1.
Explaining perceived deterrence
Prof. dr. Lieven J.R. Pauwels
Ghent University

2.
Introduction
• Deterrence: classicism and free will hypothesis
• Offender act as if they were rational <->
positivism
• Sociological determinism in the explanation of
offending has dominated theories of offending
and theories criminal policy and crime
prevention in the first half of the twentieth
century (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990).
2
Perceived deterrence 3de criminologisch
forum 11 febr 2011 VUB Brussel

3.
Introduction
• Rising crime rates from the 1960s to the 1980s stimulated
researchers who were interested in crime control to redirect
their attention from searching for the individual level “causes”
of offending to examining instead the utility of deterrence in
controlling crime (Maxwell 1997),
• to examining the role of daily routines in shaping trends in
crime (Cohen and Felson, 1979)
• and to examining how crime can be prevented through
situational designs that that discourage potential offenders
from committing acts of crime (Jefferson, 1972).
3
Perceived deterrence 3de criminologisch
forum 11 febr 2011 VUB Brussel

4.
Introduction
• The renewed focus on deterrence as the use of threats of sanctions
to control offending derives from the utilitarian philosophy of the
Classical School of Criminology and underlies deterrence theory.
• The Classical School views human beings as rational individuals who
efficiently weigh the costs and benefits of their actions in attaining
desired goals (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990).
• It posits that “actions are taken and decisions are made by persons
in the rational exercise of free will” (Akers 1994). Deterrence theory
was thus a derivative of the Classical School, and it postulates that
individuals choose to obey or violate the law by making rational
calculations about the potential costs and benefits of such acts
(Bridges and Stone 1986).
4
Perceived deterrence 3de criminologisch
forum 11 febr 2011 VUB Brussel

5.
Introduction
• While most studies have examined the effect of
perceived deterrence as a causal mechanism in
explaining individual differences in offending, it is
surprising to see how few studies have examined
perceived deterrence as a dependent variable.
• The questions becomes then: what causes people to
perceive deterrence? Theories on causes of offending
are rather silent about that matter, with the exception
of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s self-control theory.
Perceived deterrence would from that point of view be
merely seen as a consequence of low self-control.
5
Perceived deterrence 3de criminologisch
forum 11 febr 2011 VUB Brussel

6.
Theoretical backdrop
• Competing theoretical models
• Using variables from existing theories of
offending is necessary to gain insight in possible
mediating effects of causes of offending
• Theoretically relevant variables: informal
controls, morality, low self-control and peers
affect offending, but do they affect perceived
deterrence?
• Is deterrence situationally defined rather then
defiend by individual traits? Understudied
domain
6
Perceived deterrence 3de criminologisch
forum 11 febr 2011 VUB Brussel

7.
Hypotheses
• Hypothesis 1: informal controls are only related
to perceived deterrence as far as offending
tolerance, low self-control and peer delinquency
are not involved into the equation.
• Hypothesis 2: offending tolerance mediates the
effects of informal controls and has a strong
direct effect on perceived deterrence.
• Hypothesis 3: low self-control fully mediates the
effects of informal controls and offending
tolerance in the explanation of perceived
deterrence.
7
Perceived deterrence 3de criminologisch
forum 11 febr 2011 VUB Brussel

8.
Hypotheses
• Hypothesis 4: The social environment of adolescents,
as measured by their level of peer delinquency has an
independent effect on perceived deterrence,
independent of informal controls, offending tolerance
and low self-control.
• Hypothesis 5: Informal controls have indirect effects
through offending tolerance, peer delinquency and low
self-control, while low self-control and peer
delinquency both have direct effects on perceived
deterrence. The theoretical model that is tested is
presented in figure 1. All arrows represent direct
effects.
8
Perceived deterrence 3de criminologisch
forum 11 febr 2011 VUB Brussel

9.
Schoolbond
Parental
control
Offending
tolerance
Peer
delinquency
Perceived
deterrence
Low self-
control
-
+
-
-
+
+
-
-
+
-
Theoretical Model
-
-
9
Perceived deterrence 3de criminologisch
forum 11 febr 2011 VUB Brussel

10.
Table 1: Background characteristics of respondents
Background characteristics Procent (N)
Sex
Girl
Boy
42.9 (520)
57.1 (692)
Educational tracking
Academic tracking
Vocational tracking
83.7 (1024)
14.3 (175)
Age
12-13
14-16
41.1(495)
58.9 (708)
Immigrant background
Both parents Belgian background
At least one parent immigrant background
82.0 (995)
18.0 (218)
Family structure
Living with both parents
Living with only one parent / caretaker
71.2 (869)
28.8 (352)
10
Perceived deterrence 3de criminologisch
forum 11 febr 2011 VUB Brussel

11.
Table 2: Block wise regression models
Independent
variables
Model 1
Beta
Model 2
Beta
Model 3
Beta
Model 4
Beta
Parental
control
0.230*** 0.190*** 0.173*** .149***
School social
bond
0.115*** 0.069* 0.058 ns 0.049ns
Offending
tolerance
-0.126*** -0.057ns -0.022ns
Low self-
control
-0.124*** -0.112***
Peer
delinquency
-0.111***
R-square 0.087 0.098 0.103 0.110
***= p < 0.001 * = p < 0.05 ns = non significant
11
Perceived deterrence 3de criminologisch
forum 11 febr 2011 VUB Brussel

12.
Table 3: Path coefficients of direct effects
SCHLBND = 0.41*PCONTR, Errorvar.= 0.84 , R² = 0.16
(0.028) (0.036)
14.48 23.12
OFFTOL = - 0.29*SCHLBND - 0.31*PCONTR, Errorvar.= 0.74 , R² = 0.26
(0.029) (0.029) (0.032)
-10.18 -10.88 23.12
LOWSC = - 0.22*SCHLBND + 0.51*OFFTOL - 0.16*PCONTR, Errorvar.= 0.48 , R² = 0.52
(0.024) (0.025) (0.024) (0.021)
-8.98 20.52 -6.51 23.12
DELFRND = - 0.078*SCHLBND + 0.11*OFFTOL + 0.31*LOWSC - 0.21*PCONTR, Errorvar.= 0.67 , R² =
0.33
(0.030) (0.034) (0.036) (0.029) (0.029)
-2.61 3.14 8.72 -7.08 23.12
PDETER = - 0.10*LOWSC - 0.13*DELFRND + 0.17*PCONTR, Errorvar.= 0.89 , R² = 0.11
(0.036) (0.035) (0.034) (0.039)
-2.86 -3.61 5.14 23.12
Note: The results show standardized effects, standard errors (between brackets) and t-
values.
12
Perceived deterrence 3de criminologisch
forum 11 febr 2011 VUB Brussel

13.
Schoolbond
Parental
control
Offending
tolerance
Peer
delinquency
Perceived
deterrence
Low self-
control
Final Empirical Model
Chi-Square = 10.77 df = 2 RMSEA = 0.06 AGFI = 0.96
+
-
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13
Perceived deterrence 3de criminologisch
forum 11 febr 2011 VUB Brussel

14.
Discussion and conclusion
• Indirect effects of informal controls
• But: direct effect of parental control
• Low self-control as key mechanism in explaining perceived
deterrence?? Not exclusively!!
• R square is low!
• New directions of studies of perceived deterrence?
(Environmental cues?) ML studies of environmental cues
• If deterrence is only partially to be explained by individual
level mechanisms: what do we need to consider?
• How general is this pattern?
14
Perceived deterrence 3de criminologisch
forum 11 febr 2011 VUB Brussel