Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Self-Reports as a Measure of Crime? A Theoretical Approach to Understanding its Strengths and Weaknesses

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Organized Crime, Corruption and Crime Prevention

Abstract

This essay analyzes the self-report (SR) survey theoretically as a sociological phenomenon, making use of the rational choice theory (e.g. Coleman, Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press). The paper argues two points: (1) the SR method has essential limitations for which there is no technical or methodological solution, and (2) the SR survey does have an important position in the field of crime research, but one should be concerned that it is aimed at the proper target populations, and implemented under the proper conditions.

It is a characteristic of the design of scientific research that exquisite attention is devoted to methodological problems that can be solved, while the pretense is made that the ones that cannot be solved are really nothing to worry about.

(Lewontin, 1995, p. 25)

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In deference to Ernesto’s nationality, it may be more appropriate to say here: “There are many roads that lead to Rome”.

  2. 2.

    The self-report method (SR) is used to make estimates of victimization (victim surveys) or of offending. Here I focus on SR of offending and its correlates, but the arguments are also applicable to SR in general.

  3. 3.

    Parts of my arguments in this essay are drawn from an earlier publication Ineke Haen Marshall, De Method van Zelfrapportage, Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 1996, 38, 1, 2–20.

  4. 4.

    In the experimental condition, the basic instrument was expanded to include a more detailed life-event and criminal history calendar.

  5. 5.

    The second International Self Report Study of Delinquency (ISRD2) was conducted in 2005–2007 in 30 nations. The third sweep (ISRD3) is currently underway in 25 countries, and expects to conclude field work in 2014.

  6. 6.

    The relative value of information increases if the respondent belongs to a difficult to reach population, or is a serious offender.

  7. 7.

    Coleman expresses these ratios in exact terms, suggesting an unrealistic possibility of quantification (Coleman 1990, p. 104).

  8. 8.

    We assume that in any situation, there will be a number of Good Respondents, Minimal Respondents, Sloppy Liars, and Active Liars. We argue, however, that the proportion of each will vary by target population (prison, school, or impoverished community).

  9. 9.

    We know that ‘neutral’ questions such as age, marital status are more likely to be answered truthfully than questions about criminal involvement or victimization.

  10. 10.

    For one recent example of fraudulent fabrication of data, see the case of the Dutch social psychologist Stapel.

References

  • Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S., & Feraro, T. J. (Eds). (1992). Rational choice theory. Advocacy and critique. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dovidio, J. F., & Fazio, R. H. (1992). New technologies for the direct and indirect assessment of attitudes. In J. M. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about questions. Inquiries into the cognitive bases of surveys (pp. 204–240). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser, H. (1990). “Habits”, “Frames” und “Rational Choice”, die Reichweite von Theorien der rationales Wahl (am Beispiel der Erklarung des Befragtenverhaltens). Zeitschrift fur Sociologie, 19(4), 231–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horney, J., & Marshall, I. H. (1991). Measuring lambda through self-reports. Criminology, 29(3), 471–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horney, J., & Marshall, I. H. (1992). An experimental comparison of two self-report methods for measuring lambda. The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 102–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layder, D. (1993). New strategies in social research, an introduction and guide. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R. M. (1995). Sex, lies and social science. The New York Review of Books, April 20, 1995, 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junger-Tas, J., Terlow, G., & Klein, M. W. (Eds.). (1994). Delinquent behavior among young people in the western world: First results of the International self-report delinquency study. Amsterdam: Kugler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junger-Tas, J., Marshall, I. H., & Ribeaud, D. (2003). Delinquency in an international perspective: the international self-reported delinquency study (ISRD). The Hague: Kugler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junger-Tas, J., Marshall, I. H., Enzmann, D., Killias, M., Steketee, M., & Gruszczynska, B. (2010). Juvenile delinquency in Europe and beyond: Results of the second international self-report delinquency study. New York: Springer (430 pages).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Junger-Tas, J., Marshall, I. H., Enzmann, D., Killias, M., Steketee, M., & Gruszczynska, B. (2012). The many faces of youth crime: Contrasting theoretical perspectives on juvenile delinquency across countries and cultures. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Junger-Tas, J., & Marshall, I. H. (1999). The self-report methodology in crime research: Strengths and weaknesses. Crime and Justice, 25, 291–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krohn, M. D., Thornberry, T. P., Gibson, C. L., & Baldwin, J. M. (2010). The development and impact of self-report measures of crime and delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(4) 509–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London and New York: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wentland, E. J., & Smith, K. W. (1993). Survey responses: An evaluation of their validity. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, J. (n. d.). Self-report studies. Unpublished manuscript. http://www.malcolmread.co.uk/JockYoung/. Accessed 10 May 2013.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Criminology and Criminal Justice & Department of Sociology, Northeastern University, Holmes 513, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, USA

    Ineke Haen Marshall

Authors
  1. Ineke Haen Marshall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ineke Haen Marshall .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. TRANSCRIME, U. Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy

    Stefano Caneppele

  2. TRANSCRIME, U. Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano, Italy

    Francesco Calderoni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Marshall, I. (2014). Self-Reports as a Measure of Crime? A Theoretical Approach to Understanding its Strengths and Weaknesses. In: Caneppele, S., Calderoni, F. (eds) Organized Crime, Corruption and Crime Prevention. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01839-3_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation