Rational Choice Theory Applied to an Explanation of Juvenile Offender Decision Making in the Chinese Setting
| Published date | 01 March 2021 |
| Author | Jihong Zhao,Xinting Wang,Ruohui Zhao,Hongwei Zhang |
| DOI | 10.1177/0306624X20931429 |
| Date | 01 March 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2020
Article
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
Rational Choice Theory
Comparative Criminology
2021, Vol. 65(4) 434 –457
Applied to an Explanation of
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Juvenile Offender Decision
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20931429
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20931429
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo
Making in the Chinese Setting
Jihong Zhao1, Xinting Wang1 ,
Hongwei Zhang2 , and Ruohui Zhao3
Abstract
Rational choice theory (RCT) is a classical theory in criminology, with deep roots in
the Enlightenment. It has secured a privileged place as a mainstream criminological
theory in the United States. Ironically, RCT has not been applied to research on
juvenile delinquency and related decision making in China. This study attempts to
test the relative utility of RCT among adjudicated juvenile offenders incarcerated in
an institution located in a southwestern province of China based on their responses
to two hypothetical scenarios of offending. The results of the Tobit model analyses
emerged from the two-wave longitudinal data lent strong support to the view that RCT
can indeed serve as an important theory for explaining delinquent behaviors in China.
More specifically, juvenile offenders used cost-benefit analysis to decide if they want to
be involved either in the stealing scenario or in the fighting scenario. A discussion of
findings and public policy implications are highlighted at the end of the paper
Keywords
rational choice theory, juvenile offender, delinquency, longitudinal study, China
Introduction
Rational choice theory (RCT) is one of the classical criminological theories that has deep
roots in the Enlightenment. For example, utilitarian principles and their accompanying
psychological assumptions can be traced back to the writings of Jeremy Bentham ([1789]
1Sam Houston State University, USA
2Jinan University, China
3University of Macau, China
Corresponding Author:
Ruohui Zhao, Department of Sociology, University of Macau, Avenida da Universidade,
Taipa, Macau, 999078, China.
Email: rzhao@um.edu.mo
Zhao et al.
435
1948). Bentham posited that a fundamental aspect of human nature is goal-directed and
guided by education, with pleasure seeking the primary good being sought. Human hap-
piness can hence be understood as a composite of efforts to maximize pleasure and mini-
mize pain in one’s life. Some 30 years prior to Bentham, Cesare Beccaria ([1764] 1963)
defended the privileged status of individual rights arising from a social contract concep-
tion of community, and argued that any punishment should be proportionate to the sever-
ity of the crime. RCT holds that criminal acts are generally the result of an individual’s
rather instantaneous decision making reflecting a quick calculation of likely costs versus
gains. Since the second half of the 20th century, and particularly after the publication of
Becker’s (1968) influential foundational article, a major revival of interest in RCT
research in the field of criminology has taken place (for a review, see Apel, 2013;
Bouffard et al., 2008; Loughran et al., 2016; Matsueda, 2013).
Over the past three decades, scholars working on juvenile delinquency in China
have typically borrowed criminological theories developed in the West to explain
juvenile delinquency in the Chinese context. The theories borrowed from literature
developed in the West include social control theory (e.g., Zhang et al., 2014), general
strain theory (Bao et al., 2014), labeling theory/re-integrative shaming theory (Chen,
2002), low self-control theory (Ren et al., 2017), and subculture theory (Ren et al.,
2016; Zhang et al., 2017; for a review, see Shen & Hall, 2015; Zhang, 2008). Ironically,
to the best of our knowledge RCT has not been applied in research on juvenile delin-
quency, deviance and related decision making in China. We speculate here that cul-
tural differences in core value orientations may offer an explanation for the lack of
application of RCT to juvenile delinquency research in China.
RCT arises from the cornerstone of individualism, and a key building block of
individualism is the fundamental principle of understanding as the individual right
to unrestricted freedom of choice in making personal decisions. Consequently, indi-
viduals exercise their right to make their own choices, and in turn they are fully
responsible for the actions they take (Becker, 1968). In stark contrast to the political
and cultural heritage of the West, group-oriented harmony is the paramount goal in
Chinese society (e.g., Anderson & Gil, 1998; Chen, 2004; Jiao, 2001). More specifi-
cally, the essence of Confucian philosophy, which has powerfully shaped both his-
torical and contemporary Chinese culture, entails the achievement of social harmony
or “greatest unity.” This is a goal that emphasizes the importance of collective
behaviors while downplaying individual accomplishments and claims of personal
rights in Chinese society (Anderson & Gil, 1998). For example, obedience to and
respect for one’s parents and teachers as well as for elders are often considered an
appropriate standard for adolescents (Zhang et al., 2014). Exercising individual
rights and being at liberty to decide one’s own course of life are strongly discour-
aged among adolescents, such notions often being depicted as signs of selfishness
and a lack of respect for one’s elders. What is characterized as the “hedonistic pur-
suit of self-interest” is socially condemned, and when it occurs among Chinese stu-
dents, it is often viewed as just grounds for casting such youth from society (Jiang
& Lambert, 2009). The ever-growing body of literature on RCT published in the
United States thus has no equivalent in the Chinese setting.
436
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 65(4)
The purpose of this study is to assess the utility of RCT in understanding juvenile
delinquency in contemporary China. More specifically, we seek to examine whether
RCT is more universal than we might expect, occurring even in the distinctive Chinese
cultural setting. The data were collected from two waves of face-to-face interviews
with adjudicated offenders incarcerated in the only juvenile prison in a province with
48 million population. The two waves were separated by 6 months. The rationale for
the use of an offender sample was in line with the practice of American scholars who
have noted the obvious advantage of surveying offenders rather than college students
for understanding deviance (e.g., Bouffard et al., 2008; Decker et al., 1993).
This study attempts to provide answers to the following three research questions
regarding the utility of RCT in the Chinese setting. First, it examines the degree to
which juvenile offenders utilize cost-benefit analyses in their decisions regarding a
property crime event (stealing of battery scenario) and a violent crime event (fighting
scenario). The subsequent question concerns the relative contributions of cost and
benefit-related variables when juvenile offenders make their decisions in association
with deviance and/or delinquency. Do benefit-related variables outweigh cost-related
variables, or vice versa? This study seeks to determine whether juvenile offenders in
China are more likely to value potential gains than fear potential losses. Finally, as
American scholars have proposed, we expand the scope of our inquiry by including
additional theoretically important variables such as low self-control and association
with delinquent friends, assessing the significance of these theory-derived variables in
the analysis (e.g., Matsueda et al., 2006; Nagin & Paternoster, 1993).
Literature Review
The contemporary revival of RCT in criminology began with the publication of
Becker’s economic approach to crime and punishment. Mehlkop and Graeff (2010)
have noted that Becker’s (1968) article can be viewed as the most prominent and influ-
ential work on RCT of crime in criminology. The article emphasizes the language of
mathematics to characterize the nature of human decision making in terms of maintain-
ing an ongoing balance between rewards and costs (also see Loughran et al., 2016;
McCarthy, 2002). For Becker (1968), the central overriding task for scholars seeking to
understand and then treat the problem of juvenile delinquency is to focus on the optimal
level of proactive deterrence that can be exercised by government agencies, including
the police, prosecutors and courts. According to the economic model of RCT, offenders
are not driven by ambient social conditions to any great degree. Instead, offenders’
subjective evaluation of likely costs and potential gains is the primary determinant
regarding the commission of crimes (Mehlkop & Graeff, 2010). This presumption
clearly bears the imprint of the classical school of RCT. Becker notes in this regard:
“Lest the reader be repelled by the apparent novelty of an ‘economic’ framework for
illegal behavior, let him recall that two important contributors to criminology during the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Beccaria and Bentham, explicitly applied an eco-
nomic calculus” (1968, p. 209). This economic approach to crime deterrence accords
primary attention to national policy on crime at the macro-level, such as the workforce
Zhao et al.
437
level...
To continue reading
Request your trial