1932

Abstract

The interplay of sanctions, perceptions, and crime has special significance in criminology and is central to a long tradition of perceptual deterrence research as well as to more recent scholarship on crime decision-making. This article seeks to review this body of research as it pertains to three basic questions. First, are people's perceptions of punishment accurate? The evidence indicates that people are generally but imperfectly aware of punishments allowed under the law but are nevertheless sensitive to changes in enforcement, especially of behaviors that are personally relevant. Second, does potential apprehension affect people's perceived risk and behavior when faced with a criminal opportunity? A highly varied body of literature supports the conclusion that perceptions are sensitive to situational cues and that behavior is sensitive to perceived risk, but these links can be weakened when individuals are in emotionally or socially charged situations. Third, do people revise their risk perceptions in response to crime and punishment experiences? Studies of perceptual change support the contention that people systematically update their perceptions based on their own and others’ experiences with crime and punishment.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-030920-112932
2022-01-13
2024-06-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/criminol/5/1/annurev-criminol-030920-112932.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-030920-112932&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Agan AY, Doleac JL, Harvey A. 2021. Misdemeanor prosecution NBER Work. Pap 28600
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ajzen I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 50:179–211
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anwar S, Loughran TA. 2011. Testing a Bayesian learning theory of deterrence among serious juvenile offenders. Criminology 49:667–98
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Apel R. 2013. Sanctions, perceptions, and crime: implications for criminal deterrence. J. Quant. Criminol. 29:67–101
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Apel R, Nagin DS 2011. General deterrence: a review of recent evidence. Crime and Public Policy JQ Wilson, J Petersilia 411–36 New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 4th ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ariel B 2012. Deterrence and moral persuasion effects on corporate tax compliance: findings from a randomized controlled trial. Criminology 50:27–69
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Ariely D, Loewenstein G, Prelec D. 2003.. “ Coherent arbitrariness”: stable demand curves without stable preferences. Q. J. Econ. 118:73–105
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bachman R, Paternoster R, Ward S. 1992. The rationality of sexual offending: testing a deterrence/rational choice conception of sexual assault. Law Soc. Rev. 26:343–72
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Barnum TC, Nagin DS, Pogarsky G. 2021. Sanction risk perceptions, coherence, and deterrence. Criminology 59:2195–223
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Barnum TC, Solomon SJ. 2019. Fight or flight: integral emotions and violent intentions. Criminology 57:659–86
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Barragan M, Chesnut KY, Gravel J, Pifer NA, Reiter K et al. 2017. Prohibited possessors and the law: how inmates in Los Angeles jails understand firearm and ammunition regulations. Russell Sage Found. J. Soc. Sci. 3:141–63
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Beccaria C. 1963 (1764. On Crimes and Punishments trans. H Paolucci New York: Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Blascovich J, Loomis J, Beall AC, Swinth KR, Hoyt CL, Bailenson JN. 2002. Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool for social psychology. Psychol. Inq. 13:103–24
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bucci R. 2021. Closing the macro-micro link: testing the effects of hot spots policing on individual adolescent outcomes. PhD Thesis, Pa. State Univ. University Park, PA:
  15. Camerer C, Weber M. 1992. Recent developments in modeling preferences: uncertainty and ambiguity. J. Risk Uncertain. 5:325–70
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Chein J, Albert D, O'Brien L, Uckert K, Steinberg L 2011. Peers increase adolescent risk taking by enhancing activity in the brain's reward circuitry. Dev. Sci. 14:F1–10
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Cherbonneau M, Jacobs BA. 2019. Imminent capture and noncompliance: probing deterrence in extreme environments. Justice Q 36:1122–43
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Chiricos TG, Waldo GP. 1970. Punishment and crime: an examination of empirical evidence. Soc. Probl. 18:200–17
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Claster DS. 1967. Comparison of risk perception between delinquents and non-delinquents. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 58:80–86
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Comm. Crim. Proced 1968. Deterrent Effects of Criminal Sanctions Sacramento, CA: Assem. State Calif.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Cook PJ. 1977. Punishment and crime: a critique of current findings concerning the preventive effects of punishment. Law Contemp. Probl. 41:164–204
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Cook PJ. 1979. The clearance rate as a measure of criminal justice system effectiveness. J. Public Econ. 11:135–42
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Cook PJ. 1980. Research in criminal deterrence: laying the groundwork for the second decade. Crime Justice Rev. Res. 2:211–68
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Dickinson T. 2015. Exploring the drugs/violence nexus among active offenders: contributions from the St. Louis School.. Crim. Justice Rev. 40:67–86
