Abstract
This paper argues that simulated experiments of crime prevention interventions are an important class of research methods that compare favorably with empirical experiments. It draws on Popper’s demarcation between science and non-science (Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge, London, 1992) and Epstein’s principle of generative explanation (Generative social science: studies in agent-based computational modeling. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2006) to show how simulated experiments can falsify theory. The paper compares simulated and empirical experiments and shows that simulations have strengths that empirical methods lack, but they also have important relative weaknesses. We identify three threats to internal validity and two forms of external validity peculiar to simulated experiments. The paper also looks at the problem of validating simulations with crime data and suggests that simulations need to mimic the error production processes involved in the creation of empirical data. It concludes by listing ways simulations can be used to improve empirical experiments and discussing the differing operating assumption of empirical and simulation experimentalists.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Batty, M., Desyllas, J., & Duxbury, E. (2003). Safety in numbers? Modelling crowds and designing control for the Notting Hill Carnival. Urban Studies, 40(8), 1573–1590.
Beavon, D. J. K., Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1994). The influence of street networks on the patterning of property offenses. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention studies, volume 2 (pp. 115–148). Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press.
Benenson, I., & Torrens, P. (2004). Geosimulation: Automata-based modeling of urban phenomena. New York: Wiley.
Birks, D. J., Donkin, S., & Wellsmith, M. (2008). Synthesis over analysis: Towards an ontology for volume crime simulation. In L. Liu, & J. E. Eck (Eds.), Artificial crime analysis systems (pp. 160–192). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Environment, routine, and situation: toward a pattern theory of crime. In R. V. Clarke, & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine activity, and rational choice (pp. 259–294). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.
Brantingham, J., & Tita, G. (2008). Offender mobility and crime pattern formation from first principles. In L. Liu, & J. E. Eck (Eds.), Artificial crime analysis systems (pp. 193–208). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Casti, J. L. (1997). Would-be-worlds: How simulation is changing the frontiers of science. New York: Wiley.
Catalano, S. M. (2006). Criminal victimization, 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cv05.pdf).
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Dray, A., Mazerolle, L., Perez, P., & Ritter, A. (2008). Drug law enforcement in an agent-based model: simulating the disruption to street-level drug markets. In L. Liu, & J. E. Eck (Eds.), Artificial crime analysis systems (pp. 352–271). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Eck, J. E. (1995). Examining routine activity theory: A review of two books. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 763–797.
Eck, J. E. (2002). Learning From experience in problem-oriented policing and situational prevention: The positive functions of weak evaluations and the negative functions of strong ones. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Evaluation in crime prevention. Crime prevention studies, volume 14 (pp. 93–118). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Eck, J. E. (2006). When is a Bologna Sandwich better than sex? A defense of small-N case study evaluations. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(3), 345–362.
Eck, J. E., & Liu, L. (2008). Varieties of artificial crime analysis: Purpose, structure, and evidence in crime simulations. In L. Liu, & J. E. Eck (Eds.), Artificial crime analysis systems (pp. 413–432). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Eck, J. E., Clarke, R. V., & Guerette, R. T. (2007). Risky facilities: Crime concentration in homogeneous sets of establishments and facilities. In G. Farrell, K. J. Bowers, S. D. Johnson, & M. Townsley (Eds.), Imagination for crime prevention. Crime prevention studies, volume 19 (pp. 225–264). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Ekblom, P. (1999). Can we make crime prevention adaptive by learning from other evolutionary struggles? Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 8(1), 27–51.
Elffers, H., & Van Baal, P. (2008). Spatial Backcloth is not that important in simulation research: An illustration from simulating perceptual deterrence. In L. Liu, & J. E. Eck (Eds.), Artificial crime analysis systems (pp. 19–34). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Epstein, J. M. (2006). Generative social science: Studies in agent-based computational modeling. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Furtado, V., Melo, A., Coelho, A., Menezes, R., & Belch, M. (2008). Simulating crime against properties using swarm intelligence and social networks. In L. Liu, & J. E. Eck (Eds.), Artificial crime analysis systems (pp. 300–318). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gilbert, N. (2008). Agent Based models. quantitative applications in the social sciences. No. 153. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Groff, E. R. (2008). Characterizing the Spatio-Temporal aspects of routine activities and the geographic distribution of street robbery. In L. Liu, & J. E. Eck (Eds.), Artificial Crime Analysis Systems (pp. 226–251). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Hedström, P. (2005). Dissecting the social: On the principles of analytical sociology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, L., & Eck, J. E. (2008). Artificial crime analysis systems. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Liu, L., Wang, X., Eck, J., & Liang, J. (2005). Simulating crime events and crime patterns in a RA/CA model. In F. Wang (Ed.), Geographic information systems and crime analysis (pp. 198–213). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Lum, C., & Yang, S.-M. (2005). Why do evaluation researchers in crime and justice choose non-experimental methods? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(2), 191–213.
Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex adaptive systems: An introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
National Research Council. (2005). Improving evaluation of anticrime programs. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Popper, K. (2002). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimentation and quasi-experimental designs for general causal inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Sherman, L. W., & Rogan, D. P. (1995). Effects of gun seizures on gun violence: ‘Hot Spots’ patrol in Kansas City. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 673–693.
Sherman, L. W., & Weisburd, D. A. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “Hot Spots”: A randomized, controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 625–648.
Spelman, W., & Brown, D. K. (1981). Calling the Police: A replication of the citizen reporting component of the Kansas City response time analysis. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
Szakas, J., Trefftz, C., Ramirez, J. R., & Jefferis, E. (2008). Development of an intelligent patrol routing system using GIS and computer simulations. In L. Liu, & J. E. Eck (Eds.), Artificial crime analysis systems (pp. 339–351). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Townsley, M., & Johnson, S. D. (2008). The need for systematic replication and tests of validity in simulation. In L. Liu, & J. E. Eck (Eds.), Artificial crime analysis systems (pp. 1–19). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
van Baal, P. (2004). Computer simulations of criminal deterrence. Hoofddorp, Netherlands: Boom Juridische Uitgevers.
van Dijk, J. J. M. (2001). Attitudes of victims and repeat victims toward the police: Results of the international crime victims survey. In G. Farrell, & K. Pease (Eds.), Repeat victimization. Crime prevention studies, volume 12 (pp. 27–52). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Wang, X. (2005). Spatial Adaptive Crime Event Simulation using the RA/CA/ABM Computational Laboratory. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Cincinnati. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Wang, X., Liu, L., & Eck, J. E. (2008). Crime simulation using GIS and artificial intelligent agents. In L. Liu, & J. E. Eck (Eds.), Artificial crime analysis systems (pp. 209–225). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Weisburd, D., & Eck, J. E. (2004). What can police do to reduce crime, disorder and fear? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 42–65.
Weisburd, D., & Piquero, A. R. (2008). How well do criminologists explain crime? In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research. Volume 37. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
White, G. F. (1990). Neighborhood permeability and burglary rates. Justice Quarterly, 7(1), 57–67.
Zhang, L., Messner, S. F., & Liu, J. (2007). An exploration of the determinants of reporting crime to the police in the City of Tianjin, China. Criminology, 45(4), 959–984.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following people for their assistance in the preparation of this paper: Elizabeth Groff and Lorraine Mazerolle for their advice, comments and patience; three anonymous reviewers for their careful examination and insightful comments; Troy Payne for his editing; and last, but certainly not least, Charlotte S. Navarro for her insights and inspiration. As always, the faults of the paper are ours, not theirs.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eck, J.E., Liu, L. Contrasting simulated and empirical experiments in crime prevention. J Exp Criminol 4, 195–213 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-008-9059-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-008-9059-z