Offender Decision-Making in Criminology: Contributions from Behavioral Economics

Self Cite

Research Summary Deterring crime is often considered to be a process of information transmission (e.g., Geerken & Gove, 1975). Economic notions on incentives and choice have meshed well with this perspective (Becker, 1968; Matsueda, 2013). Behavioral economics, however, represents a source of further insights on offender decision‐making, particularly regarding information transmission to promote conformity. Pogarsky, Roche, and Pickett (2018) reviewed behavioral economic studies of offender decision‐making in criminology. In their review, they focused on prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), a behavioral economic model of decision‐making. More recently, Kahneman (2003, 2011) highlighted the dual‐process nature of behavioral economics, and Thaler and Sunstein (2009) elaborated some principles of nudging. These notions underscore dimensions of offending decisions beyond the perceived costs, risks, and benefits of crime. Policy Implications From a behavioral economic standpoint, there is a choice architecture to offending decisions that permits various prosocial nudges. We analyze these ideas for possible theoretical innovations and alternative perspectives on crime policy.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nudging and the choice architecture of offending decisions

Pogarsky

Herman

2019

Self Cite

“…Often, such as in these cases, these deviations from “rational” behavior in fact occur in predictable ways, a point emphasized in the review by Pogarsky et al. (). Behavioral economics research, then, is primarily focused on developing more realistic models to explain such systematic departures from rationality…”

Section: Behavioral Economics: Rational Choice As a Starting Pointmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…It is only natural then that this domain of thinking should also move into the study of crime policy. Yet to date, with some notable exceptions (Pickett, ; Pogarsky & Loughran, ; Pogarsky, Roche, & Pickett, ), there remain few active advancements as to how behavioral economics can more fully inform the study of crime and policies aimed at crime prevention. Darley and Alter (, p. 181) argued that, “[C]onventional approaches to dealing with crime, punishment, and deterrence in the legislative policy arenas deviate from what research on behavioral decision making has recently discovered about how people actually think and behave.” There are several reasons why this might be the case.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral criminology and public policy

Loughran

2019

Research Summary Public policy, including crime policy, is heavily shaped by economic theory. Recently, refinements based on the application of behavioral insights into the study of public policy applications have become en vogue. Although criminologists have made some inroads into incorporating behavioral principals into the study of crime and offender decision‐making, these contributions have mainly been limited to the area of risk. In this article, I offer a more widespread description of how behavioral economics (BE) can be applied to the study of offender decision‐making and crime policy. Specifically, I focus on several main areas that move beyond the traditional foci on perceptions of risk: intertemporal choice, criminal labor supply, mental accounting and consumption, and social preferences. For each topical area, I first identify a presumable, normative model that could reasonably be drawn from traditional rational choice theory. I then describe ways, based on existing contributions from BE, that scholars have sought to make the assumptions (and anomalies) of this model more realistic. Policy Implications The primary aim of this article is to highlight implications to theory and policy that increase the utilization of BE by criminologists.

“…Pogarsky et al. () interpreted this pattern to note that there is likely a threshold of punishment severity beyond which further changes in sentence length do not have appreciable deterrent effects.…”

Section: Review Of Major Behavioral Economic Concepts For the Courtmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For a more comprehensive review of the extant literature on behavioral economics in offender decision‐making, see Pogarsky et al. (). Each of these inquiries was intended to take constructs from economics, psychology, and behavioral economics to enhance our understanding of the decision to offend in a manner that can then be used to guide policy formation.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

The promise of behavioral economics for understanding decision‐making in the court

Wilson

2019

Research Summary Decision‐making scholars often limit their purview to the decision to offend, whereas sentencing scholars focus on court case processing within administrative data sets. What is missing between these two camps is an incorporation of the sanctioning process into offender decision‐making and an integration of relevant findings from offender decision‐making and behavioral economics into courtroom actor decision‐making. In this article, I highlight several specific concepts from behavioral economics that can be applied to the court and interpret existing sentencing research in light of these same behavioral economic concepts. Policy Implications I also discuss how sentencing scholarship can be integrated into offender decision‐making research, further bridging the two domains. I conclude with discussions of policy adaptations based on current and future research expanding into these proposed areas.