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.
Barnett-RyanC. (2007). Introduction to the uniform crime reporting program. In LynchJ. P.AddingtonL. A. (Eds.), Understanding crime statistics: Revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and UCR (pp. 55–92). Cambridge University Press
BrunsonR. K.MillerJ. (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.
BurgasonK. A.ThomasS. A.BerthelotE. 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
CopesH.HochstetlerA. (2003). Situational construction of masculinity among male street peers. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 32(3), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241603032003002.
DierenfeldtR.ThomasS. A.BrownT. C.WalkerJ. 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.
FaganJ.WilkinsonD. L. (1998). Guns, youth violence and social identity in inner cities. In TonryM.MooreM. (Eds.), Crime and justice: Annual review of research (pp. 105–188). The University of Chicago Press.
16.
GardnerM.SteinbergL. (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.
GranovetterM. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1420–1443. https://doi.org/10.1086/226707
IntraviaJ. (2020). The code of the street: Causes and consequences. In RossJ. I. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of street culture (pp. 219–228). Routledge.
20.
JacobsB. 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.
KatzJ. (1988). Seductions of crime: Moral and sensual attractions in doing evil. Basic Books.
22.
KijowskiM. C.WilsonT. (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.
KimB.PrattT. C.WallaceD. (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.
KubrinC. E.WeitzerR. (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.
LantzB. (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.
LantzB. (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.
LantzB. (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.
LantzB.WengerM. 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.
LantzB.WengerM. 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.
LantzB.WengerM. 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.
LeeM. R.BartkowskiJ. 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.
LeeM. R.ThomasS. A.OuseyG. 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.
LongJ. S.MustilloS. 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.
LoughranT. A.PaternosterR.ChalfinA.WilsonT. (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.
LuckenbillD. F. (1977). Criminal homicide as a situated transaction. Social Problems, 25(2), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.2307/800293
36.
MageeL. 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.
MageeL. 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.
MatsuedaR. 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.
MatsuedaR. L.KreagerD. A.HuizingaD. (2006). Deterring delinquents: A rational choice model of theft and violence. American Sociological Review, 71(1), 95–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100105
McGloinJ. M.PiqueroA. 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
McGloinJ. M.SullivanC. J.KennedyL. W. (2011). When crime appears: The role of emergence. Routledge.
44.
McGloinJ. M.ThomasK. 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
McGloinJ. M.ThomasK. J.RowanZ. R.DeitzerJ. 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.
MeldeC.EsbensenF. (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.
MizeT. 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.
NaginD. 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.
NaginD. S.PaternosterR. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law & Society Review, 27(3), 467–496. https://doi.org/10.2307/3054102
51.
OsgoodD. W.WilsonJ. K.O’MalleyP. M.BachmanJ. G.JohnstonL. D. (1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 635–655. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096397.
52.
PaternosterR. (2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence?The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(3), 765–824.
53.
PaternosterR.PogarskyG. (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.
PaternosterR.PogarskyG.ZimmermanG. (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.
PaternosterR.McGloinJ. M.NguyenH.ThomasK. 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.
PogarskyG. (2002). Identifying “deterrable” offenders: Implications for research and deterrence. Justice Quarterly, 19(3), 431–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820200095301
57.
PogarskyG. (2009). Deterrence and decision making: Research questions and theoretical refinements. In KrohnM. D.LizotteA. J.HallG. P. (Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 241–258). Springer.
58.
SampsonR. J. (2012). Great American city. University of Chicago Press.
59.
ShortJ. F.StrodtbeckF. L. (1965). Group process and gang delinquency. University of Chicago Press.
60.
StansfieldR.SemanzaD. (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.
TheilH. (1972). Statistical decomposition analysis: With applications in the social and administrative sciences. North-Holland Publishing Company.
62.
ThomasK. J.BaumerE. P.LoughranT. 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.
ThomasK. J.LoughranT. A.HamiltonB. 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.
ThomasK. J.VogelM. (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.
ThomasS. A.MedarisD. C.TuttleC. 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.
UlmerJ. T.WilsonM. 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
WarrM. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge University Press.
69.
WilkinsonD. L.CarrP. 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.
