Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-01T12:51:54.736Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Experimental Tests of Criminological Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

By
Jean Marie McGloin  and
Kyle J. Thomas
Edited by
Brandon C. Welsh ,
Anthony A. Braga  and
Gerben J. N. Bruinsma
Jean Marie McGloin
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Kyle J. Thomas
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Brandon C. Welsh
Affiliation:
Northeastern University
Anthony A. Braga
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, New Jersey
Gerben J. N. Bruinsma
Affiliation:
Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement
Get access

Summary

THE SCARCITY OF THEORY IN EXPERIMENTAL CRIMINOLOGY

Though randomized, controlled, experimental trials hardly dominate the landscape of research in criminology, we nonetheless find ourselves in the midst of what many scholars are calling the era of experimental criminology (Clear 2010; Sampson 2010). As Angrist (2006: 23) observes, “criminologists do not appear to have… ‘sciencephobia’…Criminology is the only one [social science] to show a marked increase in the use of randomized trials since the mid-sixties.” Not only has the reliance on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine “what works” grown in previous years – though the number of such inquiries arguably remains tied to the productivity of a handful of scholars (Farrington 2003) – but the prominence and endorsement of this method has also grown markedly, both inside and outside of academic circles.

To be clear, the view that randomized, controlled experimental methods provide important and rigorous methodological insight into empirical questions of interest to social scientists is hardly new. However, undeniably, the relevance and importance of this method for criminology specifically has gained increased momentum in recent years. The past decade and a half has witnessed the establishment of the Academy of Experimental Criminology, the Jerry Lee Centre of Experimental Criminology, the American Society of Criminology’s Division of Experimental Criminology, the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group, the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, and the Journal of Experimental Criminology. These organizations (and the journal) have a clear agenda of focusing attention on the importance of experiments for social science generally and criminology in particular; they argue that successfully implemented RCTs are the “gold standard” by which we should assess the effectiveness of policy and interventions.

Type
Chapter
Information
Experimental Criminology
Prospects for Advancing Science and Public Policy
 , pp. 15 - 42
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Akers, Ronald L. 1998. Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D. 2006. “Instrumental Variables Methods in Experimental Criminological Research: What, Why, and How.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 2(1): 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D., and Pischke, Jorn-Steffen. 2008. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Asch, Soloman E. 1951. “Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgment.” In Groups, Leadership, and Men, edited by Guetzkow, Harold, pp. 177–90. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University Press.Google Scholar
Bandura, Albert, Ross, Dorothea, and Ross, Sheila A.. 1963. “Vicarious Reinforcement and Imitative Learning.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67(6): 601–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berk, Richard A. 2005. “Randomized Experiments as the Bronze Standard.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 1(4): 416–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bersoff, David M. 1999. “Why Good People Sometimes Do Bad Things: Motivated Reasoning and Unethical Behavior.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25(1): 28–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijleveld, Catrien. 2007. “Fare Dodging and the Strong Arm of the Law: An Experimental Evaluation of Two Different Penalty Schemes for Fare Evasion.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 3(2): 183–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, Etienne, and Bacher, Jean-Luc. 2007. “Situational Deterrence and Claim Padding: Results from a Randomized Field Experiment.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 34: 337–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blueprints. 2011. Blueprints for violence prevention selection criteria. Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
Braga, Anthony A., and Bond, Branda J.. 2008. “Policing Crime and Disorder Hot Spots: A Randomized Control Trial. Criminology 46(3): 577–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braga, Anthony A., Weisburd, David L., Waring, Elin J., Spelman, William, and Gajewski, Francis. 1999. “Problem-oriented Policing in Violent Crime Places: A Randomized Control Experiment. Criminology 37(3): 541–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brannigan, Augustine. 1999. The Rise and Fall of Social Psychology: The Use and Misuse of the Experimental Method. New York: Walter deGruyter.Google Scholar
Brewer, John, and Hunter, Albert. 1989. Multimethod Research: A Synthesis of Styles. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Bryman, Alan. 2003. “Triangulation.” In Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, edited by Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Bryman, Alan E., and Liao, Tim Futing, pp. 1142–3. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Chen, Huey-Tsyh, and Rossi, Peter H.. 1983. “Evaluating with Sense: The Theory-Driven Approach.” Evaluation Review 7(3): 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clear, Todd R. 2010. “Policy and Evidence: The Challenge of the American Society of Criminology: Presidential Address to the American Society of Criminology.” Criminology 48(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Lawrence E., and Felson, Marcus. 1979. “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. American Sociological Review 44(4): 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Thomas D. 2003. “Resistance to Experiments: Why Have Educational Evaluators Chosen Not to Do Randomized Experiments? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 589(1): 114–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornish, Derek, and Clarke, Ronald V.. 1986. The Reasoning Criminal. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, Lee J. 1982. Designing Evaluations of Educational and Social Programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.Google Scholar
