Deterrent and Experiential Effects: the Problem of Causal Order in Perceptual Deterrence Research
| Published date | 01 July 1982 |
| Author | Gordon P. Waldo,Theodore G. Chiricos,Raymond Paternoster,Linda Saltzman |
| Date | 01 July 1982 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002242788201900203 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
172
DETERRENT
AND
EXPERIENTIAL
EFFECTS:
THE
PROBLEM
OF
CAUSAL
ORDER
IN
PERCEPTUAL
DETERRENCE
RESEARCH
LINDA
SALTZMAN
RAYMOND
PATERNOSTER
GORDON P.
WALDO
THEODORE
G.
CHIRICOS
This
paper
reports
on
the
first
longitudinal
study
to
consider
the
relationship
between
perceptions
of
legal
sanctions
and
self-reported
criminality.
The
longi-
tudinal
design
helps
to
address
the
problem
of
interpreting
causal order
that
traditionally
has
troubled
deterrence
researchers
using
cross-sectional
data.
Self-reports
of
unlawful
behavior
(petty
theft,
marijuana
use,
payment
using
bad
checks)
over
the
past
year
are
correlated
both
with
perceptions
of
legal
sanctions
measured
a
year
earlier
(Time
1)
and
with
perceptions
of
sanctions
at
the
time
of
the
self-reports
(Time
2),
for
a
random
sample
of
300
under-
graduates
at
a
large
state
university.
The
principal
advantage
of
this
method
is
that
it
affords
a
comparison
of
"deterrent"
effects
(perceived
sanctions
at
Time
1
and
subsequent
reported
behavior)
with
what
are
termed
"experiential"
ef-
fects
(reported
behavior
and
subsequent
perceived
sanctions
at
Time
2).
The
latter
have
been
consistently
treated
as
deterrent
effects
by
prior
researchers
using
cross-sectional
data.
For
perceived
certainty
of
arrest
for
generalized
oth-
ers,
the
observed
deterrent
effect
was
weak
and
in
every
instance
less
than
the
experiential
effect.
However,
perceived
certainty
of
one’s
own
arrest
produced
modest
but
consistent
deterrent
as
well
as
experiential
effects.
A
path
analysis
suggests
that
the
deterrent
effect
of
perceived
certainty
(personal
or
aggregate)
is
much
weaker
than
once
believed
and
the
experiential
effect
is
substantially
stronger.
The
implications
of
these
findings
for
an
interactive
model
of
de-
terrence
are
considered.
Since
the
early
1970s,
deterrence
research
has
focused
on
the
rela-
tionship
between
perceptions
of
the
certainty
and
severity
of
pun-
ishment
and
self-reported
involvement
in
illegal
activities.
The
percep-
tual
deterrence
literature
is
voluminous,
with
over
twenty-five
pub-
LINDA
SALTZMAN:
Assistant
Professor,
Department
of
Sociology,
Mankato
State
University,
Minnesota.
RAYMOND
PATERNOSTER:
Assistant
Professor,
Col-
lege
of
Criminal
Justice,
University
of
South
Carolina,
Columbia.
GORDON
P.
WALDO:
Professor,
School
of
Criminology,
Florida
State
Umversity,
Tallahassee.
THEODORE
G.
CHIRICOS:
Professor,
School
of
Criminology,
Florida
State
Univer-
sity.
173
lished
research
reports
(for
reviews,
see
Gibbs,
1975;
Anderson,
1979).
Although
there
are
some
inconsistencies
reported
in
the
literature,
the
general
conclusion
to
be
drawn
from
the
evidence
is
that
perceptions
of
punishment
risk
(particularly
measures
of
perceived
personal
risk),
al-
though
not
punishment
severity,
do
act
as
a
deterrent
to
illegal
acts.’
The
current
state
of
perceptual
deterrence
work
was
recently
sum-
marized
by
Jensen
et
al.
(1978:74-75):
Hence,
it
can
be
concluded
with
some
confidence
that
there
is
a
stable
and
persistent
relation
consistent
with
the
deterrence
doctrine.
Thus,
there
is
as
much
empirical
support
for
including
beliefs
about
punishment
in
the-
ories
of
crime
and
delinquency
as
there
is
for
including
variables
such
as
social
class,
age,
gender,
and
ties
to
conventional
or
unconventional
oth-
ers.
There
is
reason
to
be
skeptical
of
the
theoretical
cloture
which
Jensen
et
al.
suggest
in
the
above
passage.
This
skepticism
is
due,
in
large
part,
to
a
major
methodological
weakness
of
previous
perceptual
deterrence
research.
Most
perceptual
studies
have
correlated
re-
spondents’
perceptions
of
sanction
risk
with
a
self-reported
measure
of
past
criminal
behavior
collected
at
the
same
time
as
the
perceptions.
These
reported
correlations,
then,
reflect
the
relationship
between
the
perceptions
measured
at
that
point
and
illegal
behavior
that
preceded
the
perceptions
in
time.
Deterrence
researchers
have
interpreted
nega-
tive
correlations
between
current
perceptions
of
punishment
certainty
and
prior
behavior
as
evidence
of
a
deterrent
effect:
Perceived
Sanc-
tions-Behavior.
Inasmuch
as
the
behavior
occurred
before
the
mea-
surement
of
perceptions,
however,
what
these
researchers
may
actually
be
describing
is
an
&dquo;experiential&dquo;
effect,
the
effect
of
previous
behavior
on
current
perceptions:
Behavior
-Perceived
Sanctions.
The
observed
negative
correlations
between
perceived
risk
and
self-reported
criminality
may
only
reflect
the
fact
that
people
who
com-
mit
illegal
acts
and
get
away
with
it
(as
most
do)
tend
to
lower
their
perceptions
of
the
risks involved.
The
problem
of
appropriate
causal
order
may
become
particularly
acute
when
the
measure
of
perceived
risk
is
a
measure
of
perceived
personal
risk
(the
risk
of
punishment
of
1.
For
the
most
part,
deterrence
researchers
who
have
investigated
the
rela-
tionship
between
perceived
severity
and
illegal
behavior
have
found
either
weak
correla-
tions
(Waldo
and
Chiricos,
1972;
Teevan,
1976;
Bailey
and
Lott,
1976;
Tittle,
1980)
or
correlations
in
the
opposite
direction
(Silberman,
1976;
Meier
and
Johnson,
1977).
Re-
cent
research
has
called
into
question
the
methodological
adequacy
of
these
studies
as
it
pertains
to
both
the
operationalization
of
perceived
severity,
and
the
existence
of
an
interaction
between
severity
and
certainty
of
punishment
and
illegal
behavior
(Anderson
et
al.,
1977;
Grasmick
and
Bryjak,
1980).
These
studies
have
found
more
compelling
evidence
of
a
deterrent
effect
for
perceived
severity,
suggesting
the
need
for
additional,
more
careful
research.
To continue reading
Request your trial