American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 523–543 | Cite as

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

  • M. Lyn Exum
  • Michael G. Turner
  • Jennifer L. Hartman


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.


Hypothetical scenarios Intentions to offend Predictive validity 


  1. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1994a). Diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity and specificity. BMJ, 308, 1552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1994b). Diagnostic tests 2: predictive values. BMJ, 309, 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andenaes, J. (1974). Punishment and deterrence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ballard, R., Crino, M. D., & Rubenfeld, S. (1988). Social desirability response bias and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Psychological Reports, 63, 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: an economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bouffard, J. A. (2002). The influence of emotion on rational decision making in sexual aggression. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bouffard, J., Exum, M. L., & Collins, P. (2010). Methodological artifacts in tests of rational choice theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 400–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brown, J. D. (1986). Evaluations of self and others: self-enhancement biases in social judgments. Social Cognition, 4, 353–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carmichael, S., & Piquero, A. R. (2004). Sanctions, perceived anger, and criminal offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20, 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Dawson-Saunders, B., & Trapp, R. G. (1994). Basic & clinical biostatistics (2nd ed.). Norwalk: Appleton & Lange.Google Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Fletcher, R. H., Fletcher, S. W., & Wagner, E. H. (1996). Clinical epidemiology: The essentials (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Gibbs, J. P. (1968). Crime, punishment and deterrence. Southwest Social Science Quarterly, 48, 515–530.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Green, D. E. (1989). Measures of illegal behavior in individual-level deterrence research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Higgins, G. E. (2007a). Digital piracy: an examination of low self-control and motivation using short-term longitudinal data. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10, 523–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klepper, S., & Nagin, D. (1989a). Tax compliance and perceptions of the risks of detection and criminal prosecution. Law and Society Review, 23, 210–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Klepper, S., & Nagin, D. (1989b). The deterrent effect of perceived certainty and severity of punishment revisited. Criminology, 27, 721–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Limayem, M., Khalifa, M., & Chin, W. W. (2004). Factors motivating software piracy: a longitudinal study. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51, 414–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of control: visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 272–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Loewenstein, G., O'Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Projection bias in predicting future utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1209–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law & Society Review, 27, 467–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pepe, M. S. (2003). The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Piliavin, I., Gartner, R., Thornton, C., & Matsudo, R. L. (1986). Crime, deterrence, and rational choice. American Sociological Review, 51, 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pogarsky, G. (2002). Identifying “deterrable” offenders: implications for research on deterrence. Justice Quarterly, 19, 431–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pogarsky, G. (2004). Projected offending and contemporaneous rule-violation: implications for heterotypic continuity. Criminology, 42, 111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simpson, S. S., & Piquero, N. L. (2002). Low self-control, organizational theory, and corporate crime. Law and Society Review, 36, 509–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tibbetts, S. G. (1999). Differences between women and men regarding decisions to commit test cheating. Research in Higher Education, 40, 323–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Tibbetts, S. G., & Myers, D. L. (1999). Low self-control, rational choice and student test cheating. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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
  65. Weiss, N. S. (2006). Clinical epidemiology: The study of the outcome of illness (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. J. (1973). Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Lyn Exum
    • 1
  • Michael G. Turner
    • 1
  • Jennifer L. Hartman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Criminal Justice and CriminologyUniversity of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations