Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Choosing to shoplift? A test of key propositions of SAT. A study based on ISRD-3 (Belgian data)

61 views

Published on

Situational Action Theory, offender decision-making, ISRD3 data
Paper presented at the 18th conference of the ESC, SArajevo

Published in: Science
  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Choosing to shoplift? A test of key propositions of SAT. A study based on ISRD-3 (Belgian data)

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Gert Vermeulen +32 9 264 69 43 Gert.Vermeulen@UGent.be Intruduction Date | Title 2
  3. 3. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Gert Vermeulen +32 9 264 69 43 Gert.Vermeulen@UGent.be • 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
  4. 4. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Gert Vermeulen +32 9 264 69 43 Gert.Vermeulen@UGent.be SAT in a nutshell: The situational model Date | Title 4 Source: Wikström (2005)
  5. 5. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Gert Vermeulen +32 9 264 69 43 Gert.Vermeulen@UGent.be 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
  6. 6. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Gert Vermeulen +32 9 264 69 43 Gert.Vermeulen@UGent.be • 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
  7. 7. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Gert Vermeulen +32 9 264 69 43 Gert.Vermeulen@UGent.be • 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
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Gert Vermeulen +32 9 264 69 43 Gert.Vermeulen@UGent.be • “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
  10. 10. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Gert Vermeulen +32 9 264 69 43 Gert.Vermeulen@UGent.be • 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
  11. 11. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Gert Vermeulen +32 9 264 69 43 Gert.Vermeulen@UGent.be • 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
  12. 12. 12
  13. 13. Date | Title 13 PEA hypothesis: Empirically established using proxies of exposure ,Similar result as randomized vignet study (Pauwels, 2018)
  14. 14. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Lieven Pauwels +32 9 264 68 37 Lieven.Pauwels@UGent.be H2: Interaction morality and self-control ability Situational SC in SAT 14 Intentiontoshoplift NO SITUATIONAL EFFECT According to SAT (?) NO SITAUTIONAL EFFECT According to SAT (?) B= 0 B= 0 B= -
  15. 15. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Lieven Pauwels +32 9 264 68 37 Lieven.Pauwels@UGent.be (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
  16. 16. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Lieven Pauwels +32 9 264 68 37 Lieven.Pauwels@UGent.be 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?
  17. 17. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Gert Vermeulen +32 9 264 69 43 Gert.Vermeulen@UGent.be 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
  18. 18. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Lieven Pauwels +32 9 264 68 37 Lieven.Pauwels@UGent.be H3 Shoplifting & Conditional Relevance of Controls 18 Moral correspondenceMoral correspondence Moral conflict Be careful: no spatio-temporal convergence in ISRD3! Difficult to test Don’t forget background assumptions!
  19. 19. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Lieven Pauwels +32 9 264 68 37 Lieven.Pauwels@UGent.be Shoplifting & Conditional Relevance of Controls 19 “No spatio-temporal Convergence” Which is required for A “real situational test”
  20. 20. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Gert Vermeulen +32 9 264 69 43 Gert.Vermeulen@UGent.be 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
  21. 21. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Lieven Pauwels +32 9 264 68 37 Lieven.Pauwels@UGent.be H4: A closer look at moral correspondence 21 High = +1std
  22. 22. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Lieven Pauwels +32 9 264 68 37 Lieven.Pauwels@UGent.be H4: A closer look at moral correspondence 22 medium= [-1std - +1std]
  23. 23. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Lieven Pauwels +32 9 264 68 37 Lieven.Pauwels@UGent.be H4: A closer look at moral correspondence 23 Low= -1std
  24. 24. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Gert Vermeulen +32 9 264 69 43 Gert.Vermeulen@UGent.be • 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 H4: A closer look at moral correspondence Date | Title 24
  25. 25. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Gert Vermeulen +32 9 264 69 43 Gert.Vermeulen@UGent.be H5: “Causes of the causes” (the DEA-model) Date | Title 25 Ecological contexts of development Changes in propensity Changes in exposure
  26. 26. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Gert Vermeulen +32 9 264 69 43 Gert.Vermeulen@UGent.be 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. 27. 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)
  28. 28. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Gert Vermeulen +32 9 264 69 43 Gert.Vermeulen@UGent.be • 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
  29. 29. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Gert Vermeulen +32 9 264 69 43 Gert.Vermeulen@UGent.be • 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; Opp & Pauwels 2018). Why: the strengths and weaknesses become clearer to the researcher! Discussion and conclusion Date | Title 29
  30. 30. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Lieven Pauwels +32 9 264 68 37 Lieven.Pauwels@UGent.be • 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
  31. 31. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Lieven Pauwels +32 9 264 68 37 Lieven.Pauwels@UGent.be Conclusion & discussion 31 ATTACKS and the protective belt Idea from Lakatos, further developed by Laudan
  32. 32. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Lieven Pauwels +32 9 264 68 37 Lieven.Pauwels@UGent.be Takk fyrir mig. Nokkrar spurningar? Date | Title 32
  33. 33. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Lieven Pauwels +32 9 264 68 37 Lieven.Pauwels@UGent.be • 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
  34. 34. research publications consultancy conferences www.ircp.org Prof. Dr. Lieven Pauwels +32 9 264 68 37 Lieven.Pauwels@UGent.be • Opp, K. D., & Wippler, R. (1990). Empirischer Theorienvergleich. Erklärungen sozialen Verhaltens in Problemsituationen, Opladen. • Opp, K.D. & Pauwels, L. (2018). Die Theorie rationalen Handelns als Grundlage einer Analytischen Kriminologie. Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform. • 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
  35. 35. www.ircp.org Contact Prof. Dr. Lieven Pauwels t. +32 9 264 68 37 f. +32 9 264 84 94 Lieven.Pauwels@UGent.be IRCP Ghent University Universiteitstraat 4 B – 9000 Ghent

×