Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Access Criminology and Criminal Justice journals now

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pogarsky, G.
Right arrow Articles by Piquero, A. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Can Punishment Encourage Offending? Investigating The "resetting" Effect

Greg Pogarsky

Alex R. Piquero

Several recent studies report that punished individuals appear more likely to offend in the future and believe that the certainty of punishment is lower than do their less punished/unpunished counterparts. This article investigates two competing explanations for the latter finding. Under the selection account, punishment simply identifies the most committed offenders whose certainty estimates, even following punishment, remain lower than those of less committed offenders. The second account, resetting, invokes a judgment and decision-making bias known as the "gambler’s fallacy." Under this explanation, punished offenders reset their sanction certainty estimate, apparently believing they would have to be exceedingly unlucky to be apprehended again. Herein, we report a preliminary empirical investigation of these explanations and address the challenge to contemporary deterrence theory posed by the "positive punishment effect."

Key Words: specific deterrence • decision making • punishment • resetting bias • drunk driving

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 40, No. 1, 95-120 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0022427802239255
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Crime DelinquencyHome page
L. Kazemian and M. Le Blanc
Differential Cost Avoidance and Successful Criminal Careers: Random or Rational?
Crime Delinquency, January 1, 2007; 53(1): 38 - 63.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Research in Crime and DelinquencyHome page
C. J. Rebellon
Do Adolescents Engage in Delinquency to Attract the Social Attention of Peers? An Extension and Longitudinal Test of the Social Reinforcement Hypothesis
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, November 1, 2006; 43(4): 387 - 411.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J Offender Ther Comp CriminolHome page
S. E. Carmichael and A. R. Piquero
Deterrence and Arrest Ratios
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, February 1, 2006; 50(1): 71 - 87.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Theoretical CriminologyHome page
E. V. Botchkovar and C. R. Tittle
Crime, shame and reintegration in Russia
Theoretical Criminology, November 1, 2005; 9(4): 401 - 442.
[Abstract] [PDF]