogarsky G (2003) An experimental investigation of deterrence: cheating, self-serving bias, and impulsivity. Criminology 41:167–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Nagin DS, Pogarsky G (2004) Time and punishment: delayed consequences and criminal behavior. J Quant Criminol 20:295–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Nagin DS, Cullen FT, Jonson CL (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
  85. Parker J, Grasmick HG (1979) Linking actual and perceived certainty of punishment: an exploratory study of an untested proposition in deterrence theory. Criminology 17:366–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Paternoster R (1987) The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: a review of the evidence and issues. Justice Q 4:173–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Paternoster R (1988) Examining three-wave deterrence models: a question of temporal order and specification. J Crim Law Criminol 79:135–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Paternoster R (1989) Decisions to participate in and desist from four types of common delinquency: deterrence and the rational choice perspective. Law Soc Rev 23:7–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Paternoster R (2010) How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? J Crim Law Criminol 100:765–823Google Scholar
  90. Paternoster R, Iovanni L (1986) The deterrent effect of perceived severity: a reexamination. Soc Forces 64:751–777Google Scholar
  91. Paternoster R, Piquero A (1995) Reconceptualizing deterrence: an empirical test of personal and vicarious experiences. J Res Crime Delinq 32:251–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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
  93. Paternoster R, Simpson S (1996) Sanction threats and appeals to morality: testing a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law Soc Rev 30:549–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Paternoster R, Saltzman LE, Chiricos TG, Waldo GP (1982) Perceived risk and deterrence: methodological artifacts in perceptual deterrence research. J Crim Law Criminol 73:1238–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Paternoster R, Saltzman LE, Waldo GP, Chiricos TG (1983a) Estimating perceptual stability and deterrent effects: the role of perceived legal punishment in the inhibition of criminal involvement. J Crim Law Criminol 74:270–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Paternoster R, Saltzman LE, Waldo GP, Chiricos TG (1983b) Perceived risk and social control: do sanctions really deter? Law Soc Rev 17:457–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Paternoster R, Saltzman LE, Waldo GP, Chiricos TG (1985) Assessment of risk and behavioral experience: an exploratory study of change. Criminology 23:417–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Payne JW, Braunstein ML, Carroll JS (1978) Exploring predecisional behavior: an alternative approach to decision research. Organ Behav Human Perform 22:17–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Piliavin I, Thornton C, Gartner R, Matsueda RL (1986) Crime, deterrence, and rational choice. Am Sociol Rev 51:101–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Piquero A, 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
  101. 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
  102. Piquero A, Rengert G (1999) Studying deterrence with active residential burglars. Justice Q 16:451–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Piquero AR, Paternoster R, Pogarsky G, Loughran T (2011) Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory. Ann Rev Law Social Sci 7:335–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Pogarsky G (2002) Identifying “deterrable” offenders: implications for research on deterrence. Justice Q 19:431–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Pogarsky G (2009) Deterrence and decision making: research questions and theoretical refinements. In: Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Hall GP (eds) Handbook on crime and deviance. Springer, New York, pp 241–258Google Scholar
  106. Pogarsky G, Piquero AR (2003) Can punishment encourage offending? Investigating the “resetting” effect. J Res Crime Delinq 40:95–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 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
  108. Pogarsky G, Kim K, Paternoster R (2005) Perceptual change in the national youth survey: lessons for deterrence theory and offender decision-making. Justice Q 22:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Pratt TC, Cullen FT (2005) Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: a meta-analysis. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 32. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 373–450Google Scholar
  110. Pratt TC, Cullen FT, Blevins KR, Daigle LE, Madensen TD (2008) 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
  111. Reiss AJ Jr (1988) Co-offending and criminal careers. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 10. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 117–170Google Scholar
  112. Reyna VF, Farley F (2006) Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making: implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychol Sci Public Int 7:1–44Google Scholar
  113. Ross HL (1973) Law, science, and accidents: the British Road Safety Act of 1967. J Legal Stud 2:1–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Ross HL (1982) Deterring the drinking driver: legal policy and social control. Lexington Books, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  115. Ross HL (1992) Confronting drunk driving: social policies for saving lives. Yale University Press, New Haven CTGoogle Scholar
  116. Ross HL, Voas RB (1990) The new Philadelphia story: the effects of severe punishment for drunk driving. Law Policy 12:51–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Saltzman LE, Paternoster R, Waldo GP, Chiricos TG (1982) Deterrent and experiential effects: the problem of causal order in perceptual deterrence research. J Res Crime Delinq 19:172–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Scheider MC (2001) Deterrence and the base rate fallacy: an examination of perceived certainty. Justice Q 18:63–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Sherman LW (1990) Police crackdowns: initial and residual deterrence. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 12. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–48Google Scholar
  120. Shover N (1985) Aging criminals. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  121. Shover N (1996) Great pretenders: pursuits and careers of persistent thieves. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  122. Shover N, Honaker D (1992) The socially bounded decision making of persistent property offenders. Howard J Crim Justice 31:276–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Shover N, Thompson CY (1992) Age, differential expectations, and crime desistance. Criminology 30:89–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Quart J Econ 69:99–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Simon HA (1957) Models of man: social and rational. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  126. Simon HA (1978) Rationality as process and product of thought. Am Econ Rev 8:1–11Google Scholar
  127. Spear LP (2000) The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 24:417–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Stafford MC, Warr M (1993) A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. J Res Crime Delinq 30:123–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Steinberg L (2008) A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Dev Rev 28:78–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Steinberg L, Scott ES (2003) Less guilty by reason of adolescence: developmental immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. Am Psychol 58:1009–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Topalli V (2005) Criminal expertise and offender decision-making: an experimental analysis of how offenders and non-offenders differentially perceive social stimuli. Br J Criminol 45:269–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Tunnell KD (1992) Choosing crime: the criminal calculus of property offenders. Nelson-Hall, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  133. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Vinokur A (1971) Review and theoretical analysis of the effects of group processes upon individual and group decisions involving risk. Psychol Bull 76:231–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Waldo GP, Chiricos TG (1972) Perceived penal sanction and self-reported criminality: a neglected approach to deterrence research. Soc Probl 19:522–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Weaver FM, Carroll JS (1985) Crime perceptions in a natural setting by expert and novice shoplifters. Social Psychol Q 48:340–359Google Scholar
  138. Weerman FM, Smeenk WH (2005) Peer similarity in delinquency for different types of friends: a comparison using two measurement methods. Criminology 43:499–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Williams KR, Gibbs JP (1981) Deterrence and knowledge of statutory penalties. Sociol Q 22:591–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Williams KR, Gibbs JP, Erickson ML (1980) Public knowledge of statutory penalties: the extent and basis of accurate perception. Pacific Sociol Rev 23:105–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Wilson JQ, Kelling GL (1982) Broken windows: the police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Mon March 249:29–38Google Scholar
  142. Wright RT, Decker SH (1994) Burglars on the Job: streetlife and residential break-ins. Northeastern University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  143. Wright RT, Decker SH (1997) Armed robbers in action: stickups and street culture. Northeastern University Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  144. Wright R, Logie RH, Decker SH (1995) Criminal expertise and offender decision making: an experimental study of the target selection process in residential burglary. J Res Crime Delinq 32:39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Wright R, Brookman F, Bennett T (2006) The foreground dynamics of street robbery in Britain. Br J Criminol 46:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Zimring F, Hawkins G (1968) Deterrence and marginal groups. J Res Crime Delinq 2:100–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Zimring FE, Hawkins GJ (1973) Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminal JusticeRutgers UniversityNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations