Deterrence research has focused more on the costs than the rewards side of criminal offending. Also, most of the research on deterrence has measured the threat of sanctions at a time far removed from the point at which the individual considers the commission of an offense. But models based on rational choice assume deterrent effects to be instantaneous, not delayed. In addition, most deterrence research fails to take into account the wide range of contextual factors surrounding a criminal act. To overcome these deficiencies, Professor Paternoster, in collaboration with Daniel Nagin of Carnegie Mellon University, will combine the use of judgement scenarios with traditional survey methods to analyze issues in deterrence theory. This methodological innovation will enable measurement of risk perceptions and intentions to offend under very specific and controlled circumstances. Also, this innovative approach to deterrence research will permit the examination of the instantaneous relationship between the costs and benefits of offending and one's intention to commit a criminal act. Specifically, the study will expose male college students to hypothetical situations related to sexual assault, theft and drunk driving, criminal acts that this population shows a considerable propensity to commit. Also, the survey instrument enables collection of data on a range of variables related to the deterrent effects of punishment, including the deterrent effect of formal versus informal sanctions, of the certainty versus the severity of punishment, the impact of moral beliefs, and the determinants of perceptions about risk of sanctions. The analytical techniques will enable analysis of the data for each crime category separately. The research will put to test the usefulness of the scenario method for deterrence research, and holds promise for advancing empirical knowledge related to a series of recurring issues, yet unresolved, in the literature on the deterrent effects of punishment.
