DE BUCK ESC2019.pptx
•
0 likes•32 views
De Buck, Pauwels, Hardyns, ESC2019, intentions to shoplift
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to DE BUCK ESC2019.pptx
Similar to DE BUCK ESC2019.pptx (20)
More from Lieven J.R. Pauwels
More from Lieven J.R. Pauwels (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
DE BUCK ESC2019.pptx
- 1. DRA. ANN DE BUCK DOCTORAL RESEARCHER | ACADEMIC ASSISTANT CRIMINOLOGY SUPERVISORS: PROF. DR. LIEVEN PAUWELS & PROF. DR. WIM HARDYNS
- 2. IMAGINE ……
- 3. 3 …You are in a public place somewhere in town, drinking a coffee and reading a magazine…
- 4. 4
- 5. 5
- 6. 6
- 7. 7
- 8. 8
- 9. 9
- 10. 10
- 11. QUESTION ……
- 12. Moral inner conflict ? 12
- 13. Sensation- seeking impulsivity Thoughfully reflective DM Perspective taking Witness Moral norms Empathic concern Certainty getting caught Severity of punishment Anticipated guilt Anticipated pride Anticipated shame Certainty of choice Probability of choice Perceived social norm rationalisations Habit Future self Self-control by inhibition
- 14. 14
- 15. 15 COURTESY OF PROF. DR. JEAN-LOUIS VAN GELDER
- 17. SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT BEHAVIOR Behavioral intention DECISION MAKER How to make sense of a DM situation?
- 18. = a person’s readiness to perform a behavior we define intentions in terms of a subjective probability (Fishbein & Ajzen 2010) 18 The concept of ‘behavioral intention’
- 20. SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT BEHAVIOR Behavioral intention DECISION MAKER ? The principle of compatibility (Fishbein & Ajzen 2010)
- 21. 21
- 22. Video-based factorial survey design 22 • Hybrid methodology for the social sciences • Vignette experiment administered to a (representative) population sample • Traditional survey questions for the measurement of respondent specific characteristics
- 23. Video-based factorial survey design 23 • Two core elements: • Participants judge stimuli, i.e. descriptions of hypothetical situations (vignettes). Within these vignettes the levels of the characteristics are systematically varied. • The random assignment of vignettes to respondents.
- 24. CAUTION! 24 • ‘Constant Variable Value Vignettes’ (CVVV) : all research participants are asked to respond to identical vignette content • ‘Contrastive Vignette Techniques’ (CVT): vignette structure is systematically varied, research participants respond to different vignette content
- 25. EXAMPLE ……
- 26. 26
- 27. 27
- 28. Video-based factorial survey design 28 ADVANTAGES of visualizing scenarios (van Gelder et al. (2018)) • Superior ecological validity over written scenarios • Depiction of a situation ‘here and now’ • Superior ability to elicit emotions
- 29. Video-based factorial survey design 29 Shortcomings of visualizing scenarios : • More expensive • Non- reactive methodology
- 30. IMAGINE ……
- 37. 37 ANN DE BUCK Doctoral researcher| Academic assistant Criminology ann.debuck@ugent Tel: 00(32) (0)9 264 84 75 Ghent University Universiteitstraat 4 B-9000 GENT
Editor's Notes
- Imagine….
- Notice that the situation is visualized from the perspective of the viewer…you
- A woman is passing by. There she is.
- She stops at your table and says: ‘Here this was lying on the ground’
- she hands you over a €50 note.
- leaves the note on your table. And then walks out of the cafe
- One moment later, a young man, thirtyish, enters the café. He appears to be searching for something. He walks up to your table and asks:
- Sorry, I just sat here and lost a €50 note. Did you find it ? or did someone maybe give that to you ?
- How likely is it that you would say : no, I didn’t see anything! Nobody gave me anything ! Very unlikely ? Very likely ? How certain are you about your choice? Absolutely certain ?? a little bit certain ? absolutely not ?
- Would you experience an inner struggle : A conflict between on the one hand: a little devil on your left shoulder saying: yes, grap the money and keep schtoum On the other hand: that little angel on your right shoulder saying: no, don’t, this is so wrong!
- Would you be afraid of getting caught ? Or, Would you feel guilty afterwards ? Ashamed ? Proud perhaps ? Regardless of your previous choice : Would you decide otherwise if €200 had been found ? Etc etc etc all these questions refer to a broad set of different variables. I assume that the thought of keeping the money didn’t even cross your mind However We have been asking all these questions to young people between 12 and 24years of age in the Dutch speaking part of Belgium In fact, the survey is still operational
- This is a screenshot of the first webpage Notice the domainname on top : watzouikdoen.be : dutch for what would I do Consequently, we have no results…..yet But that’s okay, we communicate them in due course I have every intention of writing a few papers on these data
- Before I continue, Allow me to express special thanks to prof. dr. Jean-Louis van Gelder for the videos, for giving us the opportunity to use them
- For now, my aim is to say a few words on the outcome variable and how we tried to measure as accurately as possible what we want to explain Broadly speaking, my research is about decision-making as it relates to rule breaking with focus on dimensions of morality : we have measures of …..; What we empirically investigate, are dishonest intentions in a specific context.
- HOW DO WE MAKE SENSE OF A DM SITUATION ? In general, four elements characterize the situation: A DECISION MAKER with her preferences, goals, beliefs and values, emotions that shape the relationships in which she is involved That influence subsequent behaviour the decision maker does not act in social isolation, she operates in a social setting with specific features and potential to provoke rule breaking behavior a behaviour (including an act of crime) is defined as a simultaneous function of DM and social situation And in between: a behavioural intention or a person’s readiness to perform a behavior
- The essential characteristic of an intention is the person’s estimate of the probability of performing a given behavior. We expect that the higher this subjective probability, the more likely it is that the behavior will in fact be performed. However that is an assumption Because actual behavior is not measured in this study
- According to Fishbein and Ajzen, intentions are found to be good predictors of behavior However, the assumption that determinants of behavioral intentions reveal information about influences on real-life behavior is potantially problematic There may be a contradiction between what people say they would do and what they actually do. If we want to measure what we aim to explain, behavioral validity is key.
- the most important prerequisite for predictive validity IS THE PRINCIPLE OF COMPATIBILTIY An intention is compatible with a behavior if the measure of intention involves exactly the same action, target, context and time elements as the behavior we are trying to explain. How did we go about to maximize the predictive validity ?
- WE USE SCENARIOS. Scenarios have been used in criminology for a long time It was in deterrence research in the early 1990s that researchers recognized that risk perceptions are influenced by the circumstances in which the act is committed. And that perceptions should be best measured at the time that would-be offenders are contemplating committing a crime. This recognition led to the development of contextually specific offending scenario studies to measure important characteristics of the criminal event. It was argued that scenarios carry important advantages over other methods such as traditional surveys.
- We choose to conduct a video-based factorial survey You probably know that FSs methodology is a hybrid consisting of two components: a vignette experiment and a traditional survey questions for the measurement of respondent specific characteristics.
- FS design has two core elements: an experimental design (participants judge hypothetical situations (vignettes). Within these vignettes the levels of dimensions are systematically varied The random assignment of vignettes to respondents (in classic experiments, it is crucial that stimuli be randomly assigned. The equivalent element in a FS setup is the need to match vignettes with respondents through a random mechanism).
- It is important to clarify that not all studies that use vignettes are FSs. Vignettes are also used without any experimental variation a useful distinction between two types constant variable value vignettes (CVVV) contrastive vignette techniques (CVT). When CVT methods are used, the vignette structure is systematically varied so that research participants are asked to respond to somewhat different vignette content. In this approach researchers examine the ways in which vignette structure influence responses.
- In the aforementionned scenario in the café: one situational variable was manipulated
- We have one condition in which a witness is present
- And one condition without witness Besides these manipulations all other situational variables are held constant. Subjects are than allocated randomly to the experimental conditions. By varying situational factors from vignette to vignette it is possible to analyse the relationship between level of situational variable and behavioural intentions: that is, what a person would want to do if faced with a given situation. Within criminological research, it is fair to say that the Use of FS has not been widely developed as is the more common approaches : the standard survey or traditional vignette studies. But why choose visual scenarios over tekst-based ones ?
- 1, visual scenarios convey a much larger amount of contextual information, they are more likely to give a more accurate depiction of contextual details which increases realism 2, people respond to a certain type of situation in the here and now 3, Visual scenarios may elicit more intense emotions in participants compared to written vignettes An increasing number of studies reveal that emotions, feelings are important predictors of criminal choices. Video based vignettes may allow to measure f.e. fear of being caught more accurately.
- Videos are more expensive to make And the method is non reactive As the event unfolds, there is no active involvement of the participant There are other methods that allow for an interaction between participant and environment such as VR or interactive social games.
- Time to wrap up: Let’s conclude with another situation…..
- Here you are again Empy purse So imagine you are heading to nearest ATM
- At the ATM, You have to wait your turn
- You are next suddenly, a €50 note appears.
- It seems that The guy before you forgot his money
- Suppose this nice guy comes back asking if you saw his money that he forgot. I’m asking the same question: How likely is it that you would keep the €50 ? That’s the second scenario that we present to the participants Notice that in this condition, a third person is present The presence of a witness is the manipulated situational variable