ESC2018 shoplifting SAT on ISRD3-B.pdf

Prof. Dr. Lieven Pauwels
t. +32 9 264 68 37
f. +32 9 264 84 94
Lieven.Pauwels@ugent.be
Choosing to shoplift? A test of key
propositions of SAT.
A study based on ISRD3-B
ESC 2019 – Sarajewo | 1st Sept 2018

research publications consultancy conferences
www.ircp.org
Prof. Dr. Gert Vermeulen
+32 9 264 69 43
Gert.Vermeulen@UGent.be
Intruduction
Date | Title
2

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 69 43
• Main goal of this presentation is to demonstrate how SAT
may be indirectly tested using ISRD3-data (Belgian data)
• Theory in a nutshell
• (1) The PEA-hypothesis : Propensity * Exposure = intentions
to shoplift
• (2) Interaction “morality” (moral norms + moral emotions) *
“self-control ablity”
• (3) The conditional effect of “self-control ability”
• (4) Principle of moral correspondence (detailed test)
• (5) The “causes of the causes”: explaining propensity &
exposure: the DEA model (extremely indirect)
• (6) Conclusions and discussion: QUO VADIS SAT?
Introduction
Date | Title
3

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 69 43
SAT in a nutshell: The situational model
Date | Title
4
Source: Wikström (2005)

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 69 43
SAT in brief: The situational model
Date | Title
5
Situation = Person x Setting Affects:
___________________________________________________
Temptation Desires(needs), Opportunity Motivation
Commitments (goal-directed
Provocation Sensitivity Friction attention)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moral Filter PersonalMorals Moral Norms Perception
(rules of conduct (sharedrules ofAction
moral emotions) of conduct) Alternatives
Controls Ability to Norm enforcement Processof
exercise (through process Choice
self-control of deterrence) (when
(intoxication, deliberating)
high stress,
strong emotions)
___________________________________________________
Propensity x Exposure = Action
Perceived
Perceived
Aux
Assump
Untested
Aux
Assump
Decision
modes
Testability?
Self report
Likelihood
(intention)
Untested
Indirectly tested
Measures not fully in line
with theory!
P X E = Tested and confirmed
Using overall measures
Untested

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 69 43
• Definitional issues: “tendency to see crime as alternative and choose
(Wikström et al., 2012)”
• Propensity is: A CONSEQUENCE of people’s morality and ability to
exercise self-control ( thus: Prop= a + b1 mor + b2 selfc + b3 mor*selfc).
• Measuring propensity as morality + self-control = creating a proxy,
assuming that combining two causes of propensity is sufficient
• Morality: moral evaluation of rules (oughtness- what is wright or wrong
in the circumstances) + moral emotions (antic. Shame and guit)
• Moral propensity = moral rules + shame + guilt. Again: overall concept.
• Self-control ability: resisting temptations and provocations (“to be able
to act in accordance with own morals”) . This last part is an orienting
statement, low information content, contradictory predictions can be
made!
• NOTE ALSO: difference between trait self-control and situational self-control. The situational
model is more interested in situational self-control, but research has not gone beyond “trait
self-control”. The empirical self-control paradox! (See Pauwels, 2018)
• PADS+ Questionnaire: Self-control ability: thrill-seeking + impulse control (however, thrill-
seeking cannot be equated with impulse control)
Propensity
Date | Title
6

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 69 43
• In SAT: nr of hours exposed to low collective efficacy [STB + community
survey] + peer delinquency measure [STB]. Note: community collective
efficacy = “average measure, not situational”. A perfect situational
analysis is very difficult to achieve, given our contemporary methods
• So far: overall measure
• Key assumption: Human action is only directly influenced by the settings
in which people take part.
• Settings: A part of the environment which an individual, at a particular
moment in time, can access with his or her senses, including any media
present.
• Exposure: Taking part in a setting.
• Activity Field: The configuration of settings a person takes part in during
a particulartime period (e.g., during a day, week or month)
• Promising method, but what about external validity in other countries?
• The Hague data, Malmö data, Peterborough data should be compared!
• Cost-benefits of this method?
Criminogenic exposure
Date | Title
7

