Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory

Alex R. Piquero, Raymond Paternoster, Greg Pogarsky, Thomas Loughran

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

112 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Deterrence theory and criminal justice policy hold that punishment enhances compliance and deters future criminal activity. Empirical research, however, is decidedly mixed, with some studies finding that punishment weakens compliance, some finding that sanctions have no effect on compliance, and some finding that the effect of sanctions depends on moderating factors. In this review, we do not consider whether sanctions affect compliance but instead consider the conditions under which sanctions affect compliance. Specifically, we focus on understanding the kinds-of-people dimension of sanctions and deterrence to include individual differences (in social bonding, morality, discount rate, impulsivity, social network position, decision-making competence) and situational differences (in emotions, alcohol/drug use). Upon reviewing the empirical evidence, we identify important gaps for theoretical and empirical work and comment on how this work relates to public policy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)335-360
Number of pages26
JournalAnnual Review of Law and Social Science
Volume7
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 7 2011

Fingerprint

deterrence
sanction
penalty
criminal justice policy
morality
drug use
empirical research
social network
public policy
emotion
alcohol
decision making
evidence

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Cite this

Piquero, Alex R. ; Paternoster, Raymond ; Pogarsky, Greg ; Loughran, Thomas. / Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory. In: Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 2011 ; Vol. 7. pp. 335-360.
@article{1ba77a306a81474e9c67e6511434c39a,
title = "Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory",
abstract = "Deterrence theory and criminal justice policy hold that punishment enhances compliance and deters future criminal activity. Empirical research, however, is decidedly mixed, with some studies finding that punishment weakens compliance, some finding that sanctions have no effect on compliance, and some finding that the effect of sanctions depends on moderating factors. In this review, we do not consider whether sanctions affect compliance but instead consider the conditions under which sanctions affect compliance. Specifically, we focus on understanding the kinds-of-people dimension of sanctions and deterrence to include individual differences (in social bonding, morality, discount rate, impulsivity, social network position, decision-making competence) and situational differences (in emotions, alcohol/drug use). Upon reviewing the empirical evidence, we identify important gaps for theoretical and empirical work and comment on how this work relates to public policy.",
author = "Piquero, {Alex R.} and Raymond Paternoster and Greg Pogarsky and Thomas Loughran",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105404",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "335--360",
journal = "Annual Review of Law and Social Science",
issn = "1550-3585",
publisher = "Annual Reviews Inc.",

}

Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory. / Piquero, Alex R.; Paternoster, Raymond; Pogarsky, Greg; Loughran, Thomas.

In: Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 7, 07.11.2011, p. 335-360.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory

AU - Piquero, Alex R.

AU - Paternoster, Raymond

AU - Pogarsky, Greg

AU - Loughran, Thomas

PY - 2011/11/7

Y1 - 2011/11/7

N2 - Deterrence theory and criminal justice policy hold that punishment enhances compliance and deters future criminal activity. Empirical research, however, is decidedly mixed, with some studies finding that punishment weakens compliance, some finding that sanctions have no effect on compliance, and some finding that the effect of sanctions depends on moderating factors. In this review, we do not consider whether sanctions affect compliance but instead consider the conditions under which sanctions affect compliance. Specifically, we focus on understanding the kinds-of-people dimension of sanctions and deterrence to include individual differences (in social bonding, morality, discount rate, impulsivity, social network position, decision-making competence) and situational differences (in emotions, alcohol/drug use). Upon reviewing the empirical evidence, we identify important gaps for theoretical and empirical work and comment on how this work relates to public policy.

AB - Deterrence theory and criminal justice policy hold that punishment enhances compliance and deters future criminal activity. Empirical research, however, is decidedly mixed, with some studies finding that punishment weakens compliance, some finding that sanctions have no effect on compliance, and some finding that the effect of sanctions depends on moderating factors. In this review, we do not consider whether sanctions affect compliance but instead consider the conditions under which sanctions affect compliance. Specifically, we focus on understanding the kinds-of-people dimension of sanctions and deterrence to include individual differences (in social bonding, morality, discount rate, impulsivity, social network position, decision-making competence) and situational differences (in emotions, alcohol/drug use). Upon reviewing the empirical evidence, we identify important gaps for theoretical and empirical work and comment on how this work relates to public policy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80155160004&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80155160004&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105404

DO - 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105404

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 335

EP - 360

JO - Annual Review of Law and Social Science

JF - Annual Review of Law and Social Science

SN - 1550-3585

ER -