Overview
Suppose you drove by yourself one evening to meet some friends at a bar that is about 10 miles from your house. You have been drinking throughout the evening and by the time you’re ready to leave, you suspect your blood alcohol level might exceed the legal limit. Suppose you have to be at work early the next morning. You can either drive home or find some other way home, but if you leave your car, you will have to return early the next morning to pick it up. (Pogarsky 2004, p. 119)
Hypothetical scenarios like the one above are commonly used to study criminal decision making. In the typical study, participants are asked to envision themselves experiencing the situation described in the scenario and then to self-report how likely they would be to respond in an illegal manner (e.g., drive while drunk). They also rate various costs and benefits that might result from engaging in the offense. Using these data, researchers attempt to reconstruct the decision to offend by modeling...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Recommended Reading and References
Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Armitage CJ, Conner M (2001) Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol 40:471–499
Bachman R, Paternoster R, Ward S (1992) The rationality of sexual offending: testing a deterrence/rational choice conception of sexual assault. Law Soc Rev 26:343–372
Bentham J (1970) An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford University Press, New York (Original work published 1789)
Bouffard JA (2002a) Methodological and theoretical implications of using subject-generated consequences in tests of rational choice theory. Justice Q 19:747–769
Bouffard JA (2002b) The influence of emotion on rational decision making in sexual aggression. J Crim Justice 30:121–134
Bouffard JA (2007) Rational choice theory revisited: a preliminary examination of the perceived importance of consequences in offender decision-making. Int J Crime Crim Justice Law 2:49–67
Bouffard J (2011) ‘In the heat of the moment’: mediating versus moderating relationships between sexual arousal and perceived sanctions. J Crime Justice 34:24–44
Bouffard J, Exum ML, Collins P (2010) Methodological artifacts in tests of rational choice theory. J Crim Justice 38:400–409
Carmichael S, Piquero AR (2004) Sanctions, perceived anger, and criminal offending. J Quant Criminol 20:371–393
Elis LA, Simpson SS (1995) Informal sanction threats and corporate crime: additive versus multiplicative models. J Res Crime Delinquency 32:399–424
Exum ML (2002) The application and robustness of the rational choice perspective in the study of intoxicated and angry intentions to aggress. Criminol 40:933–966
Exum ML, Turner MG, Hartman JS (2012) Self-reported intentions to offend: all talk and no action? Am J Crim Justice. 4:523–543
Grasmick HG, Bursik RJ (1990) Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: extending the deterrence model. Law Soc Rev 24:837–861
Higgins GE (2007) Digital piracy, self-control theory, and rational choice: an examination of the role of value. Int J Cyber Criminol 1:33–55
Klepper S, Nagin D (1989) The deterrent effect of perceived certainty and severity of punishment revisited. Criminol 27:721–746
Loewenstein G, Nagin D, Paternoster R (1997) The effect of sexual arousal on expectations of sexual forcefulness. J Res Crime Delinq 34:443–473
Nagin DS (1978) General deterrence: a review of the empirical evidence. In: Blumstein A, Cohen J, Nagin D (eds) Deterrence and incapacitation: estimating the effects of criminal sanction on crime rates. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 95–139
Nagin D, Paternoster R (1993) Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law Soc Rev 27:467–496
Nagin DS, Paternoster R (1994) Personal capital and social control: the deterrence implications of a theory of individual differences in criminal offending. Criminology 32:581–606
Nagin DS, Pogarsky G (2001) Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: theory and evidence. Criminology 39:865–892
Ogilvie J, Stewart A (2010) The integration of rational choice and self-efficacy theories: a situational analysis of student misconduct. Aust New Zeal J Criminol 43:130–155
Paternoster R (2010) How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? J Crim Law Criminol 100:765–824
Paternoster R, Simpson S (1996) Sanction threats and appeals to morality: testing a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law Soc Rev 30:549–583
Piliavin I, Gartner R, Thornton C, Matsueda RL (1986) Crime, deterrence, and rational choice. Am Sociol Rev 51:101–119
Piquero AR, Bouffard JA (2007) Something old, something new: a preliminary investigation of Hirschi’s redefined self-control. Justice Q 24:1–27
Piquero AR, Pogarsky G (2002) Beyond Stafford and War’s reconceptualization of deterrence: personal and vicarious experiences, impulsivity, and offending behavior. J Res Crime Delinq 39:153–186
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 Q 13:481–510
Piquero NL, Exum ML, Simpson SS (2005) Integrating the desire-for-control and rational choice in a corporate crime context. Justice Q 22:252–280
Pogarsky G (2002) Identifying “deterrable” offenders: implications for research on deterrence. Justice Q 19:431–452
Pogarsky G (2004) Projected offending and contemporaneous rule-violation: implications for heterotypic continuity. Criminology 42:111–136
Pogarsky G, Piquero AR (2003) Can punishment encourage offending? Investigating the “resetting” effect. J Res Crime Delinq 40:95–120
Pogarsky G, Piquero AR (2004) Studying the reach of deterrence: can deterrence theory help explain police misconduct? J Crim Justice 32:371–386
Pratt TC, Cullen FT, Blevins KR, Daigle LE, Madensen TD (2008) The empirical status of deterrence theory: a meta-analysis. In: Cullen F, Wright J, Blevins K (eds) Taking stock: the status of criminological theory. Transaction, New Brunswick, pp 367–395
Simpson SS, Piquero NL (2002) Low self-control, organizational theory, and corporate crime. Law Soc Rev 36:509–548
Sitren AH, Applegate BK (2007) Testing the deterrent effects of personal and vicarious experience with punishment and punishment avoidance. Deviant Behav 28:29–55
Strelan P, Boeckmann RJ (2006) Why drug testing in elite sports does not work: perceptual deterrence theory and the role of personal moral beliefs. J Appl Soc Psychol 36:2909–2934
Tibbetts SG (1999) Differences between women and men regarding decisions to commit test cheating. Res High Educ 40:323–342
Tibbetts SG, Herz DC (1996) Gender differences in factors of social control and rational choice. Deviant Behav Interdiscip J 17:183–208
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this entry
Cite this entry
Exum, M.L., Sims, M. (2014). Scenario Designs. In: Bruinsma, G., Weisburd, D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_401
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_401
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5689-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5690-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law