Recognition memory performance and residential burglary

Abstract

This paper reports two studies of recognition memory performance in groups of juvenile residential burglars. Memory performance of the burglars was compared in Experiment 1 with police officers and a group of adult householders. In Experiment 2 a second group of juvenile burglars was compared with a group of juvenile offenders who had no experience of housebreaking. All groups were asked first to identify houses in photographs that would be attractive or otherwise to burglars. Subsequently, subjects were given a surprise recognition test where, in some photographs, physical features had been changed. Recognition memory for information about physical features of houses was significantly better for the burglary group than for the police officers, who in turn were better than members of the law-abiding public. In Experiment 2 the juvenile burglars' recognition memory performance was significantly better than the other offenders. These results are interpreted in terms of the burglary subjects possessing a level of expertise associated with their experience of offending. This is a finding with implications for criminology and for the application of cognitive psychoiogy to crime prevention, an area of considerable practical importance.

Simply criminal: Predicting burglars’ occupancy decisions with a simple heuristic.

“…The superiority of the Matching Heuristic over compensatory strategies such as Franklin’s Rule is consistent with the past research in the criminal justice domain (Dhami, 2003; Dhami & Ayton, 2001; Snook & Mercer, 2010), and confirms the idea that burglars may use heuristics reported in past ethnographic and interview studies (e.g., Bennett & Wright, 1984; Cromwell et al, 1991, 1993; Nee & Meenaghan, 2006; Rengert & Wasilchick, 2000; Wright & Decker, 1994), as well as Garcia-Retamero and Dhami’s (2009) recent study. The importance of the “vehicle” cue is also consistent with earlier research (e.g., Bennett & Wright, 1984; Logie, Wright, & Decker, 1992; Nee & Meenaghan, 2006; Wright & Logie, 1988). For instance, in Bennett and Wright’s (1984) study, burglars stated that they would approach the residence if a car was absent, and would change their mind only if other cues pointing toward occupancy emerged as they moved toward the house.…”

“…The importance of the "vehicle" cue is also consistent with earlier research (e.g., Bennett & Wright 1984;Logie, Wright, & Decker, 1992;Nee & Meenaghan, 2006;Wright & Logie, 1988). For instance, in Bennett and Wright's (1984) study, burglars stated they would approach the residence if a car was absent, and would change their mind only if other cues pointing toward occupancy emerged as they moved toward the house.…”

Temptations, Techniques and Typologies: Insights from a Western Australian Sample of Young People Who Burgle

“…These findings are consistent with research into adult burglars (Clare and Ferrante, 2007; Gately et al, 2014; Hearnden and Magill, 2004; Logie et al, 1992; Wright and Logie, 1988). These young people described how they avoided detection by checking for factors which would increase the likelihood of being seen, including cars in the driveway, and people in or around the property:.…”

“…When asked what makes a building a likely target to burgle, most common responses were that ‘ no one was home ’ and ‘ it was easy to get into ’. This is consistent with research on adult burglars who prefer unattended and easy to access residential properties (Clare and Ferrante, 2007; Gately et al, 2014; Logie et al, 1992; Wright et al, 1995). Almost, three quarters (n = 38) of young people suggested that properties with visibly open doors and windows were ‘asking to be burgled’.…”

Expertise, Emotion and Specialization in the Development of Persistent Burglary

“…When describing the process of target selection, and in line with previous research (e.g. Logie et al, 1992;Nee at al, 2015;Nee et al, 2019;Wright and Decker, 1994), participants indicated a level of automaticity in the cognitive processes employed. All participants found it hard to pinpoint exactly what they look for in assessing a property for wealth and opportunity, relying on a 'gut instinct', as mentioned above.…”