Rational choice theory of criminology views offenders as rational actors who weigh the costs and benefits of committing a crime. It assumes individuals decide to offend based on a cost-benefit analysis of both personal factors and situational factors, choosing to commit crimes when the perceived benefits outweigh potential costs.
Key Takeaways
Theoretical Origins
The emphasis on the relationship between human rationality and criminal conduct dates to the 17th century which saw increasingly naturalistic views on human beings gain predominance in intellectual discourse.
Hobbes, for instance, contended that humans pursue self-interest with little regard to such a pursuit’s impact on others (Hobbes, 1651). Thus, the ensuing chaos would necessitate a social contract to ensure safety and order.
The 18th century saw Beccaria and Bentham arguing that a conscious endeavor to minimize pain and maximize pleasure governs human behavior (Beccaria, 1764, 1789). Beccaria additionally held that certain, severe and swift punishment, proportionate to the crime perpetrated, constitutes the finest deterrent against future maleficence.
More recently, Clarke and Cornish (1987) have appealed torational choice theoryto better understand crime control policies. Using the theory as a framework, they have introduced ‘choice structures’ to classify crimes, and identify factors individuals must consider before engaging in transgressions.
Clarke and Cornish reason that the rational choice model can unveil lines of inquiry accounting for criminal conduct, and that attempts to fight crime should ideally increase the barriers to perpetrating it.
What are the key components of rational choice theory criminology?
The following assumptions underpin rational choice theory in criminology (Beaudry-Cyr, 2015; Turner, 1997):
How Rational Choice Theory Explains Crime
Rational choice theory employs two subsidiary theories to explain crime (Beaudry-Cyr, 2015):
Instead of attributing crime to what some sociologists identify as root causes (such as poverty and inequality), routine activity theory argues that the interplay between opportunity, motivation and vulnerable targets primarily accounts for criminal conduct.
The rise of crime following WWII, which coincided with the boom of Western economies and the expansion of welfare states, has been cited as an example of how the opportunity to steal more (because of the society’s increased prosperity), better accounts for crime (rather than problems such as inequality and poverty).
Cohen and Felson have further noted that significant structural phenomena, rather than random and trivial factors, characterize the conditions under which predatory violations transpire.
Though routine activity theory remains controversial among many, its potency to explain crimes such as the following seems seldom disputed:
Instead of merely responding to a crime following its perpetration, situation choice theory calls for the systematic design and permanent management of the physical and social atmosphere.
Examples of such measures have included better streetscaping, the installation of alarms, improved lighting over public spaces, surveillance of neighborhood activities, the employment of security guards and the incorporation of property marking (Homel, 1996).
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Theory
Empirical Support
This implies that rational decision-making governs identifying opportunities and targets. The same seemingly holds true for sex-trade workers. Research shows that women rationally decide whom to solicit and engage with, and what risks to take in fulfilling an interaction (Maher, 1996).
Moreover, substance offenders too, appear to rationally make their decisions to use drugs based upon the apparent benefits thereof in light of potential related costs (Petraitis, Flay and Miller, 1995).
Furthermore, research on drug dealers point out that a cost-benefit analysis on the economics of the drug trade likely precedes involvement in illicit drug distribution (MacCoun and Reuter, 1992).
Additionally, theft and acts of violence too, seem to conform to the rational choice theory model (Matsueda, Kreager and Huizinga, 2006). They appear to be a function of perceived opportunities, risk of arrest and psychic rewards—especially involving being viewed as ‘cool’ within groups.
Perpetrators of violence seem highly selective in choosing their targets, often picking vulnerable people incapable of protecting themselves.
Criticism
Despite its wide appeal, the rational choice model in criminology has garnered notable criticism. O’Grady, for instance, has argued that the theory falsely assumes that all persons are capable of making rational choices (O”Grady, 2011).
He has pointed out that the theory fails to explain why young offenders, unlike their adult counterparts, would have the burden of responsibility excused from them. O’Grady further reasons that the theory seem to disregard persons considered NCRMD (Not Criminally Responsible on account of Mental Disorder).
Moreover, individuals who, without regard for possible alternatives or long-term consequences, engage in impulsive robberies to procure the basic necessities of life for immediate gratification provide another case to consider (Wright, Brookman and Bennett, 2006).
Further Information
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1987). Understanding crime displacement: An application of rational choice theory.Criminology, 25(4), 933-948.
De Haan, W., & Vos, J. (2003). A crying shame: The over-rationalized conception of man in the rational choice perspective.Theoretical Criminology, 7(1), 29-54.
How Offenders Make Decisions: Evidence of Rationality
References
Beaudry‐Cyr, M. (2015). Rational Choice Theory. The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, 1-3.
Beccaria, C. [1764] (1996). Of crimes and punishments. (J. Grigson, Trans.) New York, NY: Marsilio Publishers.
Bentham, J. [1789] (1948). An introduction to the principle of morals and legislations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Bouffard, J., Bry, J., Smith, S., & Bry, R. (2008). Beyond the “Science of Sophomores” Does the Rational Choice Explanation of Crime Generalize From University Students to an Actual Offender Sample?.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,52(6), 698-721.
Carmichael, S. and Piquero, A.R. (2004). Sanctions, perceived anger, and criminal offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. Special Issue: Offender Decision Making, 20(4), 371-393.
Carroll, J., & Weaver, F. (2017). Shoplifters” perceptions of crime opportunities: A process-tracing study. InThe reasoning criminal(pp. 19-38). Routledge.
Corbett, C., & Simon, F. (1992). Decisions to break or adhere to the rules of the road, viewed from the rational choice perspective.Brit. J. Criminology,32, 537.
Clarke, R. and Harris, P. (1992). Auto theft and its prevention. In M. Tonry and N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Edition (pp. 1−54). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Clarke, R. V. G. (1997). Situational crime prevention. Criminal Justice Press.
Clarke, Ronald R., ed. (1997). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (2nd ed.). New York: Harrow and Heston. ISBN 0-911577-39-4.
Cohen, Lawrence E.; Felson, Marcus (1979). “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach”. American Sociological Review. 44 (4): 588–608.
Cornish, D. and Clarke, R. (1986)The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offendingNew York: Springer-Verlag.
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1987). Understanding crime displacement: An application of rational choice theory. Criminology, 25(4), 933-948.
Cornish, D. (2017). Theories of action in criminology: Learning theory and rational choice approaches. InRoutine activity and rational choice(pp. 351-382). Routledge.
Farrell, G. (2017). Situational crime prevention and its discontents: Rational choice and harm reduction versus ‘cultural criminology’. InCrime Opportunity Theories(pp. 343-369). Routledge.
Felson, Marcus; Cohen, Lawrence E. (1980). “Human Ecology and Crime: A Routine Activity Approach”. Human Ecology. 8 (4): 389–406.
Government of Ontario, Ministry of Children and Youth Services, Communications and Marketing Branch. “Ministry of Children and Youth Services.” Chapter 3: Rational Choice And Routine Activities Theory, Government of Ontario, Ministry of Children and Youth Services, Communications and Marketing Branch, http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/professionals/oyap/roots/volume5/chapter03_rational_choice.aspx
Hobbes, T (1651). Leviathan. New York: Modern Library.
Homel, R. (1996). The politics and practice of situational crime prevention. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
MacCoun, R. and Reuter, P. (1992). Are the wages of sin $30 an hour? Economic aspects of street-level drug dealing. Crime and Delinquency, 38(4), 477−491.
Maher, L. (1996). Hidden in the light: Occupational norms among crack-using street level sex workers. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 143−173.
Matsueda, R. L., Kreager, D.A. and Huizinga, D. (2006). Deterring delinquents: A rational choice model of theft and violence. American Sociological Review, 71(1), 95-122.
Nickerson, C. (2021, Dec 15). Rational Choice Theory. Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/rational-choice-theory.html
O”Grady, William (2011). Crime in Canadian Context (2nd ed.). Don Mills: Oxford University Press. pp. 127–130.
Paternoster, R., & Simpson, S. (2017). A rational choice theory of corporate crime. InRoutine activity and rational choice(pp. 37-58). Routledge.
Petraitis, J., Flay. B, and Miller, T. (1995). Reviewing theories of adolescent substance use: Organizing pieces in the puzzle. Psychological Bulletin, 177, 67−86.
Schlueter, G. R., O”Neal, F. C., Hickey, J., & Seiler, G. L. (1989). Rational vs. nonrational shoplifting types; The implications for loss prevention strategies.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,33(3), 227-239.
Topalli, V. (2005). Criminal expertise and offender decision-making: An experimental analysis of how offenders and non-offenders differentially perceive social stimuli.Brit. J. Criminology,45, 269.
Turner, J. (1997). The structure of sociological theory. 6 th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wright, R., Brookman, F. and Bennett, T. (2006). Foreground dynamics of street robbery in Britain. British Journal of Criminology, 46(1), 1-15.
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Ayesh PereraResearcherB.A, MTS, Harvard UniversityAyesh Perera, a Harvard graduate, has worked as a researcher in psychology and neuroscience under Dr. Kevin Majeres at Harvard Medical School.
Ayesh PereraResearcherB.A, MTS, Harvard University
Ayesh Perera
Researcher
B.A, MTS, Harvard University
Ayesh Perera, a Harvard graduate, has worked as a researcher in psychology and neuroscience under Dr. Kevin Majeres at Harvard Medical School.
