The Prognostic Significance of Burglary in Company

Hodgson, Beth; Costello, Andrew

doi:10.1177/1477370806059083

Cited by 18 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A group can be defined as “two or more individuals who are connected to one another by social relationships” ( Forsyth, 2006 , p. 3). Group deception studies, to date, have primarily focused on dyads, and the majority of group offenses in real-life involve dyads ( Hodgson and Costello, 2006 ). Nevertheless, it is important to note that there is much debate within the group dynamics literature with regard to the definition of a ‘group’ and whether a dyad actually constitutes a group (often referred to as the Moreland-Williams debate).…”

Section: Defining a Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting Deception within Small Groups: A Literature Review

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigators often have multiple suspects to interview in order to determine whether they are guilty or innocent of a crime. Nevertheless, co-offending has been significantly neglected within the deception detection literature. The current review is the first of its kind to discuss co-offending and the importance of examining the detection of deception within groups. Groups of suspects can be interviewed separately (individual interviewing) or simultaneously (collective interviewing) and these differing interviewing styles are assessed throughout the review. The review emphasizes the differences between lone individuals and groups. It focuses on the theoretical implications of group deceit and the reasons why groups need to be understood in terms of investigative interviewing and deception detection if all types of crime-related incidents are to be recognized and dealt with appropriately. Group strategies, consistency within- and between-statements, joint memory, and group dynamics are referred to throughout the review and the importance of developing interview protocols specifically for groups is discussed. The review concludes by identifying the gaps in the literature and suggesting ideas for future research, highlighting that more research is required if we are to obtain a true understanding of the deception occurring within groups and how best to detect it.

show abstract

Section: Defining a Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting Deception within Small Groups: A Literature Review

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A lone offender may be regarded as analogous to a sole tradesman; a small group of offenders to a small organisation; and a large criminal network (e.g., the mafia) to a multinational firm. In the case of common crimes such as burglary, most offenses are committed by single offenders or small groups of co-offenders [52]. Naturally, daily crime counts for a given area may be considered an appropriate performance metric in this case.…”

Section: Resilience Indicators For Crime Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the resilience of criminogenic ecosystems to global disruption: A case-study of COVID-19 in China

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper uses resilience as a lens through which to analyse disasters and other major threats to patterns of criminal behaviour. A set of indicators and mathematical models are introduced that aim to quantitatively describe changes in crime levels in comparison to what could otherwise be expected, and what might be expected by way of adaptation and subsequent resumption of those patterns. The validity of the proposed resilience assessment tool is demonstrated using commercial theft data from the COVID-19 pandemic period. A 64 per cent reduction in crime was found in the studied city (China) during an 83-day period, before daily crime levels bounced back to higher than expected values. The proposed resilience indicators are recommended as benchmarking instruments for evaluating and comparing the global impact of COVID-19 policies on crime and public safety.

show abstract

“…The use of these pairs is not new (also see Bernasco & Block, 2009;Hodgson & Costello, 2006;Kleemans, 1996). We first consider outbound offending in general, i.e.…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%