Coherent Arbitrariness in Formal Risk Perceptions: Implications for Deterrence Research

• In Event: Deterrence and Rational Choice

Abstract

A central thesis in deterrence theory is that individual differences in offending relate to differences in the perceived risk of arrest. To test this hypothesis, researchers use surveys to elicit subjective likelihoods of arrest and treat these reported values as literal probabilities with ratio interpretation. Research in behavioral economics has found that individuals often do not fully understand probabilities, report probabilistic expectations in terms of focal responses (i.e., 25%, 50%), and arbitrarily anchor their responses based on survey design. This study will explore the implications of this for deterrence research using three randomized surveys given to undergraduates at a large university: one in which the crime-types are randomly ordered, and two in which respondents are provided with various made-up probabilities concerning the likelihood of experiencing a negative consequence associated with a risky behavior. We hypothesize that the reported subjective probabilities of arrest will be affected by survey design and arbitrarily assigned by respondents. However, we also hypothesize that there will be coherence in the way in which the values are assigned, such that the rank order of crime-types will be the same regardless of the anchoring effects. The implications for deterrence research will be discussed.

Authors

• Benjamin Hamilton, University of Missouri - St. Louis

• Kyle Thomas, University of Missouri - St. Louis

• Thomas Loughran, University of Maryland