Criminal Self-Efficacy and Perceptions of Risk and Reward among Women Methamphetamine Manufacturers

Abstract

People consider potential risks and rewards while deciding whether to engage in crime. Such perceptions and their impact on behavior can vary according to individual differences like criminal self-efficacy, or one's perception of criminal competency. We examine perceptions of skill, risk, and reward using semi-structured interviews with 46 women "shake and bake" meth cooks currently residing in a halfway house in Alabama. Those who expressed cooking self-efficacy identified many tangible and intangible rewards in meth cooking, which motivated them to persist. They believed the risks were lower and surmountable, employing various risk management strategies. Those who did not express cooking self-efficacy saw cooking as anxiety-inducing, rather than rewarding. They saw the risks as inevitable and made little effort to prevent them but continued cooking to maintain access to meth. Findings indicate that individual levels of criminal self-efficacy should be considered in studies of decision-making and in intervention and treatment strategies.

Radicalized Environmental Extremism and Situational Decision Making

“…Importantly, the current findings, coupled with the findings from prior works in this area, provide a theoretical link between ideological offenders and other highly motivated and experienced offenders. Studies examining active offenders involved in various instrumental crimes such as drug dealing, auto theft, and burglary consistently highlight the use of preparatory behaviors to evaluate “target-imposed costs” and the risk of detection during the target selection process (Deitzer et al, 2021; Jacobs and Cherbonneau 2014, 2016; Logie, Wright, and Decker 1992; Nee and Meenaghan 2006; Nee and Taylor 2000; Tedeschi and Felson 1994; Topalli 2005). Indeed, prior research on pre-incident preparatory behaviors of extremists and terrorists mirrors these processes.…”

Can the group disincentivize offending? Considering opt‐out thresholds and decision reversals*

“…They do not suggest that opt-out decisions are only informed by the emergence of some new factor (e.g., the arrival of a police officer or motiondetected lights going on) but instead that it could be shaped by the same situational factor that can also incentivize action. Rational choice literature in criminology frames variables as either incentives or disincentives for offending; if factors serve as both, it is assumed this is only because the impact differs across people (i.e., some people may find the physical rush that comes with risky behavior to be pleasing, whereas others find it aversive; Deitzer et al, 2021). Yet Granovetter and Soong's (1986) arguments also account for the possibility that the same person may view the group context as both an incentive and a disincentive depending on its dosage.…”