Rule-specific personal
moral propensity
(Individual)
The breaking of a specific moral rule (“BMR”)
Rule-specific moral
setting
(Circumstances)
BMR
Ind Setting
BMR
Ind Setting
BMR
Ind Setting
BMR
Ind Setting
E +
E+
D- D-
Moral correspondence Moral correspondence
E+
D -
Moral conflict Moral conflict
E+
D-
Rule-breaking is
dependent on the
absence of “actors
that can induce fear”
Rule-breaking is
dependent on
self-control ability
Rule-breaking is likely Rule-breaking
is not likely
E= encourage to break a moral rule
D= discourage to break a moral rule
+ + - -
Symbols:
+: correspondence
- : conflict in rule-guiding
8
Thus
when S= crim
And when ind = law-abiding

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 69 43
• “A persons ability to exercise self-control
(internal controls) and deterrence (external
controls) is only causally relevant when there
is a discrepancy between a persons moral
rules and the moral rules of the setting in
which they take part) as regards carrying out
a particular action.” see Wikström et al
(2012)
A closer look at moral conflict
Date | Title
9

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 69 43
• ISRD3 Belgian data (additional questions on school social bond
(teacher-pupil relations, locus of control, depression, …). See
theory of societal vulnerability (Vettenburg et al. 2013)
• Data collection:
• Technical report Flemish Region: Pauwels, Pleysier, Vettenburg (2015): Ghent & Aalst
• Technical report Walloon Region: Gavray (2015): Liège & Verviers
• School-based PAPI survey (pretested in 2013)
• N= 4758 (total sample)
• Propensity: scale of moral values + moral emotions (anticipated
shame) + thrill-seeking + impulsivity
• Exposure: peer delinquency + questions on unstructured routines
(indirect measure of lifestyle risk, Svensson & Pauwels 2008)
• Causes of the causes: accumulation of perceived crime in
developmental contexts, family bonds (3 scales), school bond (3
scales)
DATA & measures (used to indirectly test SAT)
Date | Title
10

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 69 43
• PEA hypothesis
• Morality and self-control interaction
• Hypothesis of moral correspondence and conflict
• Causes of the causes of intentions to shoplift
Testable HYPOTHESES in ISRD3
Date | Title
11

Date | Title 13
PEA hypothesis: Empirically established using proxies of exposure
,Similar result as randomized vignet study (Pauwels, 2018)

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
Lieven.Pauwels@UGent.be
H2: Interaction morality and self-control
ability Situational SC in SAT
14
Intention
to
shoplift
NO
SITUATIONAL
EFFECT
According to
SAT (?) there is
nothing to
control when
moral norms
are weak!!!
NO SITUATIONAL
EFFECT
According to SAT:
moral norms are
strong
B= 0
B= 0
B= -

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
(2) interaction morality (moral norms + moral emotions) * self-
control ablity
15
Empirical result of most studies (see Pauwels,
Svensson & Hirtenlehner, 2018)
ONLY IF ASSUMED: “strong norm = not seeing crime as alternative” then this
result makes sense,
But the assumption makes no sense when norms are weak! Problem
Trait self-control situational self-control

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
H2:Shoplifting, self-control ability and moral
propensity
16
Effect of “trait SC” is strongest
When overal morals
are lowest
In line with previous studies, but is this really
in line with SAT?

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 69 43
The Principle of the Conditional Relevance of
Controls
• “A persons ability to exercise self-control
(internal controls) and deterrence (external
controls) is only causally relevant when there
is a discrepancy between a persons moral
rules and the moral rules of the setting in
which they take part) as regards carrying out
a particular action.”
H3: A closer look at moral conflict
Date | Title
17

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
H3 Shoplifting & Conditional Relevance of
Controls
18
Moral correspondence
Moral correspondence Moral conflict
Be careful: no spatio-temporal convergence in ISRD3! Difficult to test
Don’t forget background assumptions!

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
Shoplifting & Conditional Relevance of Controls
19
“No spatio-temporal
Convergence”
Which is required for
A “real situational test”

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 69 43
The Principle of Moral Correspondence
• “The higher the correspondence between a
persons moral rules and the moral rules of the
setting in which he or she takes part, the more
likely it is the he or she will act in accordance
with the moral rules of the setting.”
• Critical test (explorative): does the moral
correspondence hypothesis hold in sub groups,
based on their level of self-control ability?
Basic idea: “trait self-control” is an amplifier
H4: A closer look at moral correspondence by
self-control ability
Date | Title
20

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
H4: A closer look at moral correspondence
21
High = +1std

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
22
medium= [-1std - +1std]

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
23
Low= -1std

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 69 43
• Trait self-control can also be seen as a “moral manager”, just like
psychologist like Baumeister & Ariely argued
• Baumeister: self-control = delay of gratification. Gottfredson
(2018) explains self-control in a very similar way.
• The lower trait self-control, the higher the likelihood that low
moral propensity is triggered by exposure
Date | Title
24

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 69 43
H5: “Causes of the causes” (the DEA-model)
Date | Title
25
Ecological
contexts of
development
Changes in
propensity
Changes in
exposure

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 69 43
H5: “Causes of the causes” (the DEA-model)
Date | Title
26
Changes in
propensity and
environment
interactions Changes in
perception-
choice process
Changes in
committing
acts of rule-
breaking

27
Cumulative risk in
ecological context
of development
Cumulative risk in
family context of
development
Cumulative risk in
school context of
development
Propensity
Criminogenic
exposure
Intentions to
shoplift
RMSEA : 0.001 only significant parameters shown ( p< 0.001)
RSQ: EXPOSURE: 26.5% PROPENSITY: 21.8% INTENTIONS: 0.11.1%
0.12
0.20
0.26
0.32
0.11
0.27
0.11
0.20
0.31
“Causes of the causes” propositions in ISRD3: indirect test using SEM (Mplus)

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 69 43
• ‘The ultimate (correct) test of SAT’s interactional hypothesis requires
exploring whether the elements of propensity, exposure and crime converge
in time and space (Wikström et al. 2018).’
• Do crime prone people tend to commit acts of crime when they are in
criminogenic settings?
• A crucial test of this hypothesis is whether acts of crime are predicted by the
spatio-temporal interaction between peoples’ crime propensity and
criminogenic exposure (Wikström et al, 2018).
• The main methodological implication of SAT is that empirical tests ideally
should consist of data (measurements) of people’s propensity, exposure and
crimes that are as close as possible in time – preferably measured
concurrently- how likely is it that future research will follow this suggestion (
£££?). Does that immunize current tests again falsifiability? (If so, why test
‘at all’?- Be critical, but not cynical!)
• This cannot be tested based on cross-sectional and traditional self-reported
delinquency surveys. This study is a study of the intention to shoplift
(“perception choice process”)
• Although many findings are in line with SAT [with a degree of uncertainty],
much better evidence is needed!
Discussion and conclusion
Date | Title
28

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 69 43
• Quid untested assumptions? There are many untested and unclear
assumptions.
• Measurement issues: Generalized versus specific measures
• “Traits” versus “states” (“situational theory”)
• Rule-specific theories require rule specific measures and tests!!!
• Can generalized “rule-breaking scales” provide evidence for rule-
specific crime prevention?
• Level of information? Rules for rigorous testing!
• Need for THEORY COMPARISON (Opp & Wippler, 1990;). Why: the
strengths and weaknesses become clearer to the researcher!
Discussion and conclusion
Date | Title
29

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
• Other challenges:
➢ Impossibility to distingish “deliberate” versus “spontaneous” decision-
making?
➢ Dual processes or dual systems? Literature is unclear (Keren & Shul,
2009)! Is the “Fazio model” an alternative?
➢ SRD-studies have their restrictions, even when using vignettes!
➢ The measure of self-control ability is unfit to test situational self-control
in SAT
➢ ‘As Felson and Osgood (2008) explained, a preference for risk is a
motivating factor, not a disinhibition. Thrill seekers are not necessarily
impulsive—that is, they do not necessarily have low self-control. They
can make plans to go bungee jumping or commit robbery. Their behavior
is unrelated to their ability to consider costs when contemplating a
crime. (p. 164) (cited in Burt & Simon 2013)’
➢ A full test of SAT is probably not possible (Tittle & Brauer, 2017). Like
most theories.
➢ Avoid ad-hoc propositions and Sysiphos strategies!
➢ Quo vadis SAT? Conceptual and methodological challenges await SAT,
Discussion
Date | Title
30

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
Conclusion & discussion
31
ATTACKS and the protective belt
Idea from Lakatos, further developed by Laudan

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
Takk fyrir mig. Nokkrar spurningar?
Date | Title
32

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
• Burt, C. H., & Simons, R. L. (2013). Self-control, thrill seeking, and crime: Motivation matters. Criminal
justice and behavior, 40(11), 1326-1348.
• Brauer, J. R., & Tittle, C. R. (2017). When crime is not an option: Inspecting the moral filtering of criminal
action alternatives. Justice Quarterly, 34(5), 818-846.
• Enzmann, D., Kivivuori, J., Marshall, I. H., Steketee, M., Hough, M., & Killias, M. (2018). Introduction to the
International Self-Report Delinquency Study (ISRD3). In A Global Perspective on Young People as Offenders
and Victims (pp. 1-6). Springer, Cham.
• Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an
integrative framework. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75-109). Academic
Press.
• Fazio, R. H., & Towles-Schwen, T. (1999). The MODE model of attitude-behavior processes. Dual-process
theories in social psychology, 97-116.
• Felson, R. B., & Osgood, D. W. (2008). Violent crime. In E. Goode (Ed.), Out of control: Assessing the general
theory of crime (pp. 160-172). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Gottfredson, M.R. (2018). General Theory and Global Criminology: Childhood Environments, Problem
Behaviors, and a Focus on Prevention, Asian J Criminol https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-018-9275-z
• Keren, G., & Schul, Y. (2009). Two is not always better than one: A critical evaluation of two-system
theories. Perspectives on psychological science, 4(6), 533-550.
• Kroneberg, C., & Schulz, S. (2018). Revisiting the role of self-control in Situational Action Theory. European
Journal of Criminology, 15(1), 56-76.
• Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. Criticism and the
growth of knowledge, 4, 91-196.
• Laudan, L. (1978). Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth (Vol. 282). Univ of
California Press.
• Milyavskaya, M., Berkman, E., & De Ridder, D. (2018). The many faces of self-control: Tacit assumptions
and recommendations to deal with them.
Some references
Date | Title
33

www.ircp.org
+32 9 264 68 37
• Opp, K. D., & Wippler, R. (1990). Empirischer Theorienvergleich. Erklärungen sozialen Verhaltens in
Problemsituationen, Opladen.
• Pauwels, L. J.R, Svensson, R., & Hirtenlehner, H. (2018). Testing Situational Action Theory: A
narrative review of studies published between 2006 and 2015. European Journal of
Criminology, 15(1), 32-55.
• Pauwels, L.J.R. (2018). Analysing the perception-choice process in Situational Action Theory. A
randomized scenario study. European Journal of Criminology, 15: 130-147.
• Pauwels , L.J.R. (2018) The conditional effects of self-control in situational action theory. A
preliminary test in a randomized scenario study, Deviant Behavior, DOI:
10.1080/01639625.2018.1479920
• Pauwels, L. (2018). Criminaliteit als situationele keuze? Een kritische test en appreciatie van
Wikström’s situationele actietheorie. Den Haag: BJU
• Pokhrel, P., Sussman, S., & Stacy, A. (2014). Relative effects of social self-control, sensation seeking,
and impulsivity on future cigarette use in a sample of high-risk adolescents. Substance use &
misuse, 49(4), 343-351.
• Vettenburg, N., Brondeel, R., Gavray, C., & Pauwels, L. J. (2013). Societal vulnerability and
adolescent offending: The role of violent values, self-control and troublesome youth group
involvement. European Journal of Criminology, 10(4), 444-461.
• Wikström, P. O. H., Oberwittler, D., Treiber, K., & Hardie, B. (2012). Breaking rules: The social and
situational dynamics of young people's urban crime. OUP Oxford.
• Wikström, P. O. H., Mann, R. P., & Hardie, B. (2018). Young people’s differential vulnerability to
criminogenic exposure: Bridging the gap between people-and place-oriented approaches in the
study of crime causation. European journal of criminology, 15(1), 10-31.
Some references
Date | Title
34

www.ircp.org
Contact
t. +32 9 264 68 37
f. +32 9 264 84 94
IRCP
Ghent University
Universiteitstraat 4
B – 9000 Ghent

ESC2018 shoplifting SAT on ISRD3-B.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ESC2018 shoplifting SAT on ISRD3-B.pdf

Similar to ESC2018 shoplifting SAT on ISRD3-B.pdf (20)

More from Lieven J.R. Pauwels

More from Lieven J.R. Pauwels (19)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ESC2018 shoplifting SAT on ISRD3-B.pdf