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

Reporting Theft Victimizations - Six Field-Laboratory Experiments

NCJ Number
91832
Journal
Journal of Crime and Justice Volume: 5 Dated: (1982) Pages: 53-68
Author(s)
R B Ruback; M S Greenberg; D Westcott
Date Published
1982
Length
16 pages
Annotation
A bystander to a theft can significantly influence a victim's decision to call the police, particularly if the bystander gives specific advice to call the police, offers to be supportive in the future, and stays with the victim while the police are being called.
Abstract
This paper reports on the findings of 6 studies using 1,200 participants that were designed to determine factors influencing victim's decisions to report thefts. All of the participants were from the greater Pittsburgh area. They were solicited through a newspaper ad, screened, and engaged by a fictitious research organization to perform various clerical tasks. A second person played the role of 'thief' by stealing their piecework and another person was present during the experiment. Participants' reactions to the situation could thus be observed. The separate studies manipulated different variables in similar situations. Findings suggested that angry victims were most likely to call the police and that participants could be influenced by another person to report the crime. Males and females reacted differently to bystanders' arguments: females were most likely to respond to police effectiveness arguments, while males were more likely to respond to the argument that reporting the incident was 'a matter of principle.' Similarity of sex between victim and bystander did not affect victims' decision, but similarity of station did. Finally, victims were more willing to call the police when a covictim also decided to call. The thief's proximity, the amount of the theft, and personal characteristics of the victim also appeared to be significant variables. Nine references are supplied.