Advertisement

Deterrence and Decision Making: Research Questions and Theoretical Refinements

  • Greg Pogarsky
Chapter
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

Deterrence is a process in which threatened or actual sanctions discourage criminal acts. There are not only official sanctions, such as incarceration or probation, but also non-legal punishments. For example, people refrain from offending to avoid stigma or disapproval from others. Deterrence requires that behavior is purposive; it assumes potential criminal actors weigh the incentives and disincentives to offend. The likelihood that an individual will commit a given crime is negatively related to his or her perceptions of the certainty, severity, and celerity of punishment for that crime. The formation of these threat perceptions is central to deterrence and, more generally, to society’s capacity for deterrence-oriented crime control.

Keywords

Criminal Behavior Deterrent Effect Crime Control Ambiguity Aversion Attitude Transference 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abrams, D. (2007). More time, less crime? Estimating the deterrent effect of incarceration using sentencing enhancements. MIT working paper.Google Scholar
  2. Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: critique des postulats et axiomes de l’école Américaine. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apel, R. Pogarsky, G., & Bates, L. (2009). The Sanctions-Perceptions Link in a model of school-based deterrence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25, 201–226.Google Scholar
  4. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1984). Patterns in Crime. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Bridges, G. S., & Stone, J. A. (1986). Effects of criminal punishment on perceived threat of punishment: Toward an understanding of specific deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 207–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bushway, S., & Reuter, P. (2008). Economists’ contribution to the study of crime and the criminal justice system. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 37, 389–451.Google Scholar
  7. Casey, J. T., & Scholz, J. T. (1991a). Beyond deterrence theory: Behavioral decision theory and tax compliance. Law and Society Review, 25, 821–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Casey, J. T., & Scholz, J. T. (1991b). Boundary effects of vague risk information on taxpayer decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 360–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chambliss, W. J. (1967). Types of deviance and the effectiveness of legal sanctions. Wisconsin Law Review, 1967, 703–719.Google Scholar
  10. Chamlin, M. B. (1991) A longitudinal analysis of the arrest-crime relationship: A further examination of the tipping effect. Justice Quarterly, 8, 87–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103, 962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etzioni, A. (1988). The moral dimension: Toward a new economics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Evans, W., & Owens, E. (2007). COPS and crime. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Geerken, M. R., & Gove, W. R. (1975). Deterrence: Some theoretical considerations. Law and Society Review, 9, 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Schools and delinquency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter? American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1013–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hernandez-Orallo, J. & Garcia-Varea, I. (2000). Explanatory and creative alternatives to the MDL principle. Foundation of Science, 5, 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  25. Horney, J. (2006). An alternative psychology of criminal behavior. The American Society of Criminology 2005 Presidential Address. Criminology, 44, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Horney, J., & Marshall, I. (1992). Risk perceptions among serious offenders: The role of crime and punishment. Criminology, 30, 575–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jolls, C., Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. (1998). A behavioral approach to law and economics, Stanford Law Review, 50, 1471–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jussim, L., & Osgood, D. W. (1989). Influence and similarity among friends: An integrative model applied to incarcerated adolescents. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93, 1449–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kleck, G., Sever, B., Li, S., & Gertz, M. (2005). The missing link in general deterrence research. Criminology, 43, 623–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lattimore, P. K., Baker, J. R., & Witte, A. D. (1992). The influence of probability on risky choice: A parametric examination. The Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 17, 377–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Levitt, S. (1996). The effect of prison population size on crime rates: Evidence from prison overcrowding litigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111, 319–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levitt, S. (1997). Using electoral cycles in police hiring to estimate the effect of police on crime. American Economic Review, 87, 270–290.Google Scholar
  37. Levitt, S. (2002). Using electoral cycles in police hiring to estimate the effects of police on crime: Reply. American Economic Review, 92, 1244–1250.Google Scholar
  38. Lochner, L. (2007). Individual perceptions of the criminal justice system. American Economic Review, 97, 444–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Loeffler, C. (2006). Using inter-judge sentencing disparity to estimate the effect of imprisonment on criminal recidivism. Working paper. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  40. Loewenstein, G., Nagin, D. S., & 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
  41. Makkai, T., & Braithwaite, J. (1994). The dialectics of corporate deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31, 347–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Marvell, T., & Moody, C. (1994). Prison population growth and crime reduction. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 109–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Matsueda, R. L., & Anderson, K. (1998). The dynamics of delinquent peers and delinquent behavior. Criminology, 36, 269–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Matsueda, R. L., Kreager, D. A., & Huizinga, D. (2006). Deterring delinquents: A rational choice model of theft and violence. American Sociological Review, 71, 95–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and Drift. New York:Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. McCarthy, B. (2002). New economics of sociological criminology. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 417–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McCrary, J. (2002). Using electoral cycles police hiring to estimate the effect of police on crime: Comment. American Economic Review, 92, 1236–1243.Google Scholar
  48. McCrary, J. (2007). The effect of court-ordered hiring quotas on the composition and quality of police. American Economic Review, 97, 318–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McGloin, J. M., Sullivan, C. J., Piquero, A. R., & Bacon, S. (2008). Investigating the stability of co-offending and co-offenders among a sample of youthful offenders. Criminology, 46, 155–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mischel, W., Shoda,Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moffitt. T. E. (1993). Life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Morris, N., & Tonry, M. (1990). Between prison and probation: Intermediate punishments in a rational sentencing system. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Nagin, D. S. (1978). General deterrence: A review of the empirical evidence. In A. Blumstein, J. Cohen, & D. S. Nagin (Eds.), Deterrence and incapacitation: Estimating the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates (pp. 95–139). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  54. Nagin, D. S. (1998). Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 23, pp. 1–42). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  55. 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, 581–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky, G. (2001). Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: Theory and evidence. Criminology, 39, 404–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky, G. (2003). An experimental investigation of deterrence: Cheating, self-serving bias, & impulsivity. Criminology, 41, 501–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky, G. (2004). Time and punishment: Delayed consequences and criminal behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20, 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. National Research Council (2004). Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  60. Paternoster, R. (1987). The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues. Justice Quarterly, 4, 173–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Paternoster, R. (1989). Decisions to participate in and desist from four types of common delinquency: Deterrence and the rational choice perspective. Law and Society Review, 23, 501–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Petersilia, J. (2002). Reforming probation and parole in the twenty-first century. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.Google Scholar
  63. Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Piliavin, I., Thornton, C., Gartner, R., & Matsueda, R. L. (1986). Crime, deterrence and rational choice. American Sociological Review, 51, 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Piquero, A. R., & Paternoster, R. (1998). An application of Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence to drinking and driving. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Piquero, A. R., & Pogarsky, G. (2002). Beyond Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence: Personal and vicarious experiences, impulsivity, and offending behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 153–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Piquero, A. R., & 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
  68. Pogarsky, G. (2002). Identifying deterrable offenders: Implications for deterrence research. Justice Quarterly, 19, 431–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pogarsky, G. (2004). Projected offending and contemporaneous rule violation: Implications for heterotypic continuity. Criminology, 42, 111–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pogarsky, G. (2007). Deterrence and individual differences among convicted offenders. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A meta-analysis. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 373–450). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  72. Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle, L. E., & Madensen, T. D. (2006). The empirical status of deterrence. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory—advances in criminological theory (Vol. 15, pp. 367–395). New Brunswick, NJ: Transactions Publishers.Google Scholar
  73. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  74. Rossmo, K. (2000). Geographic profiling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  75. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2003). Life course desistors? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology, 41, 555–592.Google Scholar
  76. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2005). When prediction fails: From crime-prone boys to heterogeneity in adulthood. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sarnecki, J. (2001). Delinquent networks: Youth co-offending in Stockholm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sherman, L. W. (1990). Police crackdowns: Initial and residual deterrence. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Volume 12, pp. 1–48). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  79. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 6, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Simon, H. A. (1979). Models of thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Stafford, M. C., & Warr, M. (1993). A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology 4th ed. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.Google Scholar
  83. Thaler, R. H. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1, 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Thaler, R. H. (1996). Doing economics without homo economicus. In S. G. Medema & W. J. Samuels (Eds.), Exploring the foundations of research in economics: How should economists do economics? Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  85. Tittle, C. R., & Botchkovar, E. V. (2005). Self-control, criminal motivation and deterrence: An investigation using Russian respondents. Criminology, 43, 307–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tittle, C. R., & Paternoster, R. (2000). Social deviance and crime social. Los Angeles: Roxbury Press.Google Scholar
  87. Tittle, C. R., & Rowe, A. R. (1974). Certainty of arrest and crime rates: A further test of the deterrence hypothesis. Social Forces, 54, 455–462.Google Scholar
  88. Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  89. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Warr, M. (2002). Companions in Crime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Warr, M., & Stafford, M. (1991). The influence of delinquent peers: What they think or what they do? Criminology, 29, 851–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Weisburd, D., Einat, T., & Kowalski, M. (2008). The miracle of the cells: An experimental study of interventions to increase payment of court-ordered fines. Criminology and Public Policy, 7, 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Williams, K. R., Gibbs, J. P., & Erickson, M. L. (1980). Public knowledge of statutory penalties—the extent and basis of accurate perception. Pacific Sociological Review, 23, 105–128.Google Scholar
  95. Williams, K. R., & Hawkins, R. (1986). Perceptual research on general deterrence: A critical overview. Law and Society Review, 20, 545–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wright, B., Moffit, T. E., Caspi, A., & Paternoster, R. (2004). Does the perceived risk of punishment deter criminally-prone individuals. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 180–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. J. (1968). Deterrence and marginal groups. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, July, 110–114.Google Scholar
  98. Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. J. (1973). Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Greg Pogarsky
    • 1
  1. 1.University at Albany, SUNYAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations