Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A configurative synthesis of evidence for fear in the criminal decision-making process

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Security Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

A Correction to this article was published on 29 October 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

This paper reviews what previous research has found on the role of fear and other associated feelings in the criminal decision-making process, and the techniques that might plausibly amplify such emotions so as to reduce or disrupt intent. To this aim, we conduct a systematic review of the offender decision-making literature (23 studies), incorporating a qualitative synthesis of the role of fear in the criminal decision-making process. The results section is formed of six parts based on dominant themes identified in our eligible studies, namely evidence of fear in offender decision-making, the presumed sources of fear, variation in levels and/or the effect of fear across offenders, the specific role of fear across aspects of the crime process (before, during, after), the results of fear and offender fear management processes. We conclude with a discussion of the implication for crime prevention policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 29 October 2019

    In the original publication of the article, the Acknowledgement section was missed. The Acknowledgement section should read as: <Emphasis Type="Bold">Acknowledgements</Emphasis> This research was funded by the Centre for Protection of National Infrastructure (CPNI).

Notes

  1. This was a decision of convenience and we recognise that even so-called spontaneous crimes can be thought to have rational elements consistent with the rational choice perspective.

  2. PsycINFO, International Bibliography of Social Sciences, Sociological Abstracts and the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

  3. See: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?alias=eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cmsup/er4.

  4. Meta-analysis is undertaken when there is comparable quantitative data available, which was not the case in the sample of studies synthesised here.

References

  • Alarid, L.F., V.S. Burton, and A.L. Hochstetler. 2009. Group and solo robberies: Do accomplices shape criminal form? Journal of Criminal Justice 37 (1): 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apel, R. 2013. Sanctions, perceptions, and crime: Implications for criminal deterrence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 29 (1): 67–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauregard, E., and B. Leclerc. 2007. An application of the rational choice approach to the offending process of sex offenders: A closer look at the decision-making. Sexual Abuse 19 (2): 115–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauregard, E., and M. Bouchard. 2010. Cleaning up your act: Forensic awareness as a detection avoidance strategy. Journal of Criminal Justice 38 (6): 1160–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, T., R. Wright, and R. Wright. 1984. Burglars on burglary: Prevention and the offender. Aldershot: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernasco, W., H. Elffers, and J.L. van Gelder (eds.). 2017. The oxford handbook of offender decision making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, K.J., and S.D. Johnson. 2004. Who commits near repeats? A test of the boost explanation. Western Criminology Review 5 (3).

  • Brantingham, P.L., and P.J. Brantingham. 1993. Environment, routine and situation: Toward a pattern theory of crime. In Advances in criminological theory, ed. R.V. Clarke and M. Felson, 259–294. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, G. 2005. Shoplifters views on security: Lessons for crime prevention. In Crime At Work, 56–72. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cardone, C., and R. Hayes. 2012. Shoplifter perceptions of store environments: An analysis of how physical cues in the retail interior shape shoplifter behavior. Journal of Applied Security Research 7 (1): 22–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmel-Gilfilen, C. 2013. Bridging security and good design: Understanding perceptions of expert and novice shoplifters. Security Journal 26 (1): 80–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J., & Weaver, F. (1986). Shoplifters’ perceptions of crime oportunities-A process-tracing study (From Reasoning criminal, P 19–38, 1986, Derek B Cornish and Ronald V Clarke, eds. See NCJ-102282).

  • Cherbonneau, M., and H. Copes. 2006. “Drive it like you stole it”: Auto theft and the illusion of normalcy. British Journal of Criminology 46: 193–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clare, J. 2011. Examination of systematic variations in burglars’ domain-specific perceptual and procedural skills. Psychology, Crime & Law 17 (3): 199–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copes, H., and R. Tewksbury. 2011. Criminal experience and perceptions of risk: What auto thieves fear when stealing cars. Journal of Crime and Justice 34 (1): 62–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, D.B., and R.V. Clarke. 2008. The rational choice perspective. Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis 21: 21–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromwell, P.F., J.N. Olsen, and D.W. Avary. 1991a. Breaking and entering: An ethnographic analysis of burglary. California: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromwell, P.F., J.N. Olson, D.A.W. Avary, and A. Marks. 1991b. How drugs affect decisions by burglars. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 35 (4): 310–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellsberg, D. 1961. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 643–669.

  • Ekblom, P., and A. Hirschfield. 2014. Developing an alternative formulation of SCP principles—the Ds (11 and counting). Crime Science 3 (1): 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feeney, F. 1986. Robbers as decision-makers, 53–71. The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finch, E. 2011. Strategies of adaptation and diversification: The impact of chip and PIN technology on the activities of fraudsters. Security Journal 24 (4): 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, D., and J. Baron. 1988. Ambiguity and rationality. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 1 (3): 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960010303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, M. 2000. Commercial robbery. London: Blackstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, D., J. Thomas, and S. Oliver. 2012. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews 1 (1): 28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grove, L.E., G. Farrell, D.P. Farrington, and S.D. Johnson. (2012). Preventing repeat victimization: A systematic review. The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.

