The research on which this paper is based was funded by grant 89-IJ-CX-0046 from the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US. Department of Justice. We are grateful to Paul Garthwaite, Department of Statistics, University of Aberdeen, for his assistance with the logit analysis and to Richard Rosenfeld for his helpful comments on the manuscript.
PERCEPTUAL DETERRENCE AMONG ACTIVE RESIDENTIAL BURGLARS: A RESEARCH NOTE*
Article first published online: 7 MAR 2006
Volume 31, Issue 1, pages 135–147, February 1993
How to Cite
DECKER, S., WRIGHT, R. and LOGIE, R. (1993), PERCEPTUAL DETERRENCE AMONG ACTIVE RESIDENTIAL BURGLARS: A RESEARCH NOTE. Criminology, 31: 135–147. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1993.tb01125.x
Scott Decker has studied deterrence, crime control policy, the offender's perspective and patterns of violence. He is currently Principal Investigator on an ethnographic study of gangs and their families funded by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Richard Wright received his PhD in Criminology from Cambridge University in 1980. He has Studied burglary extensively and has co-authored, with Trevor Eknnett, the book, Burglars on Burglary: Prevention ond the Offender (Gower, 1984).
Robert Logie is an experimental cognitive psychologist specializing in working memory. He has edited two books and written more than 50 articles. Within criminology, his research has concentrated on the cognitive aspects of offender decision making.
- Issue published online: 7 MAR 2006
- Article first published online: 7 MAR 2006
The research reported here is based on a comparison of active residential burglars and a matched control group regarding their willingness to commit a burglary at varying levels of certainty of arrest, severity of penalty, and anticipated reward. Initial analyses revealed that few controls were willing to offend regardless of risk, penalty, or reward and that offenders were not influenced by penalty on its own. Consequently, responses of the offenders only were further analyzed in relation to the impact of risk, penalty, and reward. The results of a logit analysis indicated that both risk of being caught and prospect of increased gain had a significant influence on the offenders' decision making.