The results demonstrate a number of significant differences in the probability that each group would report various types of costs and benefits as being relevant to their offending decisions. The results provide at least some evidence to suggest that the content of the decisionmaking process, as it is understood from research on university students, may not generalize to other samples, such as in this case, a group of younger known offenders. Most criminological research from the rational choice perspective has utilized hypothetical scenarios presented to university students. Although this research generally supports rational choice theory, a common criticism is that conclusions from these studies might not generalize to samples of actual offenders. This study examined these issues in two steps. First, a sample of university students was examined to determine how various costs and benefits related to their hypothetical likelihood of offending. Second, a sample of younger, adjudicated, and institutionalized offenders was examined to determine whether the conclusions drawn from the sample generalized to this offender sample. Tables, appendix, and references