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Durlauf SN, Nagin DS. 2011. Imprisonment and crime. Criminol. Public Policy 10:13–54
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Erickson ML, Gibbs JP. 1978. Objective and perceptual properties of legal punishment and the deterrence doctrine. Soc. Probl. 25:253–64
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Exum ML. 2002. The application and robustness of the rational choice perspective in the study of intoxicated and angry intentions to aggress. Criminology 40:933–66
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Fader JJ. 2021.. “ I don't have time for drama”: managing risk and uncertainty through network avoidance. Criminology 59:2291–317
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Fishbane A, Ouss A, Shah AK. 2020. Behavioral nudges reduce failure to spear for court. Science 370:eabb6591
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gardner M, Steinberg L. 2005. Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: an experimental study. Dev. Psychol. 41:625–35
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Geerken MR, Gove WR. 1975. Deterrence: some theoretical considerations. Law Soc. Rev. 9:497–513
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gibbs JP. 1968. Crime, punishment, and deterrence. Southwest. Soc. Sci. Q. 48:515–30
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Gibbs JP. 1975. Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence New York: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Grube JW, Kearney KA. 1983. A “mandatory” jail sentence for drinking and driving. Eval. Rev. 7:235–46
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hjalmarsson R. 2009. Crime and expected punishment: changes in perceptions at the age of criminal majority. Am. Law Econ. Rev. 11:209–48
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Horney J, Marshall IH. 1992. Risk perceptions among serious offenders: the role of crime and punishment. Criminology 30:575–93
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hough M, Roberts JV. 1999. Sentencing trends in Britain: public knowledge and public opinion. Punishm. Soc. 1:11–26
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Jacobs BA. 1999. Dealing Crack: The Social World of Streetcorner Selling Boston: Northeast. Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Jacobs BA, Cherbonneau M. 2016. Managing victim confrontation: auto theft and informal sanction threats. Justice Q. 33:21–44
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Jacobs BA, Cherbonneau M. 2017. Nerve management and crime accomplishment. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 54:617–38
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Jacobs BA, Cherbonneau M. 2018. Perceived sanction threats and projective risk sensitivity: auto theft, carjacking, and the channeling effect. Justice Q. 35:191–222
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Jacobs BA, Cherbonneau M. 2019. Carjacking and the management of natural surveillance. J. Crim. Justice 61:40–47
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Jacobs BA, Miller J. 1998. Crack dealing, gender, and arrest avoidance. Soc. Probl. 45:550–69
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Jacobs BA, Topalli V, Wright R. 2003. Carjacking, streetlife and offender motivation. Br. J. Criminol. 43:673–88
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Jacobs BA, Wright R. 1999. Stick-up, street culture, and offender motivation. Criminology 37:149–73
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG 1981. Marijuana decriminalization: the impact on youth 1975–1980 Rep. NCJ 168095 Natl. Inst. Health Bethesda, MD:
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kahneman D. 2003. Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 93:1449–75
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kamerdze AS, Loughran T, Paternoster R, Sohoni T. 2014. The role of affect in intended rule breaking: extending the rational choice perspective. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 51:620–54
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Kennedy DM. 2009. Deterrence and Crime Prevention: Reconsidering the Prospect of Sanction New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kleck G, Barnes JC. 2013. Deterrence and macro-level perceptions of punishment risks: Is there a “collective wisdom”?. Crime Delinquency 59:1006–35
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kleck G, Barnes JC. 2014. Do more police lead to more crime deterrence?. Crime Delinquency 60:716–38
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Kleck G, Sever B, Li S, Gertz M 2005. The missing link in general deterrence research. Criminology 43:623–59
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Kleiman MAR. 2009. When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Klepper S, Nagin D. 1989a. Tax compliance and perceptions of the risks of detection and criminal prosecution. Law Soc. Rev. 23:209–40
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Klepper S, Nagin D. 1989b. The deterrent effect of perceived certainty and severity of punishment revisited. Criminology 27:721–46
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Knoll LJ, Magis-Weinberg L, Speekenbrink M, Blakemore S-J. 2015. Social influence on risk perception during adolescence. Psychol. Sci. 26:583–92
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Lee H, Sullivan CJ, Barnes JC. 2018. Maturity of judgment and perceptual deterrence. Crim. Justice Behav. 45:1762–81
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Lichtenstein S, Slovic P, Fischhoff B, Layman M, Combs B. 1978. Judged frequency of lethal events. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 4:551–78
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Lochner L. 2007. Individual perceptions of the criminal justice system. Am. Econ. Rev. 97:444–60
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Loewenstein G. 1996. Out of control: visceral influences on behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 65:272–92
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Loewenstein G, Nagin D, Paternoster R 1997. The effect of sexual arousal on expectations of sexual forcefulness. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 34:443–73
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Loughran TA, Paternoster R, Piquero AR, Fagan J. 2012a.. “ A good man always knows his limitations”: the role of overconfidence in criminal offending. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 50:327–58
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Loughran TA, Paternoster R, Piquero AR, Pogarsky G. 2011. On ambiguity in perceptions of risk: implications for criminal decision making and deterrence. Criminology 49:1029–61
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Loughran TA, Paternoster R, Thomas KJ. 2014. Incentivizing responses to self-report questions in perceptual deterrence studies: an investigation of the validity of deterrence theory using Bayesian truth serum. J. Quant. Criminol. 30:677–707
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Loughran TA, Paternoster R, Weiss D. 2012b. Hyperbolic time discounting, offender time preferences and deterrence. J. Quant. Criminol. 28:607–28
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Loughran TA, Piquero AR, Fagan J, Mulvey EP. 2012c. Differential deterrence: studying heterogeneity and changes in perceptual deterrence among serious youthful offenders. Crime Delinquency 58:3–27
    [Google Scholar]
  67. MacCoun R, Pacula RL, Chriqui J, Harris K, Reuter P 2009. Do citizens know whether their state has decriminalized marijuana? Assessing the perceptual component of deterrence theory. Rev. Law Econ. 5:347–71
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Maher L, Dixon D. 1999. Policing and public health: law enforcement and harm minimization in a street-level drug market. Br. J. Criminol. 39:488–512
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Mamayek C, Loughran T, Paternoster R. 2015. Reason taking the reins from impulsivity: the promise of dual-systems thinking for criminology. J. Contemp. Crim. Justice 31:426–48
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Manski CF 1978. Prospects for inference on deterrence through empirical analysis of individual criminal behavior. Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates A Blumstein, J Cohen, D Nagin 400–24 Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Manski CF. 2004. Measuring expectations. Econometrica 72:1329–76
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Martin SE, Annan S, Forst B 1993. The special deterrent effects of a jail sanction on first-time drunk drivers: a quasi-experimental study. Accid. Anal. Prev. 25:561–68
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Matsueda RL, Kreager DA, Huizinga D. 2006. Deterring delinquents: a rational choice model of theft and violence. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:95–122
    [Google Scholar]
  74. McCarthy B. 2002. The new economics of sociological criminology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 28:417–43
    [Google Scholar]
  75. McCarthy B, Hagan J. 2005. Danger and the decision to offend. Soc. Forces 83:1065–96
    [Google Scholar]
  76. McGloin JM. 2009. Delinquency balance: revisiting peer influence. Criminology 47:439–77
    [Google Scholar]
  77. McGloin JM, Rowan ZR. 2015. A threshold model of collective crime. Criminology 53:484–512
    [Google Scholar]
  78. McGloin JM, Thomas KJ. 2016. Incentives for collective deviance: group size and changes in perceived risk, cost, and reward. Criminology 54:459–86
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Midgette G, Loughran TA, Tahamont S. 2021. The impact of ambiguity-induced error in offender decision-making: evidence from the field. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 58(6):635–65
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Nagin DS. 1998. Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. Crime Justice Rev. Res. 23:1–42
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Nagin DS. 2013. Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime Justice Rev. Res. 42:199–263
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Nagin DS, Paternoster R. 1993. Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law Soc. Rev. 27:467–96
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Nagin DS, Pogarsky G 2001. Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: theory and evidence. Criminology 39:865–91
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Nagin DS, Pogarsky G. 2003. An experimental investigation of deterrence: cheating, self-serving bias, and impulsivity. Criminology 41:167–94
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Nagin DS, Pogarsky G. 2004. Time and punishment: delayed consequences and criminal behavior. J. Quant. Criminol 20:295–317
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Nagin DS, Solow RM, Lum C. 2015. Deterrence, criminal opportunities, and police. Criminology 53:74–100
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Natl. Acad. Sci. Eng. Med 2018. Proactive Policing: Effects on Crime and Communities Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Nee C, Meenaghan A. 2006. Expert decision making in burglars. Br. J. Criminol. 46:935–49
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Nee C, van Gelder J-L, Otte M, Vernham Z, Meenaghan A. 2019. Learning on the job: studying expertise in residential burglars using virtual environments. Criminology 57:481–511
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Nee C, White M, Woolford K, Pascu T, Barker L, Wainwright L. 2015. New methods for examining expertise in burglars in natural and simulated environments: preliminary findings. Psychol. Crime Law 21:507–13
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Nguyen H, Reuter P. 2012. How risky is marijuana possession? Considering the role of age, race, and gender. Crime Delinquency 58:879–910
    [Google Scholar]
  92. O'Brien L, Albert D, Chein J, Steinberg L 2011. Adolescents prefer more immediate rewards when in the presence of their peers. J. Res. Adolesc. 21:747–53
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Parker J, Grasmick HG 1979. Linking actual and perceived certainty of punishment: an exploratory study of an untested proposition in deterrence theory. Criminology 17:366–79
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Paternoster R. 1987. The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: a review of the evidence and issues. Justice Q 4:173–217
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Paternoster R. 2010. How much do we really know about criminal deterrence?. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 100:765–823
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Paternoster R, Iovanni L. 1986. The deterrent effect of perceived severity: a reexamination. Soc. Forces 64:751–77
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Paternoster R, Jaynes CM, Wilson T. 2017. Rational choice theory and interest in the “fortune of others. .” J. Res. Crime Delinquency 54:847–58
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Paternoster R, Simpson S. 1996. Sanction threats and appeals to morality: testing a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law Soc. Rev. 30:549–84
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Payne JW, Braunstein ML, Carroll JS. 1978. Exploring predecisional behavior: an alternative approach to decision research. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 22:17–34
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Pickett JT, Bushway S. 2015. Dispositional sources of sanction perceptions: emotionality, cognitive style, intolerance of ambiguity, and self-efficacy. Law Hum. Behav. 39:624–40
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Pickett JT, Loughran TA, Bushway S. 2014. On the measurement and properties of ambiguity in probabilistic expectations. Sociol. Methods Res. 44:636–76
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Pickett JT, Loughran TA, Bushway S. 2016. Consequences of legal risk communication for sanction perception updating and white-collar criminality. J. Exp. Criminol. 12:75–104
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Pickett JT, Mancini C, Mears DP, Gertz M. 2015. Public (mis)understanding of crime policy: the effects of criminal justice experience and media relevance. Crim. Justice Policy Rev. 26:500–22
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Pickett JT, Roche SP, Pogarsky G. 2018. Toward a bifurcated theory of emotional deterrence. Criminology 56:27–58
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Piquero AR, Gomez-Smith Z, Langton L. 2004. Discerning unfairness where others may not: low self-control and unfair sanction perceptions. Criminology 42:699–734
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Piquero AR, Paternoster R, Pogarsky G, Loughran TA 2011. Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 7:335–60
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Piquero AR, Piquero NL, Gertz M, Bratton J, Loughran TA. 2012. Sometimes ignorance is bliss: investigating citizen perceptions of the certainty and severity of punishment. Am. J. Crim. Justice 37:630–46
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Piquero A, Rengert GF. 1999. Studying deterrence with active residential burglars. Justice Q 16:451–71
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Pogarsky G. 2002. Identifying “deterrable” offenders: implications for research on deterrence. Justice Q 19:431–50
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Pogarsky G, Kim K, Paternoster R 2005. Perceptual change in the National Youth Survey: lessons for deterrence theory and offender decision-making. Justice Q 22:1–29
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Pogarsky G, Piquero AR, Paternoster R. 2004. Modeling change in perceptions about sanction threats: the neglected linkage in deterrence theory. J. Quant. Criminol. 20:343–69
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Pogarsky G, Roche SP, Pickett JT. 2017. Heuristics and biases, rational choice, and sanction perceptions. Criminology 55:85–111
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Pogarsky G, Roche SP, Pickett JT. 2018. Offender decision-making in criminology: contributions from behavioral economics. Annu. Rev. Criminol. 1:379–400
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Ross HL. 1973. Law, science, and accidents: the British Road Safety Act of 1967. J. Leg. Stud. 2:1–78
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Ross HL, Voas RB. 1990. The new Philadelphia story: the effects of severe punishment for drunk driving. Law Policy 12:51–79
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Saltzman LE, Paternoster R, Waldo GP, Chiricos TG 1982. Deterrent and experiential effects: the problem of causal order in perceptual deterrence research. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 19:172–89
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Schulz S. 2014. Individual differences in the deterrence process: Which individuals learn (most) from their offending experiences?. J. Quant. Criminol. 30:215–36
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Sherman LW. 1990. Police crackdowns: initial and residual deterrence. Crime Justice Rev. Res. 12:1–48
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Shover N, Honaker D. 1992. The socially bounded decision making of persistent property offenders. Howard J. Crim. Justice 31:276–94
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. 2004. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 24:311–22
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Smith ME, Sviridoff M, Sadd S, Curtis R, Grinc R 1992. The Neighborhood Effects of Street-Level Drug Enforcement: Tactical Narcotics Teams in New York New York: Vera Inst. Justice
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Stafford MC, Warr M. 1993. A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 30:123–35
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Taylor E. 2018. PAUSED for thought? Using verbal protocol analysis to understand the situational and temporal cues in the decision-making of residential burglars. Secur. J. 31:343–63
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Terpstra BL, van Velthoven BCJ, van Wijck PW. 2020. Do intensified police controls change perceptions of apprehension probability: a field experiment. Crime Delinquency 66:1115–36
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Thomas KJ, Hamilton BC, Loughran TA 2018. Testing the transitivity of reported risk perceptions: evidence of coherent arbitrariness. Criminology 56:59–86
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Thomas KJ, Loughran TA, Hamilton BC. 2020. Perceived arrest risk, psychic rewards, and offense specialization: a partial test of rational choice theory. Criminology 58:485–509
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Thomas KJ, Loughran TA, Piquero AR. 2013. Do individual characteristics explain variation in sanction risk updating among serious juvenile offenders? Advancing the logic of differential deterrence. Law Hum. Behav. 37:10–21
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Tittle C. 1969. Crime rates and legal sanctions. Soc. Probl. 16:409–23
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Topalli V. 2004. Criminal expertise and offender decision-making: an experimental analysis of how offenders and non-offenders differentially perceive social stimuli. Br. J. Criminol. 45:269–95
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Topalli V, Dickinson T, Jacques S. 2020. Learning from criminals: active offender research for criminology. Annu. Rev. Criminol. 3:189–215
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Topalli V, Jacques S, Wright R 2015.. “ It takes skills to take a car”: perceptual and procedural expertise in carjacking. Aggress. Violent Behav. 20:19–25
    [Google Scholar]
  132. van Gelder J-L. 2013. Beyond rational choice: the hot/cool perspective of criminal decision making. Psychol. Crime Law 19:745–63
    [Google Scholar]
  133. van Gelder J-L, de Vries RE. 2012. Traits and states: integrating personality and affect into a model of criminal decision making. Criminology 50:637–71
    [Google Scholar]
  134. van Gelder J-L, de Vries RE. 2014. Rational misbehavior? Evaluating an integrated dual-process model of criminal decision making. J. Quant. Criminol. 30:1–27
    [Google Scholar]
  135. van Gelder J-L, de Vries RE, van Der Pligt J. 2009. Evaluating a dual-process model of risk: affect and cognition as determinants of risky choice. J. Behav. Decis. Making 22:45–61
    [Google Scholar]
  136. van Gelder J-L, Nee C, Otte M, Demetriou A, van Sintemaartensdijk I, van Prooijen J-W. 2017. Virtual burglary: exploring the potential of virtual reality to study burglary in action. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 54:29–62
    [Google Scholar]
  137. van Gelder J-L, Otte M, Luciano EC 2014. Using virtual reality in criminological research. Crime Sci 3:10
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Veblen T. 2007 (1899. The Theory of the Leisure Class New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Vinokur A. 1971. Review and theoretical analysis of the effects of group processes upon individual and group decisions involving risk. Psychol. Bull. 76:231–50
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Waldo GP, Chiricos TG 1972. Perceived penal sanction and self-reported criminality: a neglected approach to deterrence research. Soc. Probl. 19:522–40
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Weaver FM, Carroll JS. 1985. Crime perceptions in a natural setting by expert and novice shoplifters. Soc. Psychol. Q. 48:340–59
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Weisburd DL, Einat T, Kowalski M. 2008. The miracle of the cells: an experimental study of interventions to increase payment of court ordered financial obligations. Criminol. Public Policy 7:9–36
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Williams KR, Gibbs JP. 1981. Deterrence and knowledge of statutory penalties. Sociol. Q. 22:591–606
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Williams KR, Gibbs JP, Erickson ML. 1980. Public knowledge of statutory penalties: the extent and basis of accurate perception. Pac. Sociol. Rev. 23:105–28
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Wilson T, Paternoster R, Loughran TA. 2017. Direct and indirect experiential effects in an updating model of deterrence: a research note. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 54:63–77
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Wright RT, Decker SH. 1994. Burglars on the Job: Streetlife and Residential Break-Ins Boston: Northeast. Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Wright RT, Decker SH. 1997. Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture Boston: Northeast. Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Wright R, Logie RH, Decker SH. 1995. Criminal expertise and offender decision making: an experimental study of the target selection process in residential burglary. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 32:39–53
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Zimring FE, Hawkins GJ. 1973. Deterrence: The Legal Threat in Crime Control Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-criminol-030920-112932
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error