Deterring Delinquents: A Rational Choice Model of Theft and Violence

Matsueda, Ross L.; Kreager, Derek A.; Huizinga, David

doi:10.1177/000312240607100105

Cited by 351 publications

(298 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

269

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is unlikely that offenders can make this judgement for themselves very easily. Any perceptions they have about their chances of success are more likely to be subjective than objective (Matsueda, Kraeger, & Huizinga, 2006).…”

Section: Implications and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outbound offending: The journey to crime and crime sprees

Daele

Beken

2011

Journal of Environmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Implications and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outbound offending: The journey to crime and crime sprees

Daele

Beken

2011

Journal of Environmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…5 For more nuanced accounts of the interplay of moral and instrumental motivations, see; Nagin and Paternoster, 1993;Pogarsky, 2002;Jacobs, 2010; Kronenberg et al, 2010;Matsueda et al, 2006). 6 If one believes it is wrong to cheat on taxes, one will presumably believe that a law banning tax fraud is morally just.…”

Section: Figure 1 About Herementioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do People Comply with the Law? Legitimacy and the Influence of Legal Institutions

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper extends Tyler's procedural justice model of public compliance with the law. Analysing data from a national probability sample of adults in England and Wales, we present a new conceptualisation of legitimacy based not just on the recognition of power but also the justification of power. We find that people accept the police's right to dictate appropriate behaviour, not only when they feel a duty to obey officers, but also when they believe that the institution acts according to a shared moral purpose with citizens. Highlighting a number of different routes by which institutions can influence citizen behaviour, our broader normative model provides a better framework for explaining why people are willing to comply with the law.Key words: Public confidence; public contact with the police; trust; legitimacy; compliance; policing by consent Word count: 9,874 with references and appendix; 9,992 with abstract, references and appendix. Reiner (2000: 55) has called the mystical sense of an identification between the police and the British people. It depends on the myth that police and people share a single set of coherent and consistent norms and values, and that the police have a unique function in using force if necessary to impose them. ' (Smith, 2007a: 280) Legitimacy is the right to rule and the recognition by the ruled of that right (Sternberger, 1968; Beetham, 1991; Coicaud, 2002;Tyler, 2006a; Bottoms and Tankebe, in press). Social institutions need legitimacy if they are to develop, operate, and reproduce themselves effectively (Easton, 1965). This is as true for the police as it is for other institutions of government. But peculiar to the police function is the statesponsored use of violence and force, the resolution of conflict, and the enforcement of legally-prescribed conduct and rule-following (Banton, 1964; Bittner, 1970;Reiner, 2010). Police legitimacy and public consent are necessary conditions of the justifiable use of state power: those who are subject to policing must see the police as right and proper (Tyler, 2006b(Tyler, , 2011a Schulolfer et al., in press). People's motivations to comply with the law lie at the heart of crime-control policy. Many criminal policies are premised on the idea that compliance is secured by the presence of formal policing and severe sanctions for wrong-doers (Tyler, 2007;Nagin, 1998;Kahan, 1999). Social control mechanisms and credible risks of sanction hope to persuade rational-choice individuals that -while otherwise desirable -a criminal act is not worth the risk (Tyler et al., in press). If offenders are responsive primarily to the risk of punishment, then agents of criminal justice must send out signals of strength, effectiveness, force, detection and justice (Hough et al., 2010). 'Legitimacy depends on whatBut people's compliance may stem at least as much, if not more, from personal commitment to law-abiding behaviour (Tyler, 2006b;Robinson and Darley, 2004). Based upon the idea that people comply with the law because they believe it is the rig...

show abstract

“…These suggestions fit within a rational choice perspective, in which retaliation is more likely when cost-expectancies are low or when it represents a means to avoid losses. Retaliation, then, can be seen as resulting from a hedonistic calculus-an idea originating from classical views on criminology (Beccaria, 1764(Beccaria, /1986Matsueda, Kreager, & Huizinga, 2006). This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal.…”

Section: Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retaliation as a response to procedural unfairness: A self-regulatory approach.

Brebels¹,

Cremer²,

Sedikides³

2008

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When does procedural unfairness result in retaliation, and why do unfair-treatment recipients sometimes pursue and other times inhibit retaliation? Five studies addressed these questions. We proposed and found that regulatory focus moderates retaliation against an unfairness-enacting authority: Promotion-focus participants were more likely to retaliate than prevention-focus participants. Promotion focus was associated with, and also heightened the accessibility of, the individual self. In turn, individual-self accessibility influenced retaliation. In fact, preventionfocus participants were as retaliatory as promotion-focus participants under conditions of high individual-self accessibility. Implications for the procedural fairness and regulatory focus literatures are discussed and suggestions for future research are offered.Keywords: retaliation, unfair treatment, procedural fairness, regulatory focus, self-activation This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.Unfair Treatment, Retaliation, and Self-Regulation 3 Retaliation as a Response to Procedural Unfairness: A Self-Regulatory ApproachFor many people, unfair treatment in group or organizational settings is a recurrent experience; it is also an aversive experience (Mikula, 1986;Miller, 2001;Oyserman, Uskul, Yoder, Nesse, & Williams, 2007). Aversion would be expected to result in retaliation (e.g., revenge, stealing, antisocial resource allocation). Indeed, justice researchers have considered perceived unfairness a key predictor of retaliation in employee-supervisor relationships, and they have carried out field studies to test this idea (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001;Barclay, Skarlicki, & Pugh, 2005;Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 1997;Blader, Chang, & Tyler, 2001;Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997;Greenberg, 1993;Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). When these studies were metaanalyzed (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001), however, a rather surprising conclusion emerged: perceived unfairness was an inconsistent predictor of retaliation. This conclusion was echoed by subsequent bodies of research (Bembenek, Beike, & Schroeder, 2007; Colquitt, Scott, Judge, & Shaw, 2006;Posthuma, Maertz, & Dworkin, 2007). In the words of Colquitt et al. (2006), "a substantial amount of variation exists in these relationships, and … moderators could explain much of that variation (p. 111)." It appears, then, that researchers lack a clear understanding of when perceived unfairness translates into retaliation and why unfairness recipients pursue or inhibit retaliation.Some justice research has looked into affect as an explanation for the inconsistent relation between unfair treatment and retaliation (Barclay, Skarlicki, & Pugh, 2005;Bembenek et al., 2007;Bies & Tripp, 1996;De Cremer, 2007). This research has shown that negative emotions (e.g., anger, disappointment) accompany retaliation as a response to perceived unfairness, but the research has not addressed when and why people sometimes pursue and sometimes inhi...

show abstract

Deterring Delinquents: A Rational Choice Model of Theft and Violence

Cited by 351 publications

References 75 publications

Outbound offending: The journey to crime and crime sprees

Outbound offending: The journey to crime and crime sprees

Why Do People Comply with the Law? Legitimacy and the Influence of Legal Institutions

Retaliation as a response to procedural unfairness: A self-regulatory approach.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About