CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 297Law, Economics, and Judicial SystemsCriminal Justice and PenologyCrime Patterns and Interventions

Elaborating the Individual Difference Component in Deterrence Theory

Piquero, Alex R., Paternoster, Raymond, Pogarsky, Greg, Loughran, Thomas·2011·Annual Review of Law and Social Science
DOI 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105404
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Deterrence theory and criminal justice policy hold that punishment enhances compliance and deters future criminal activity. Empirical research, however, is decidedly mixed, with some studies finding that punishment weakens compliance, some finding that sanctions have no effect on compliance, and some finding that the effect of sanctions depends on moderating factors. In this review, we do not consider whether sanctions affect compliance but instead consider the conditions under which sanctions affect compliance. Specifically, we focus on understanding the kinds-of-people dimension of sanctions and deterrence to include individual differences (in social bonding, morality, discount rate, impulsivity, social network position, decision-making competence) and situational differences (in emotions, alcohol/drug use). Upon reviewing the empirical evidence, we identify important gaps for theoretical and empirical work and comment on how this work relates to public policy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105404

Cites

109 of 109 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • To investigate the effects of justice system contact on future behavior, it is necessary to account for preexisting individual differences that may cause some individuals to have a higher risk of coming into contact with the justice system.

    “To investigate the effects of justice system contact on future behavior, it is necessary to account for preexisting individual differences that may cause some individuals to have a higher risk of coming into contact with the justice system in the first place (e.g., see Murray, Farrington, & Eisner, 2009; Nagin & Paternoster, 1993; Piquero, Paternoster, Pogarsky, & Loughran, 2011; Pogarsky, 2002).”

    From Does contact with the justice system deter or promote future delinquency? Results from a longitudinal study of British adolescent twins (2020) · cites this paper as Piquero, Paternoster, Pogarsky, & Loughran, 2011

  • The study employed one of the most rigorous nonexperimental methodological designs capable of accounting for a wide range of selection effects and confounding influences.

    “First, we followed the call of previous research (see, e.g., Farrington, 2003; Murray et al., 2009; Piquero et al., 2011; Pogarsky, 2002) and employed one of the most rigorous nonexperimental methodological designs capable of accounting for a wide range of selection effects and confounding influences.”

    From Does contact with the justice system deter or promote future delinquency? Results from a longitudinal study of British adolescent twins (2020) · cites this paper as Piquero et al., 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Bouffard JA, 2000, Of Crime and Criminality, 159
  2. 10.1525/sp.1965.13.1.03a00030 · DOI
  3. Katz J., 1988, Seductions of Crime
  4. Kennedy DM, 2001, Reducing Gun Violence: The Boston Gun Project's Operation Ceasefire. Developing and Implementing Operation Ceasefire.
  5. 10.1257/aer.97.1.444 · DOI
  6. Piquero AR, 2005, Integrated Developmental & Life-Course Theories of Offending: Advances in Criminological Theory, 51
  7. Pratt TC, 2006, Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory—Advances in Criminological Theory, 15, 367
  8. Simon HA., 1979, Models of Thought
  9. 10.1525/sp.1969.16.4.03a00020 · DOI
  10. Wilson JQ., 2010, Natl. Aff., 2, 105

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Piquero, A. R., Paternoster, R., Pogarsky, G., & Loughran, T.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • State University of New York (US)
ORCID
Venue
Annual Review of Law and Social Science
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2011-12-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
335-360
ISSN
  • 1550-3585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-3631
DOI
10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105404
OpenAlex
W2032247959
Cited by
297
References
109
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 12
FWCI
5.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annual Review of Law and Social Science (publishedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
Keywords
deterrence theory, individual differences, punishment, sanctions, compliance, social bonding, morality, discount rate, impulsivity, social network position, decision-making capacity, emotions, alcohol and drug use, situational factors, criminal justice policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review