Advertisement

Attribution Theory and Deterrence Research: A New Approach to Old Problems

  • Susanne Karstedt-Henke
Part of the Research in Criminology book series (RESEARCH CRIM.)

Abstract

About 1980 criminologists in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) took a new approach to deterrence theory and research. Although the topic of “general prevention”had been discussed within the community of the practitioners of penal law, it had been dormant within the scientific community.

Keywords

Crime Rate Belief System Informal Social Control Moral Condemnation Attribution Theory 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abele, A. & Volbert, R. (1979). Are female defendants judged differently than male defendants? Quantitative vs. qualitative parameters of social judgement. Unpublished paper, Department of Psychology, Universität Bielefeld, Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  2. Albrecht, G., & Karstedt-Henke, S. (1987). Alternative methods of conflict-settling and sanctioning: Their impact on young offenders. In Hurrelmann, K., Kaufmann, F.-X., & Lösel, F. (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints(pp. 315–332). New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  3. Andenaes, J. (1974). Punishment and deterrence. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  4. Banfield, E. (1968).The unheavenly city.Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, H.S. (1963).Outsiders. Studies in the sociology of deviance.New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. 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 (3), 207–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chambliss, W.J. (1966). The deterrent influence of punishment.Crime and Delinquency, 11,70–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, R.V. (1980). “Situational” crime prevention: Theory and practice.British Journal of Criminology, 20, 136–147.Google Scholar
  9. Converse, Ph.E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter, D.E. (Ed.),Ideology and discontent(pp. 206–261).New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Crittenden, K.S. (1983). Sociological aspects of attribution.Annual Review of Sociology, 9,425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dölling, D. (1985). Rechtsgefühl und Perzeption des Stafrechts bei delinquenten und nicht delinquenten Jugendlichen und Heranwachsenden. In Lampe, E. & Rehbinder, M. (Eds.),Das sognenannte Rechtsgefühl. Jahrbuch Für Rechts-soziologie und Rechtsheorie(Vol. 10, pp. 240–256). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Erickson, M.L., Gibbs, J.P., & Jensen, G.F. (1977). The deterrence doctrine and the perceived certainty of legal punishments.American Sociological Review, 42, 305–317.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forthofer, R.N., & Lehnen, R.G. (1981).Public program analysis. A new categorical data approach.Belmont, CA: Lifetime Learning Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Geerken, M., & Gove, W. (1975). Deterrence: Some theoretical considerations.Law and Society Review, 9,497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibbs, J.P. (1975).Crime, punishment and deterrence New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  16. Grasmick, H.G., & Green, B. (1980). Legal punishment, social disapproval and internalization as inhibitors of illegal behavior.Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology,71,325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hakim, S., & Rengert, G.F. (Eds.) (1981). Crime Spillover, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Hart, H.L.A. (1968).Punishment and responsibility.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Harvey, J.H., Ickes, W., & Kidd, R.F. (Eds.) (1976,1978,1981).New directions in attribute research(Vol. 1, 1976; Vol. 2, 1978; Vol. 3, 1981). Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  20. Heider, F. (1958).The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Howard, J.A., & Levinson, R. (1985). The overdue courtship of attribution and labeling.Social Pschology Quarterly, 48(3), 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Inglehart, R. (1985). Aggregate stability and individual-level flux in mass belief systems:The level of analysis paradox.The American Political Science Review,79,97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kaiser, G. (1970).Verkehrsdelinquenz und Generalprävention. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  24. Karstedt-Henke, S. (1981).Das Trunkenheitsdelikt im Strassenverkehr—Studie zur Theorie der Wirksamkeit von Strafgezetzen. Unpublished dissertation, Universität Bielefeld, Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  25. Karstedt-Henke, S. (1985a). Die Stützung von strafrechtlichen Normen und Sanktionen durch das Rechtsgefühl. Ein Kognitions-zentrierter ansatz. In Lampe, E. & Rehbinder, M. (Eds.),Das sogenannte Rechtsgefühl. Jahrbuch für Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie(Vol. 10, pp. 210–239). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  26. Karstedt-Henke, S. (1985b). Die Einschätzung von Strafen und ihren Wirkungen—Ein Beitrag zur Sanktionsforschung.Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie, 6,70–89.Google Scholar
