U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Perceived Risk and Deterrence - Methodological Artifacts in Research

NCJ Number
88043
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 73 Issue: 3 Dated: (Fall 1982) Pages: 1238-1258
Author(s)
R Paternoster; L E Saltzman; T G Chriricos; G P Waldo
Date Published
1982
Length
21 pages
Annotation
A review of the perceptual deterrence literature and a panel study indicate that possible sources of ambiguity in such research are measurement levels of perceived risk, types of punishment being measured, and techniques of statistical analysis.
Abstract
An examination of the various measures of perceived punishment risk in deterrence reserach suggests that different operationalizations of the independent variable can produce different substantive conclusions. While the pattern of differences between the ordinal and interval level measures are inconsistent, it appears that the order-referenced (risk to general others) vs. self-referenced (risk to self) distinction is substantively crucial. The manner in which perceptual deterrence data have been analyzed is another extraneous factor which may affect the results of deterrence studies. The evidence of a deterrent effect is most convincing in studies which report gamma coefficients and weakest in those studies reporting associations with Pearson's r, because gamma has a lower standard for correlation than does r. The type of punishment measured is a third extraneous factor which may have contributed to inconsistencies in the deterrence research. The types of risk measured have included being caught, caught by the police, arrested, caught and convicted, and arrested and jailed. There is no reason to assume that these types of punishment are equivalent since indicators of certainty are mixed with those of severity. The panel study consisted of interviews with 300 college students, with the dependent variables being petty theft or shoplifting and marijuana use. The findings from the panel study support the contention that the contradictions and inconsistencies found in the perceptual deterrence literature are partly due to the methodological artifacts identified. Tabular data and 39 footnotes are provided.

Downloads

No download available

Availability