Beyond the "science of sophomores": Does the rational choice explanation of crime generalize from university students to an actual offender sample?

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

Volumn 52, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 698-721

  Bouffard, Jeff ^a   Bry, Jeff ^b   Smith, Shamayne ^c   Bry, Rhonda ^d  

^a WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Minnesota State Community and Technical College   (United States)

^c NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d North Dakota Division of Juvenile Services   (United States)

Author keywords

Generalizability; Rational choice; Student samples

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CRIME; CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR; CRIMINOLOGY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; JUVENILE DELINQUENCY; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; OFFENDER; UNIVERSITY STUDENT;

ADOLESCENT; AGGRESSION; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COERCION; CRIME; CULTURE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GENERALIZATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; JUVENILE DELINQUENCY; MALE; MORAL DEVELOPMENT; MOTIVATION; PRISONERS; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; STUDENTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 55049095606     PISSN: 0306624X     EISSN: 15526933     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X07309721     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Azjen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
2. Bachman, R., Paternoster, R., & Ward, S. (1992). The rationality of sexual offending: Testing a deterrence/ rational choice conception of sexual assault. Law and Society Review, 26, 343-372.
3. Becker, G.S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169-217.
4. Bouffard, J.A. (2002 a). The influence of emotion on rational decision making in sexual aggression. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30 (2). 121-134.
5. Bouffard, J.A. (2002 b). Methodological and theoretical implications of using subject generated consequences in tests of rational choice theory. Justice Quarterly, 19, 747-771.
6. Bouffard, J.A. (2007). Predicting differences in the perceived relevance of crime's costs and benefits in a test of rational choice theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51 (4). 461-485.
7. Decker, S., Wright, R., & Logie, R. (1993). Perceptual deterrence among active residential burglars: A research note. Criminology, 31 (1). 135-147.
8. 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, 933-967.
9. Grasmick, H.G., & Bursik, R.J. (1990). Conscience, significant others and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law and Society Review, 24, 837-861.
10. Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of crime: Moral and sensual attractions in doing evil. New York: Basic Books.
11. Klepper, S., & Nagin, D. (1989). The deterrent effects of perceived certainty and severity of punishment revisited. Criminology, 27, 721-746.
12. Murray, G.F., & Erickson, P.G. (1987). Cross-sectional versus longitudinal research: An empirical comparison of projected and subsequent criminality. Social Science Research, 16, 107-118.
13. Nagin, D.S., & Paternoster, R. (1991). Preventive effects of the perceived risk of arrest: Testing an expanded conception of deterrence. Criminology, 29 (4). 561-587.
14. Nagin, D.S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review, 27 (3). 467-496.
15. 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 (4). 581-606.
16. Nagin, D.S., & Pogarsky, G. (2001). Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: Theory and evidence. Criminology, 39 (4). 865-891.
17. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A.R. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36 (4). 859-866.
18. Paternoster, R., Saltzman, L.E., Waldo, G.P., & Chiricos, T.G. (1983). Perceived risk and social control. Law and Society Review, 17, 457-479.
19. Paternoster, R., & Simpson, S. (1996). Sanction threats and appeals to morality: Testing a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law and Society Review, 30, 549.
20. Piliavin, I., Gartner, R., Thornton, C., & Matsueda, R.L. (1986). Crime, deterrence, and rational choice. American Sociological Review, 51, 101-119.
21. Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S. (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.
22. Pogarsky, G. (2002). Identifying "deterrable" offenders: Implications for research on deterrence. Justice Quarterly, 19, 431-452.
23. Pogarsky, G. (2004). Projected offending and contemporaneous rule-violation: Implications for heterotypic continuity. Criminology, 42 (1). 111-135.
24. Shover, N. (1996). Aging criminals: Changes in the criminal calculus. In P. Cromwell (Ed.), In their own words: Criminals on crime: An anthology (pp. 57-63). Los Angeles: Roxbury.
25. Tunnell, K.D. (1992). Choosing crime: The criminal calculus of property offenders. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
26. Williams, K.R., & Hawkins, R. (1986). Perceptual research on general deterrence: A critical review. Law and Society, 20 (4). 545-572.
27. Wright, R.T., & Decker, S.H. (1994). Burglars on the job: Streetlife and residential break-ins. Boston: Northeastern University Press.