  27. Karstedt-Henke, S. (1987). Die Einschätzung der generalpräventiven Faktoren und ihrer Wirksamkeit durch die Bevölkerung—Ergebnissse einer emprischen Untersuchung.Kriminologisches Journal, 19, 66–78.Google Scholar
  28. Karstedt-Henke, S. (1988). Alternative Konfliktlösungs- ung Sanktionspraktiken: Auswirkungen auf strafrechtlich Auffällige.Berichtaus dem Teilprojekt,C 3. SFB 227, INFO 4, 8–15.Google Scholar
  29. Kelley, H.H. (1967). Attribution theory in social pschology. In D. Levine (Ed.),Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kelley, H.H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution.American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kerner, H.-J. (1973).Verbrechenswirklichkeit und Strafverfolgung—Erwägungen zum Aussagewert der Kriminalstatistik.München: Goldmann.Google Scholar
  32. Killias, M. (1985). Zur Bedeutung von Rechtsgefühl und Sanktionen für die Konformität des Verhaltens gegenüber neuen Normen.Das Beispiel Der Gurtanlegefühl. In Lampe E., & Rechtssoziologie, M. (EDS.),Das sogenannte Reehtsgefühl. Jahrbuch für Rechtssoziologie und Rechtstheorie(Vol. 10, pp. 257–272). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. Kohlberg, L. & Turiel, E. (1978). Moralische Entwicklung und Moralerziehung. In Portele, G. (Ed.),Sozialisation und Moral(pp. 13–80). Winheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  34. Kretschmer-Bäumel, E. & Karstedt-Henke, S. (1986).Orientierungs- und Verhaltensmuster der Kraftfahrer. Ergebnisse einer Befragung. Untersuchungen zu Alkohol und Fahren (Research on Drinking and Driving),(Vol. 13). Köln: Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Agency of Traffic Affairs). Google Scholar
  35. Langworthy, R.H., & Whitehead, J.T. 1986. Liberalism and fear as explanations of punitiveness.Criminology, 24,575–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lasley, J.R. (1986).A causal analysis of victimization and offending.Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissrtation InformationService.Google Scholar
  37. Lundman, R.J. (1986). One-wave perceptual deterrence research: Some grounds for the renewed examination of cross-setional methods.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23,370–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Minor, W.W. (1977).A deterrence-control theory of crime. In Meier, R.F. (Ed.),Theory in criminology. Contemporary Views(pp 117–137). Beverly Hills, CA.: Sage publications.Google Scholar
  39. Parker, J., & Grasmick, H.G. (1979). Linking actual and perceived certainty of punishment: an untested proposition in deterrence theory.Criminology, 17,366–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paternoster, R.L., Saltzmann, L.E., Waldo, G.P., & Chriricos, T.G. (1983). Estimating perceptual stability effects: The role of perceived legal punishment in the inhibition of criminal involvement.Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 74,270–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Paternoster, R.L., Saltzmann, L.E., Waldo, G.P., & Chriricos, T.G. 1985. Assessment of risk and behavior experience.Criminology, 23,417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ross, H.L. (1960). Traffic law violation: A folk crime.Social Problems, 8,231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schumann, K.F., Berlitz, K., Guth, H.-W., & Kaulitzki, R. (1985).Jugendkriminalität und die Grnzen der Generalprävention.Bremen: University of Bremen.Google Scholar
  44. Sellin, Th., & Wolfgang, M.E. (1964).The measurement of delinquency,New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  45. Sessar, K. (1986). Neue Wege der Kriminologie aus dem Strafrecht. In Hirsch, H.J., Kaiser, G., et al. (Eds.), Gedächtnisschrift für Hilde Kaufmann (pp. 373–391). Berlin: de GruytGoogle Scholar
  46. Silberman, M. (1976). Toward a theory of criminal deterrence.American Sociological Review, 41,442–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Siegel, S. (1976).Nichtparametrische Statistiche Methoden. Frankfurt am Main: Fachbuchhandlung für Psychologic.Google Scholar
  48. Stinchcombe, A.L., Adams, R., Heiner, A.C., Scheppele, K.L., Smith, T.W., & Taylor, D.J. 1980.Crime and punishment.Changing attitudes in America.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Sryker, S. & Gottlieb, A. (1981).Attribution theory and symbolic interactionism: A comparison. In Harvey, J.H., Ickes, W., & Kidd, R.F. (Eds.),New Directions in Attribution Research(Vol.3). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Sykes, G., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency.American Sociological Review, 22,664–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tittle, Ch. R. (1980).Sanctions and social deviance. The question of deterrence. NewYork: PraegerGoogle Scholar
  52. Warr, M. (1980). The accuracy of public belief about crime.Social Forces, 59,456–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zimring, F., & Hawkins, G. (1973).Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer- Verlag New York Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susanne Karstedt-Henke

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations