Behavioral criminology and public policy

Abstract

Research Summary Public policy, including crime policy, is heavily shaped by economic theory. Recently, refinements based on the application of behavioral insights into the study of public policy applications have become en vogue. Although criminologists have made some inroads into incorporating behavioral principals into the study of crime and offender decision‐making, these contributions have mainly been limited to the area of risk. In this article, I offer a more widespread description of how behavioral economics (BE) can be applied to the study of offender decision‐making and crime policy. Specifically, I focus on several main areas that move beyond the traditional foci on perceptions of risk: intertemporal choice, criminal labor supply, mental accounting and consumption, and social preferences. For each topical area, I first identify a presumable, normative model that could reasonably be drawn from traditional rational choice theory. I then describe ways, based on existing contributions from BE, that scholars have sought to make the assumptions (and anomalies) of this model more realistic. Policy Implications The primary aim of this article is to highlight implications to theory and policy that increase the utilization of BE by criminologists.

The promise of behavioral economics for understanding decision‐making in the court

“…With additional study, many of these inaccuracies or anomalies were predictable themselves based on new concepts from behavioral economics, which led to the construction of new theories and models of decision‐making such as prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, ), cumulative prospect theory (Tversky & Kahneman, ; Wakker & Tversky, ), and salience theory (Bordalo, Gennaioli, & Shleifer, ) among many others. Over the past 10 years, many of these advancements within behavioral economics have been integrated by criminologists toward enhancing our understanding of offender decision‐making (Pogarsky, Pickett, & Roche, ), with additional room for growth, expansion, and continued integration (Loughran, ).…”

“…Sherman, here, provided a clear example of the utility of integrating relevant behavioral economic concepts and findings on decision‐making into both research on offender decision‐making and policies designed to reduce offending. For more directions on where behavioral economics can be further incorporated into studies of offender decision‐making, see Loughran ().…”

“…Despite this wide relevance, a disconnect in the field primarily pervades where decision‐making scholars limit their inquiries to the decision to offend, whereas sentencing scholars focus on administrative data sets. The result has been numerous adaptations of decision‐making scholarship outside of criminology to the decision to offend (see from this issue the following articles: Herman & Pogarsky, ; Hoeben & Thomas, ; Loughran, ), and a growing understanding of court case processing (Baumer, ; Spohn, ; Tonry, ; Ulmer, ). What is missing on both sides of the research divide, however, is an incorporation of the sanctioning process into offender decision‐making and an integration of the decision‐making lessons from behavioral economics into courtroom actor decision‐making.…”

Nudging and the choice architecture of offending decisions

“…Thus, criminologists continue to investigate social influence and coordination (Hoeben & Thomas, , pp. 759–784; Loughran, , pp. 737–758).…”

Criminal justice decision making in social and legal context

“…Loughran (, pp. 737–758) leads with an expanded perspective on offender decision‐making infused with behavioral economic principles.…”