  • Guerette, R.T. 2009. The pull, push and expansion of situational crime prevention evaluation: An appraisal of thirty-seven years of research. Evaluating Crime Reduction Initiatives Crime Prevention Studies 24: 29–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochstetler, A. 2001. Opportunities and decisions: Interactional dynamics in robbery and burglary groups. Criminology 39 (3): 737–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochstetler, A. 2002. Sprees and runs: Opportunity construction and criminal episodes. Deviant Behavior 23 (1): 45–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hockey, D. 2016. Burglary crime scene rationality of a select group of non-apprehend burglars. SAGE Open 6 (2): 2158244016640589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, B.A. 2010. Serendipity in robbery target selection. British Journal of Criminology 50 (3): 514–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, B.A., and M. Cherbonneau. 2014. Auto theft and restrictive deterrence. Justice Quarterly 31 (2): 344–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, B.A., and M. Cherbonneau. 2016. Managing victim confrontation: Auto theft and informal sanction threats. Justice Quarterly 33 (1): 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, B.A., and M. Cherbonneau. 2017. Nerve management and crime accomplishment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 54 (5): 617–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacques, S. 2010. The necessary conditions for retaliation: Toward a theory of non-violent and violent forms in drug markets. Justice Quarterly 27 (2): 186–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jian, J.Y., T. Matsuka, and J.V. Nickerson. 2006. Deception in trajectories. In 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1–6.

  • Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of crime: Moral and sensual attractions in doing evil. Basic Books.

  • Kang, M., and J.L. Lee. 2013. A study on burglars’ target selection: Why do burglars take unnecessary risks? Korea 443: 760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapardis, A. 1988. One hundred convicted armed robbers in melbourne: Myths and reality. In Armed Robbery, ed. D. Challenger. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. (Seminar Proceedings No. 26.)”.

  • Kroese, G.J., and R.H.J.M. Staring. 1994. Commercial robbers and decision making. The Hague: WODC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lejeune, Robert. 1977. ‘On the management of a mugging’. Urban Life 6: 123–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nettle, D., Z. Harper, A. Kidson, R. Stone, I.S. Penton-Voak, and M. Bateson. 2013. The watching eyes effect in the Dictator Game: It’s not how muchyou give, it’s being seen to give something. Evolution and Human Behavior 34 (1): 35–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogarsky, G. 2002. Identifying “deterrable” offenders: Implications for research on deterrence. Justice Quarterly 19 (3): 431–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsley, M., and A. Sidebottom. 2010. All offenders are equal, but some are more equal than others: Variation in journeys to crime between offenders. Criminology 48 (3): 897–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Townsley, M., R. Homel, and J. Chaseling. 2000. Repeat burglary victimisation: Spatial and temporal patterns. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 33 (1): 37–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, E., and M. Zeelenberg. 2003. The discounting of ambiguous information in economic decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 16 (5): 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gelder, J.L., H. Elffers, D. Reynald, and D.S. Nagin. 2013. Affect and cognition in criminal decision making: Between rational choices and lapses ofself-control. In Affect and cognition in criminal decision making, 19–37. Routledge.

  • Wakeham, J. 2015. Uncertainty: History of the Concept. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03175-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, D. 1986. Victim selection procedures among economic criminals: The rational choice perspective. In The reasoning criminal, 39–52. Routledge.

  • Wiersma, E. 1996. Commercial burglars in the Netherlands: Reasoning decision-makers? International Journal of Risk, Security and Crime Prevention 1 (3): 217–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wortley, R. 2008. Situational precipitators of crime. In Environmental criminology and crime analysis, ed. R. Wortley and L. Mazerolle, 48–69. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wortley, R., and A. Sidebottom. 2017. Deterrence and rational choice theory. The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Delinquency and Justice 1–6.

  • Wright, R.T., and S.H. Decker. 1994. Burglars on the job: Streetlife and residential break-ins. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Security and Crime Science, University College London, London, UK

    Paul Gill, Lisa Tompson, Zoe Marchment, Florian Hetzel, Sanaz Zolghadriha & Aiden Sidebottom

Authors
  1. Paul Gill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Tompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zoe Marchment
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Florian Hetzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sanaz Zolghadriha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aiden Sidebottom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Gill.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gill, P., Tompson, L., Marchment, Z. et al. A configurative synthesis of evidence for fear in the criminal decision-making process. Secur J 33, 583–601 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-019-00201-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-019-00201-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation