Rational choice theories (RCTs) of crime assume actors behave in an instrumental, outcome‐oriented way. Accordingly, individuals should weight the costs and benefits of criminal acts with subjective probabilities that these outcomes will occur. Previous studies either do not directly test this central hypothesis or else yield inconsistent results. We show that a meaningful test can be conducted only if a broader view is adopted that takes into account the interplay of moral norms and instrumental incentives. Such a view can be derived from the Model of Frame Selection (Kroneberg, 2005) and the Situational Action Theory of Crime Causation (Wikström, 2004). Based on these theories, we analyze the willingness to engage in shoplifting and tax fraud in a sample of 2,130 adults from Dresden, Germany. In line with our theoretical expectations, we find that only respondents who do not feel bound by moral norms show the kind of instrumental rationality assumed in RCTs of crime. Where norms have been strongly internalized, and in the absence of neutralizations, instrumental incentives are irrelevant.
Rational choice theory (RCT) constitutes a major approach of sociological theorizing and research in Europe. We review key methodological and theoretical contributions that have arisen from the increasing empirical application of RCT and have the potential to stimulate the development of RCT and sociology more generally. Methodologically, discussions have evolved around how to test RCT empirically and how to realize its ambition to give theory-guidance to social research. These discussions have identified the strengths and shortcomings of direct and indirect test strategies using survey or experimental data. Metatheoretically, different views have emerged about how to deal with counterevidence from applied fields of sociological research. Whereas some argue for a wide version of RCT that allows a broad set of auxiliary assumptions about preferences, expectations, and constraints, others advocate a major overhaul of RCT's core assumptions by incorporating additional concepts and mechanisms.
This article examines the theory of segmented assimilation, which traces the divergent adaptation of immigrant children in the post-1969 wave to the nature of reception by U.S. society, access to social capital through ethnic communities, and exposure to oppositional cultures of marginalized domestic minorities. The article provides a test of those arguments in the area of school performance. Based on data from the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study, indicators of community-based social capital are shown to account for considerable interethnic differences in school performance. The results challenge notions that ethnic communities are generally supportive of the second generation's school performance, while contact with oppositional cultures of domestic minorities is the main cause of lower than average achievement. They support a conditional view of ethnic communities: the extent to which immigrant families' insertion into ethnic communities can support the school performance of their children depends on the communities' socioeconomic profile and level of aspirations.
The rescue of Jews in WWII and electoral participation both constitute prominent puzzles for rational choice theories of human behavior and have given rise to lengthy debates about norms and rationality. To explain both phenomena, we apply the Model of Frame Selection. This theory of action provides an integrated account of norms and rationality, where cost-benefit calculus is replaced by unconditional norm conformity if actors hold strongly activated normative convictions. In support of this hypothesis, our empirical analyses show that strong feelings of social responsibility led actors to disregard the risks of helping. Likewise, intense norms of civic duty can make electoral participation independent of the incentive to express political preferences and the expectation to influence the election outcome. At the same time, the real strength of calculated incentives is revealed by identifying the actors who indeed seem to engage in a reflecting-calculating mode of decision-making.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.