Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T03:07:00.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crime propensity, criminogenic exposure and violent scenario responses: Testing situational action theory in regression and Rasch models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2010

DIRK-HINRICH HAAR  and
PER-OLOF H. WIKSTRÖM
DIRK-HINRICH HAAR
Affiliation:
Deutsche Hochschule der Polizei, Zum Roten Berge 18 - 24, 48165 Münster, Germany
PER-OLOF H. WIKSTRÖM
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, Institute of Criminology Sidgwick Avenue, CB3 9DT Cambridge, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that quantitative empirical research to explain and predict criminal and related behaviour can benefit greatly from explicit theories of action linking individual and contextual factors in the causation of crime. Such theories foster a systematic selection of causal variables for data collection and hypothesis testing instead of a more indiscriminate accumulation of ‘risk factor’ correlates. Moreover, action theory encourages statistical modelling of crime causation beyond the most common linear regression. This paper illustrates both points by estimating two empirical models – a conventional logistic model and a Rasch model – on scenario response data concerning youth violence. The findings of this study show that the extent to which young people indicate a violent response to a provocation is dependent on their (law relevant) morality and ability to exercise self-control as well as the deterrent qualities (monitoring) of the setting.

Type
Papers
Information
European Journal of Applied Mathematics , Volume 21 , Issue 4-5: Criminality , October 2010 , pp. 307 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Achen, C. H. (2005) Let's put garbage-can regressions and garbage-can probits where they belong. Conflict Manag. Peace Sci. 22 (4), 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, C. S. & Becker, H. J. (1978) The use of vignettes in survey research. Public Opin. Q. 42 (1), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C. & Qin, Y. (2004) An integrated theory of the mind. Psychol. Rev. 111 (4), 1036–1060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andrich, D. (1988) Rasch Models for Measurement (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences no. 68). Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, R. (1997) Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. Complexity 3 (2), 16–22.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunge, M. (1999) The Sociology–Philosophy Connection, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. S. (1964) Introduction to Mathematical Sociology, Free Press of Glencoe, New York.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. S. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory, Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Connolly, T. & Arkes, H. R. & Hammond, K. R. (2000) Judgment and Decision Making. An Interdisciplinary Reader, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Cornish, D. B. & Clarke, R. V. (eds.) (1986) The Reasoning Criminal. Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending, Springer, New York.Google Scholar
Fischer, G. H. & Molenaar, I. W. (eds.) (1995) Rasch Models. Foundations, Recent Developments, and Applications, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Freedman, D. A. (1992) As others see us. A case study in path analysis. In: Shaffer, J. P. (editor), The Role of Models in Nonexperimental Social Science. Two Debates, American Educational Research Association/American Statistical Association, Washington, pp. 3–30.Google Scholar
Gill, J. (2006) Essential Mathematics for Social and Political Research, Cambridge Unversity Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, W. M. & Hogarth, R. M. (1997) Judgment and decision research. Some historical context. In: Goldstein, W. M. & Hogarth, R. M. (editors), Research on Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–65.Google Scholar
Klepper, S. & Nagin, D. S. (1989) The deterrent effect of perceived certainty and severity of punishment revisited. Criminology 27 (4), 721–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D. (1999) Where is mathematical modeling in psychology headed? Theory Psychol. 9 (6), 723–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molenaar, I. W. (1995) Some background for item response theory and the Rasch model. In: Fischer, G. H. & Molenaar, I. W. (editors), Rasch Models. Foundations, Recent Developments, and Applications, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
McCarthy, B. (2002) New economics of sociological criminology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 28, 417–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, R. B. (1999) Methods and Models. A Guide to the Empirical Analysis of Formal Models in Political Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagin, D. S. & Paternoster, R. (1993) Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law Soc. Rev. 27 (3), 467–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasch, G. W. (1960) Probabilistic Models for some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Danmarks Paedagogiske Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Raudenbush, S. W., Johnson, C. & Sampson, R. J. (2003) A multivariate, multilevel rasch model with application to self-reported criminal behavior. In: Stolzenberg, R. M. (editor), Sociological Methodology, Vol. 33. Blackwell Publishing, Boston, MA, pp. 169–211.Google Scholar
Sørensen, A. B. (1998) Theoretical mechanisms and the empirical study of social processes. In: Hedström, P. & Swedberg, R. (editors), Social Mechanisms. An Analytical Approach to Social Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 238–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wikström, P.-O. H. (2004) Crime as alternative. Towards a cross-level situational action theory of crime causation. In: McCord, J. (editor), Beyond Empiricism. Institutions and Intentions in the Study of Crime (Advances in Criminological Theory, vol. 13), Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
Wikström, P.-O. H. (2006) Individuals, settings and acts of crime. Situational mechanisms and the explanation of crime. In: Wikström, P.-O. H. & Sampson, R. J. (editors), The Explanation of Crime. Contexts, Mechanisms and Development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 61–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wikström, P.-O. H. (2010) Explaining crime as moral action. In: Hitlin, S. & Vaysey, S. (editors), Handbook of the Sociology of Morality, Springer Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Wikström, P.-O. H., Oberwittler, D., Hardie, B. & Treiber, K. (2011) The Social Dynamics of Urban Crime, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar