Constrained Choice? The Role of Co-Offenders and Structural Context in the Decision to Escalate Interpersonal Violence

Abstract

Over the past decade, research on human agency and choice has grown within the field of criminology. However, most of this research has focused on the initial decision to offend, with less of a focus on the choices made during an offense. The current study addresses this gap by focusing on the role of situational and structural context in decisions during instances of interpersonal violence. Using data about violent incidents from the 2016 National Incident Based Reporting System and the American Community Survey, we estimate hierarchical regression models to examine the impact of one situational factor (the presence of co-offenders) and one contextual factor (structural disadvantage) on victim injury. Findings reveal that co-offenders and disadvantage both independently and additively impact the extent of victim injury, suggesting that situational and contextual factors operate to constrain offender choices during an offense, by escalating (or de-escalating) instances of interpersonal violence.

Keywords

violence structural disadvantage co-offending code of the street

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

(1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. WW Norton & Company.

Anwar

Loughran

T. A.

(2011). Testing a Bayesian learning theory of deterrence among serious juvenile offenders. Criminology, 49(3), 667–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00233.x

Apel

(2022). Sanctions, perceptions, and crime. Annual Review of Criminology, 5(16), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-030920-112932

Barnett-Ryan

(2007). Introduction to the uniform crime reporting program. In Lynch

J. P.

Addington

L. A.

(Eds.), Understanding crime statistics: Revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and UCR (pp. 55–92). Cambridge University Press

Baumer

Horney

Felson

Lauritsen

J. L.

(2003). Neighborhood disadvantage and the nature of violence. Criminology, 41(1), 39–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00981.x

Becker

G. S.

(1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217. https://doi.org/10.1086/259394

Beyth-Marom

Fischoff

A. L.

Palmgren

Jacobs-Quadrel

(1993). Perceived consequences of risky behaviors: Adults and adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 29, 549–563. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.29.3.549

Bruch

Feinberg

(2017). Decision-making processes in social contexts. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053622

Brunson

R. K.

Miller

(2009). Schools, neighborhoods, and adolescent conflicts: A situational examination of reciprocal dynamics. Justice Quarterly, 26(2), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820802245060

10.

Burgason

K. A.

Thomas

S. A.

Berthelot

E. R.

(2014). The nature of violence: A multilevel analysis of gun use and victim injury in violent interpersonal encounters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(3), 371–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513505212

11.

Butts

J. A.

Gouvis

R. C.

Bostwick

Porter

J. R.

(2015). Cure violence: A public health model to reduce gun violence. Annual Review of Public Health, 36, 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031914-122509

12.

Copes

Hochstetler

(2003). Situational construction of masculinity among male street peers. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 32(3), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241603032003002.

13.

Decker

S. H.

(1996). Collective and normative features of gang violence. Justice Quarterly, 13(2), 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829600092931

14.

Dierenfeldt

Thomas

S. A.

Brown

T. C.

Walker

J. T.

(2021). Street culture and gun violence: Exploring the reputation–victimization paradox. Journal of interpersonal violence, 36(1–2), 552–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517730028

15.

Fagan

Wilkinson

D. L.

(1998). Guns, youth violence and social identity in inner cities. In Tonry

Moore

(Eds.), Crime and justice: Annual review of research (pp. 105–188). The University of Chicago Press.

16.

Gardner

Steinberg

(2005). Peer influence on risk taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study. Developmental Psychology, 41(4), 625–635. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.625

17.

Granovetter

(1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1420–1443. https://doi.org/10.1086/226707

18.

Hoeben

E. M.

Thomas

K. J.

(2019). Peers and offender decision-making. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(4), 759–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12462

19.

Intravia

(2020). The code of the street: Causes and consequences. In Ross

J. I.

(Ed.), Routledge handbook of street culture (pp. 219–228). Routledge.

20.

Jacobs

B. A.

(2004). A typology of street criminal retaliation. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41(3), 295–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427803262058

21.

Katz

(1988). Seductions of crime: Moral and sensual attractions in doing evil. Basic Books.

22.

Kijowski

M. C.

Wilson

(2023). Integrating subjectively-derived choice sets to expand offender decision-making. Journal of Crime and Justice, 46, 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648x.2022.2062035

23.

Kim

Pratt

T. C.

Wallace

(2014). Adverse neighborhood conditions and sanction risk perceptions: Using SEM to examine direct and indirect effects. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30(3), 505–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-013-9212-3

24.

Kubrin

C. E.

Weitzer

(2003). Retaliatory homicide: Concentrated disadvantage and neighborhood culture. Social Problems, 50(2), 157–180. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2003.50.2.157

25.

Lantz

(2020). Co-offending group composition and violence: The impact of sex, age, and group size on co-offending violence. Crime & Delinquency, 66(1), 93–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128719834564

26.

Lantz

(2021). The consequences of crime in company: Co-offending, victim-offender relationship, and quality of violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36, 4363–4388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518786497

27.

Lantz

(2022). Why more agencies and researchers should embrace the upcoming NIBRS transition: Contributions and promise of the NIBRS data. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 462–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09606-5

28.

Lantz

Wenger

M. R.

(2020). The co-offender as counterfactual: A quasi-experimental within-partnership approach to the examination of the relationship between race and arrest. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 16(2), 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09362-5

29.

Lantz

Wenger

M. R.

(2021). Guns, groups, and the Southern culture of honor: Considering the role of co-offenders in Southern firearm violence. Psychology of Violence, 11(4), 405–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000352

30.

Lantz

Wenger

M. R.

(2022). Co-offending and police notification: The differential reporting of young groups to the police. Psychology, Crime & Law. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2118748

31.

Lee

M. R.

Bartkowski

J. P.

(2004). Love thy neighbor? Moral communities, civic engagement, and juvenile homicide in rural locales. Social Forces, 82(3), 1001–1035. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2004.0044

32.

Lee

M. R.

Thomas

S. A.

Ousey

G. C.

(2009). Southern culture and homicide: Examining the cracker culture/black rednecks thesis. Deviant Behavior, 31(1), 60–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620902854761

33.

Long

J. S.

Mustillo

S. A.

(2021). Using predictions and marginal effects to compare groups in regression models for binary outcomes. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(3), 1284–1320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799374

34.

Loughran

T. A.

Paternoster

Chalfin

Wilson

(2016). Can rational choice be considered a general theory of crime? Evidence from individual-level panel data. Criminology, 54(1), 86–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12097

35.

Luckenbill

D. F.

(1977). Criminal homicide as a situated transaction. Social Problems, 25(2), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.2307/800293

36.

Magee

L. A.

(2020). Community-level social processes and firearm shooting events: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Urban Health, 97(2), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-020-00424-y

37.

Magee

L. A.

(2021). Differences in mortality rates of gunshot victims: The influence of neighborhood social processes. Homicide Studies. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10887679211047162

38.

Matsueda

R. L.

(2017). Toward an analytical criminology: The micro–macro problem, causal mechanisms, and public policy. Criminology, 55(3), 493–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12149

39.

Matsueda

R. L.

Kreager

D. A.

Huizinga

(2006). Deterring delinquents: A rational choice model of theft and violence. American Sociological Review, 71(1), 95–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100105

40.

McCarthy

(2002). New economics of sociological criminology. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 417–442. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.140752

41.

McGloin

J. M.

Piquero

A. R.

(2009). ‘I wasn’t alone’: Collective behaviour and violent delinquency. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.42.3.336

42.

McGloin

J. M.

Rowan

Z. R.

(2015). A threshold model of collective crime. Criminology, 53(3), 484–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12077

43.

McGloin

J. M.

Sullivan

C. J.

Kennedy

L. W.

(2011). When crime appears: The role of emergence. Routledge.

44.

McGloin

J. M.

Thomas

K. J.

(2016). Incentives for collective deviance: Group size and changes in perceived risk, cost, and reward. Criminology, 54(3), 459–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12111

45.

McGloin

J. M.

Thomas

K. J.

(2019). Peer influence and delinquency. Annual Review of Criminology, 2, 241–264. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024551

46.

McGloin

J. M.

Thomas

K. J.

Rowan

Z. R.

Deitzer

J. R.

(2021). Can the group disincentivize offending? Considering opt-out thresholds and decision reversals. Criminology, 59(4), 738–765. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12289.

47.

Melde

Esbensen

(2013). Gangs and violence: Disentangling the impact of gang membership on the level and nature of offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29, 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-012-9164-z

48.

Mize

T. D.

(2019). Best practices for estimating, interpreting, and presenting nonlinear interaction effects. Sociological Science, 6(4), 81–117. https://doi.org/10.15195/v6.a4

49.

Nagin

D. S.

(2007). Moving choice to center stage in criminological research and theory: The American society of criminology 2006 Sutherland address. Criminology, 45(2), 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00078.x

50.

Nagin

D. S.

Paternoster

(1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law & Society Review, 27(3), 467–496. https://doi.org/10.2307/3054102

51.

Osgood

D. W.

Wilson

J. K.

O’Malley

P. M.

Bachman

J. G.

Johnston

L. D.

(1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 635–655. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096397.

52.

Paternoster

(2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(3), 765–824.

53.

Paternoster

Pogarsky

(2009). Rational choice, agency, and thoughtfully reflective decision making: The short and long-term consequences of making good choices. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(2), 103–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-009-9065-y

54.

Paternoster

Pogarsky

Zimmerman

(2011). Thoughtfully reflective decision making and the accumulation of capital: Bringing choice back in. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-010-9095-5

55.

Paternoster

McGloin

J. M.

Nguyen

Thomas

K. J.

(2013). The causal impact of exposure to deviant peers: An experimental investigation. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(4), 476–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427812444274

56.

Pogarsky

(2002). Identifying “deterrable” offenders: Implications for research and deterrence. Justice Quarterly, 19(3), 431–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820200095301

57.

Pogarsky

(2009). Deterrence and decision making: Research questions and theoretical refinements. In Krohn

M. D.

Lizotte

A. J.

Hall

G. P.

(Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 241–258). Springer.

58.

Sampson

R. J.

(2012). Great American city. University of Chicago Press.

59.

Short

J. F.

Strodtbeck

F. L.

(1965). Group process and gang delinquency. University of Chicago Press.

60.

Stansfield

Semanza

(2019). Licensed firearm dealer availability and intimate partner homicide: A multilevel analysis in sixteen states. Preventive Medicine, 126, 105739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.05.027

61.

Theil

(1972). Statistical decomposition analysis: With applications in the social and administrative sciences. North-Holland Publishing Company.

62.

Thomas

K. J.

Baumer

E. P.

Loughran

T. A.

(2022). Structural predictors of choice: Testing a multilevel rational choice theory of crime. Criminology, 60(4), 606–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12314

63.

Thomas

K. J.

Loughran

T. A.

Hamilton

B. C.

(2020). Perceived arrest risk, psychic rewards, and offense specialization: A partial test of rational choice theory. Criminology, 58(3), 485–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12243

64.

Thomas

K. J.

Vogel

(2019). Testing a rational choice model “desistance”: Decomposing changing expectations and changing utilities. Criminology, 57(4), 687–714. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12223

65.

Thomas

S. A.

Medaris

D. C.

Tuttle

C. R.

(2018). Southern culture and aggravated assault: Exploring the generality of the Southern culture of violence. Sociological Spectrum, 38(2), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2018.1430637

66.

Ulmer

J. T.

Wilson

M. S.

(2003). The potential contributions of quantitative research to symbolic interactionism. Symbolic Interaction, 26(4), 531–552. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2003.26.4.531

67.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). Understanding and using American community survey data: What all data users need to know. U.S. Government Publishing Office. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/library/handbooks/general.html

68.

Warr

(2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge University Press.

69.

Wilkinson

D. L.

Carr

P. J.

(2008). Violent youths’ responses to high levels of exposure to community violence: What violent events reveal about youth violence. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(8), 1026–1051. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20278

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.15 MB