Incentives for Collective Deviance: Group Size and Changes in Perceived Risk, Cost, and Reward*

Abstract

Research has demonstrated that the presence of others shifts decision‐making about risky/deviant behavior. One reason for this shift could be changes in the anticipated experience of formal sanctions, informal costs, and rewards. To investigate this possibility, this study conducted two randomized controlled trials with hypothetical vignettes, in which a range of how many other people were also involved in the criminal act defined the treatment conditions. Across two samples of university students (Ns = 396 and 263), the results revealed that as the size of the involved group increased, the anticipated experience of sanction risk and several informal social costs associated with engaging in the act decreased, and the anticipated experience of two rewards increased. Additional analyses suggest that, with one exception in each data set, these changes are not only tied to the solo/group distinction.

Peers and offender decision‐making

“…Research in social psychology has shown that the presence of others decreases individual's (public) self-awareness and enhances feelings of anonymity (Diener, 1976;Festinger et al, 1952;Postmes & Spears, 1998;Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1982). Within criminology, McGloin and Thomas (2016a) illustrated that the number of co-offenders was related to individuals' anticipated sanction risk (see also Matthews & Agnew, 2008).…”

“…Fourth, the presence of others may reduce (perceived) informal costs such as feelings of responsibility, shame, or guilt. Scholars have argued that these feelings should be considered as internal costs or "self-imposed punishments" in the offender decision-making process (Grasmick & Bursik, 1990;McGloin & Thomas, 2016a;Nagin & Paternoster, 1993). When acting in a group, individuals are said to experience a psychological state in which an individual becomes one with the group, also referred to as "deindividuation" (Diener, 1976;Festinger et al, 1952;Postmes & Spears, 1998;Prentice-Dunn & Rogers, 1982).…”

“…There is increasing evidence that these peers impact delinquency in part by affecting an actor's decision calculus concerning the anticipated consequences of crime. For example, research has shown that the presence of peers both lowers one's expectations about the risks associated with crime (McGloin & Thomas, ) and makes individuals more tolerant of such risk (Chein, Albert, O'Brien, Uckert, & Steinberg, ; Defoe, Dubas, Figner, & Van Aken, ; Gardner & Steinberg, ; O'Brien, Albert, Chein, & Steinberg, ; Vinokur, ). Still, despite the growing attention to this topic, work on the interdependence of offender decision‐making remains both theoretically and empirically underdeveloped.…”

“…In considering (social) costs and rewards of behavior, it is important to differentiate between the costs and rewards associated with action versus those associated with inaction (Matthews & Agnew, ; McGloin & Thomas, ). Non‐conformation to group crime (i.e., inaction) may evoke social costs such as ridicule, exclusion, and loss of status (Warr, ).…”

Toward a Bifurcated Theory of Emotional Deterrence

“…(: 271) explained, “people's emotional reactions to risks depend on a variety of factors that influence cognitive evaluations of risk only weakly or not at all.” For example, sexual arousal or intoxication may directly reduce fear. Likewise, the presence of co‐offenders may directly reduce fear, as well as indirectly reduce fear by lessening perceived risk (McGloin and Thomas, ). Situational risk and fear should then influence situational offending decisions, with fear having a more proximate and powerful effect than risk (Loewenstein et al., ).…”