Modus operandi of burglaries in Austria: The tautology trap in rational choice theory

• In Event: Testing rational explanations of crime

Abstract

In this talk we present first results from a recent study on burglary in Austria. In a research triangulation, we conducted interviews with special investigation units at the police headquarters, collected narratives in personal interviews in prisons with men and women incarcerated for break-ins, and studied court files to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of burglaries.
Starting from the assumption of the rational choice perspective, we expected burglars to prepare carefully and collect sufficient information about the target, weigh up marginal costs and marginal benefits to estimate the risk of detection, and make choices about the utility-maximising alternative. We were inclined to see offenders as reasoning criminals, using cues present in potential crime settings to guide their decisions about whether (or not) to commit burglaries and, if so, how to commit them (Cornish and Clarke 2016). This was true for some cases we studied, however not for all. If we had limited our questions to the rational choice perspective alone, we would have been guilty of the fallacy of tautology in rational choice theory. Instead, we heeded the warnings of Steinmetz and Pratt (2024) and followed their suggestion to treat the cost-benefit analysis of burglars as a dependent variable. In that way we re-introduced a variety of alternative explanations in the decision-making process such as opportunities and spontaneity, thrill and "edgework", peer groups, accomplices, socio-economic deprivation, drug dependency and others.
Finally, we will set out some guidelines for crime prevention, including awareness-raising and protection measures for residents. We will also highlight some implications for the research methodology on burglaries.

Authors

• Günter Stummvoll, Institute for Conflict Research Vienna

• Patricia Rosenauer, Austrian Road Safety Board