Cullen, Francis T., Wright, John Paul, Gendreau, Paul, and Andrews, D. A.. 2003. “What Correctional Treatment Can Tell Us about Criminological Theory: Implications for Social Learning Theory.” In Social Learning Theory and the Explanation of Crime, edited by Akers, Ronald L. and Jenson, Gary F., pp. 339–62. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Deaton, Angus S. 2010. “Instruments, Randomization, and Learning about Development.” Journal of Economic Literature 48(2): 424–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denzin, Norman. 1989. “Strategies of Multiple Triangulation.” In The Research Act: The Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods, edited by Denzin, Norman, pp. 297–313. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Dishion, Thomas J., and Patterson, Gerald R.. 1999. “Model Building in Developmental Psychopathology: A Pragmatic Approach to Understanding and Intervention.” Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 28(4): 502–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duncan, Greg J., Boisjoly, Johanne, Kremer, Michael, Levy, Dan M., and Eccles, Jacque. 2005. “Peer Effects in Drug Use and Sex among College Students.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 33(3): 375–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunford, Franklyn W., Huizinga, David, and Elliott, Delbert S.. 1990. “The Role of Arrest in Domestic Assault: The Omaha Police Experiment.” Criminology 28(2): 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exum, M. Lyn. 2002. “The Application and Robustness of the Rational Choice Perspective in the Study of Intoxicated and Angry Intentions to Aggress.” Criminology 40(4): 933–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, Armin and Heckman, James J.. 2009. “Lab Experiments Are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences.” Science 326(5952): 535–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farrington, David P. 1983. “Randomized Experiments on Crime and Justice.” Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 4(1): 257–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrington, David P. 2003. “A Short History of Randomized Controlled Experiments in Criminology: A Meager Feast.” Evaluation Review 27(3): 218–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrington, David P. 2006. “Key Longitudinal-Experimental Studies in Criminology.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 2(2):121–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrington, David P., and Welsh, Brandon C.. 2005. “Randomized Experiments in Criminology: What Have We Learned in the Last Two Decades?Journal of Experimental Criminology 1(1): 9–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Gary A., and Elsbach, Kimberly D.. 2000. “Ethnography and Experiment in Social Psychological Theory Building: Tactics for Integrating Qualitative Field Data with Quantitative Lab Data.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 36(1): 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flick, Uwe. 1992. “Triangulation Revisited: Strategy of Validation or Alternative?” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 22(2): 175–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaes, Gerald G., and Camp, Scott D.. 2007. “Unintended Consequences: Experimental Evidence for the Criminogenic Effect of Prison Security Level on Post-Release Recidivism.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 5(2): 139–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Margo, and Steinberg, Laurence. 2005. “Peer Influence on Risk Taking, Risk Preference, and Risky Decision Making in Adolescence and Adulthood: An Experimental Study.” Developmental Psychology 41(4): 625–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Barney J., and Strauss, Anselm L.. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Green, Gary S. 1985. “General Deterrence and Television Cable Crime: A Field Experiment in Social Control.” Criminology 23(4): 629–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harcourt, Bernard E. and Ludwig, Jens. 2006. “Broken Windows: New Evidence from New York City and a Five-City Social Experiment.” The University of Chicago Law Review 73 (1): 271–320.Google Scholar
Harrell, W. Andrew, and Garritty, Margaret J.. 1978. “Justification for Laboratory Theft: Moral Behavior of the Victim and Financial Need.” Pacific Sociological Review 21(4): 487–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James J. 1992. “Randomization and Social Policy Evaluation.” In Evaluating Welfare and Training Programs, edited by Manski, Charles F. and Garfinkle, Irwin, pp. 201–30. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J., and Smith, James A.. 1995. “Assessing the Case for Social Experiments.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(2): 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James J., Smith, James A., and Clements, Nancy. 1997. “Making the Most Out of Programme Evaluations and Social Experiments: Accounting for Heterogeneity in Programme Impacts.” The Review of Economic Studies 64(4): 487–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heimer, Karen, and DeCoster, Stacy. 1999. “The Gendering of Violent Delinquency.” Criminology 37(2): 277–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Holder, Eric. 2009. The Vera Institute of Justice’s Third Annual Justice Address. Presented at the Vera Institute of Justice, New York, 2009. Retrieved from: (Accessed April 2013).
