Deterrence theory forms one of the central tenets of the criminal justice system, however few studies have assessed individual differences as they relate to cost perceptions, especially among known offenders. We examined a number of individual factors, including demographics, criminal history, peers’ offending, and indicators from self-control and social bonds theories as potential correlates of cost perceptions. Using a hypothetical drunk driving scenario and a sample of 1,013 incarcerated men and women, we found limited support for specific deterrence effects for drunk driving, but we also found a number of significant individual-level correlates of cost perceptions. Implications for deterrence theory and policy are discussed as are limitations of the study and future directions.
AkersR.SellersC. (2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
2.
AltikritiS. (2021). Toward integrated processual theories of crime: Assessing the developmental effects of executive function, self-control, and decision-making on offending. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 215–233.
3.
AltikritiS.NedelecJ. (2020). Skewed perceptions: Psychopathy and systematic biases of risk and reward from adolescence to emerging adulthood. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 6, 296–320.
4.
AltikritiS.NedelecJ.BarnesJ. (2022). The influence of individual differences on the formation of perceptions of risk, social cost, and rewards of crime: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 82, 1–12.
5.
AnwarS.LoughranT. A. (2011). Testing a Bayesian learning theory of deterrence among serious juvenile offenders. Criminology, 49(3), 667–698.
6.
BouffardJ. (2002). Methodological and theoretical implications of using subject-generated consequences in tests of rational choice theory. Justice Quarterly, 19, 747–771.
7.
BouffardJ. (2015). Examining the direct and indirect effects of fear and anger on criminal decision making among known offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59, 1385–1408.
8.
BouffardJ.ExumM.NiebuhrN. (2018). Examining the stability and predictors of deterrability across multiple offense types within a sample of convicted felons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 57, 76–88.
9.
BouffardJ.NiebuhrN.ExumM. (2017). Examining specific deterrence effects on DWI among serious offenders. Crime and Delinquency, 63, 1923–1945.
10.
BouffardJ. A.PetkovsekM. A. (2014). Testing Hirschi’s integration of social control and rational choice: Are bonds considered in offender decisions?Journal of Crime and Justice, 37(3), 285–308.
11.
CarsonE. A. (2015). Prisoners in 2014. (Report No. NCJ 248955). US Department of Justice.
12.
CullenF.AgnewR. (2003). Criminological theory: Past to present. Roxbury.
13.
DeckerS.WrightR.LogieR. (1993). Perceptual deterrence among active residential burglars: A research note. Criminology, 31, 135–147.
14.
ExumM. L.BaileyD.WrightE. L. (2014). False positive and false negative rates in self-reported intentions to offend: A replication and extension. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(1), 1–9.
15.
ExumM. L.BouffardJ. A. (2010). Testing theories of criminal decision making: Some empirical questions about hypothetical scenarios. In PiqueroA. R.WeisburdD. (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 581–594). Springer.
16.
ExumM. L.LayanaM. C. (2018). A test of the predictive validity of hypothetical intentions to offend. Journal of Crime and Justice, 41(2), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2016.1244486
GrasmickH. G.TittleC. R.BursikR. J.Jr.ArneklevB. K. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 5–29.
19.
HirschiT. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.
20.
KlepperS.NaginD. (1989). The deterrent effects of perceived certainty and severity of punishment revisited. Criminology, 27, 721–746.
21.
KrohnM.MasseyJ. (1980). Social control and delinquent behavior: An examination of the elements of the social bond. Sociological Quarterly, 21, 529–543.
22.
LevittS. D.PorterJ. (2001). How dangerous are drunk drivers?Journal of Political Economy, 109, 1198–1237.
23.
LoughranT. A.PiqueroA. R.FaganJ.MulveyE. P. (2012). Differential deterrence: Studying heterogeneity and changes in perceptual deterrence among serious youthful offenders. Crime and Delinquency, 58(1), 3–27.
24.
MarcosA.BahrS.JohnsonR. (1986). Test of a bonding/association theory of adolescent drug use. Social Forces, 65, 135–161.
25.
MasseyJ.KrohnM. (1986). A longitudinal examination of an integrated social process model of deviant behavior. Social Forces, 65, 106–134.
26.
NaginD. S.PogarskyG. (2001). Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: Theory and evidence. Criminology, 39, 865–889.
27.
National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2024). Alcohol-impaired driving: 2022 data (Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 813 578). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
28.
PaternosterR. (1987). The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues. Justice Quarterly, 4, 173–217.
29.
PaternosterR. (2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence?The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100, 765–842.
30.
PiliavinI.GartnerR.ThorntonC.MatsuedaR. (1986). Crime, deterrence, and rational choice. American Sociological Review, 51, 101–119.
31.
PiqueroA.BouffardJ.PiqueroN.CraigJ. (2016). Does morality condition the deterrent effect of perceived certainty among incarcerated felons?Crime & Delinquency, 62, 3–25.
32.
PiqueroA.PaternosterR.PogarskyG.LoughranT. (2011). Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 7, 335–360.
33.
PiqueroA. R.TibbettsS. (1996). Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offenders’ decision making: Toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice Quarterly, 13(3), 481–510.
34.
PogarskyG. (2002). Identifying “deterrable” offenders: Implications for research on deterrence. Justice Quarterly, 19, 431–452.
35.
PogarskyG. (2004). Projected offending and contemporaneous rule-violation: Implications for heterotypic continuity. Criminology, 42, 111–136.
36.
PogarskyG.KimK.PaternosterR. (2005). Perceptual change in the national youth survey: Lessons for deterrence theory and offender decision-making. Justice Quarterly, 22, 1–29.
37.
PogarskyG.PiqueroA. (2003). Can punishment encourage offending? Investigating the “resetting” effect. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 95–120.
38.
PrattT.CullenF. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931–964.
39.
PrattT.CullenF.BlevinsK.DaigleLMadensenT. (2006). The empirical status of deterrence theory: A meta-analysis. In CullenF. T.WrightJ. P.BlevinsK. R. (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 367–395). Transaction.
40.
SaltzmanL.PaternosterR.WaldoG. P.ChiricosT. G. (1982). Deterrent and experiential effects: The problem of causal order in perceptual deterrence research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 19(2), 172–189.
41.
SitrenA. H.ApplegateB. K. (2012). Testing deterrence theory with offenders: The empirical validity of Stafford and Warr’s model. Deviant Behavior, 33, 492–506.
42.
StaffordM.WarrM. (1993). A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 123–135.
43.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). Results from the 2013 national survey on drug use and health: Summary of national findings (NSDUH Series H-48, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4863).
44.
TopalliV. (2005). When being good is bad: An expansion of neutralization theory. Criminology, 43, 797–835.
45.
WilsonT.PaternosterR.LoughranT. (2017). Direct and indirect experiential effects in an updating model of deterrence: A research note. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(1), 63–77.
46.
WoodP. (2007). Exploring the positive punishment effect among incarcerated adult offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 8–22.