Jick, Todd D. 1979. “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.” American Society Quarterly 24(4): 602–11.Google Scholar
Kirk, David S. 2009. “A Natural Experiment on Residential Change and Recidivism: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina.” American Sociological Review 74(3): 484–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kling, Jeffrey R., Ludwig, Jens, and Katz, Lawrence F.. 2005. “Neighborhood Effects on Crime for Female and Male Youth: Evidence from a Randomized Housing Voucher Experiment.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 120(1): 87–130.Google Scholar
Latané, Bibb, and Darley, John M.. 1968. “Group Inhibition of Bystander Intervention in Emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 10(3): 215–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laub, John H., and Sampson, Robert J.. 2003. Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lowenstein, George, Nagin, Daniel S., and Paternoster, Raymond. 1997. “The Effect of Sexual Arousal on Expectations of Sexual Forcefulness.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34(4): 443–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lum, Cynthia, and Yang, Sue-Ming. 2005. “Why Do Evaluation Researchers in Crime and Justice Choose Non-Experimental Methods?” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 1(2): 191–213.Google Scholar
Maruna, Shaud. 2010. “Mixed-Method Research in Criminology: Why Not Go Both Ways? In Handbook of Quantitative Criminology , edited by Piquero, Alex R. and Weisburd, David, pp. 123–40. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Mathison, Sandra. 1988. “Why Triangulate?” Educational Researcher 17(2): 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matza, David. 1964. Delinquency and Drift. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Mazerolle, Lorainne G., Kadleck, Colleen, and Roehl, Jan. 1998. “Controlling Drug and Disorder Problems: The Role of Place Managers.” Criminology 36(2): 371–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCord, Joan. 1978. “A Thirty Year Follow-up of Treatment Effects.” American Psychologist 33(3): 284–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGloin, Jean Marie, and Piquero, Alex R.. 2009. “‘I Wasn’t Alone’: Collective Behaviour and Violent Delinquency.” The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 42 (3): 336–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messerschmidt, James W. 1993. Masculinities and Crime: Critique and Reconceptualization of Theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Milgram, Stanley. 1974. Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
Nagin, Daniel S., and Pogarsky, Greg. 2003. “An Experimental Investigation of Deterrence: Cheating, Self-Serving Bias, and Impulsivity.” Criminology 41(1): 167–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olds, David L., Henderson, Charles R., Cole, Robert, Eckenrode, John, Kitzman, Harriet, Luckey, Dennis, Pettitt, Lisa, Sidora, Kimberly, Morris, Pamela, and Powers, Jane. 1998. “Long-Term Effects of Nurse Home Visitation on Children’s Criminal and Antisocial Behavior: 15 Year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 280(14): 1238–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pawson, Ray, and Tilley, Nick. 1997. Realistic Evaluation. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Pogarsky, Greg. 2004. “Projected Offending and Contemporaneous Rule Violation: Implications for Heterotypic Continuity.” Criminology 42(1): 111–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, Travis C., Cullen, Francis T., Sellers, Christine S., Winfree, Thomas, Madensen, Tamara D., Daigle, Leah E., Fearn, Noelle E., and Gau, Jacinta M.. 2010. “The Empirical Status of Social Learning Theory: A Meta-Analysis.” Justice Quarterly 27(6): 765–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramonas, Andrew. 2009. OJP Nominee Vows to Be a “Good Steward” of Public Funds. Retrieved from: (Accessed April 2013).Google Scholar
Rebellon, Cesare J., Piquero, Nicole L., Piquero, Alex R., and Thaxton, Sherod. 2009. “Do Frustrated Economic Expectations and Objective Economic Inequity Promote Crime?: A Randomized Experiment Testing Agnew’s General Strain Theory.” European Journal of Criminology 6(1): 47–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, Paul D. 1971. A Primer in Theory Construction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Sacerdote, Bruce. 2001. “Peer Effects with Random Assignment: Results for Dartmouth Roommates.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116(2): 681–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Robert J. 2008. “Moving to Inequality: Neighborhood Effects and Experiments Meet Social Structure.” American Journal of Sociology 114(1): 189–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Robert J. 2010. “Gold Standard Myths: Observations on the Experimental Turn in Quantitative Criminology.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 26(4): 489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Robert J., and Laub, John H.. 2005. “Seductions of Method: Rejoinder to Nagin and Tremblay’s Developmental Trajectory Groups: Fact or Fiction?” Criminology 43(4): 905–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, Clifford R. 1931. The Natural History of a Delinquent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, Lawrence W. 2000. “Reducing Incarceration Rates: The Promise of Experimental Criminology.” Crime & Delinquency 46(3): 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, Lawrence W., Schmidt, Janell D., Rogan, Dennis P., Gartin, Patrick R., Cohn, Ellen G., Collins, Dean J., and Bacich, Anthony R.. 1991. “From Initial Deterrence to Longterm Escalation: Short-Custody Arrest for Poverty Ghetto Domestic Violence.” Criminology 29(4): 821–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, Lawrence W., and Strang, Heather. 2004. “ Experimental Ethnography: The Marriage of Quantitative and Qualitative Research. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 595(1): 204–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tittle, Charles R., and Rowe, Alan R.. 1973. “Certainty of Arrests and Crime Rates: A Further Test of the Deterrence Hypothesis.” Social Forces 52(4): 455–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, Richard E., Masse, Louise C., Pagani, Linda, and Vitaro, Frank. 1996. “From Childhood Physical Aggression to Adolescent Maladjustment: The Montreal Prevention Experiment.” In Preventing Childhood Disorders, Substance Use, and Delinquency, edited by Peters, Ray D. and McMahon, Robert J., pp. 268–98. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Ward, David A., Menke, Ben A., Gray, Louis N., and Stafford, Mark. 1986. “Sanctions, Modeling, and Deviant Behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice 14(6): 501–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisburd, David, Lum, Cynthia M., and Petrosino, Anthony. 2001. “Does Research Design Affect Study Outcomes in Criminal Justice?” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578(1): 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisburd, David, and Piquero, Alex R.. 2008. “How Well Do Criminologists Explain Crime? Statistical Modeling in Published Studies. Crime and Justice 37(1): 453–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wikström, Per-Olof H. 2006. “Individuals, Settings, and Acts of Crime: Situational Mechanisms and the Explanation of Crime.” In The Explanation of Crime: Context, Mechanisms and Development, edited by Per-Olof Wikström and Robert J. Sampson, pp. 61–107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wikström, Per-Olof H., and Sampson, Robert J.. 2003. “Social Mechanisms of Community Influence on Crime and Pathways in Criminality.” In Causes of Conduct Disorder and Serious Juvenile Delinquency, edited by Benjamin Lahey, Terrie Moffitt, and Caspi, Avshalom, pp. 118–48. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Fred M. 1986. Meta-analysis: Quantitative Methods for Research Synthesis. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Younts, C. Wesley. 2005. “The Effects of Status and Peer support on the Justifications and Approval of Deviance.” In Experiments in Criminology and Law: A Research Revolution, edited by Horne, Christine and Lovaglia, Michael J., pp. 93–112. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Zimbardo, Philip G. 1971. “The Power and Pathology of Imprisonment.” Congressional Record (Serial No. 15, October 25, 1971). Hearings before Subcommittee No. 3, of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-Second Congress, First Session on Corrections, , Prisons, Prison Reform and Prisoner’s Rights: California. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×