Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:01:21.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decision Making by Crime Victims: A Multimethod Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Martin S. Greenberg ,
R. Barry Ruback  and
David R. Westcott
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Since most crimes investigated by police result from notification by victims, crime victims can be viewed as the gatekeepers of the criminal justice system. This paper describes the results of a series of studies which employed multiple methodologies to investigate the decisions of property crime victims to notify the police. The four methods used in this research included (a) an archival analysis of police records, (b) interviews with crime victims, (c) simulation studies using college students, and (d) experiments in a field laboratory. Two convergent findings emerged from the data. Social influence was found to be an important determinant of both the decision to call the police and the delay in such notification. If others advised the victim to call the police, the crime was more likely to be reported, but, ironically, the greater the number of people consulted, the longer the delay in reporting the crime. The second convergent finding was that situational factors played a stronger role in affecting delay in notification than did characteristics of the victim. Situational factors included the type of crime and the time of day when it was discovered, as well as the number of others talked to and the type of advice received from them. Several divergent findings across methods raised questions about the relative adequacy of each method for the problems being investigated, and helped identify sources of similarities and differences in the conceptual and operational definitions employed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 17 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Psychology and Law , 1982 , pp. 47 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 The Law and Society Association.

Footnotes

*

The research reported here was supported by funds granted to the first author by PHS Research Grant No. MH 27526, National Institute of Mental Health (Center for Studies of Crime and Delinquency). We would also like to thank Thomas Cooley for his help in conducting the simulation studies.

References

ABELSON, Robert (1968) “Simulation of Social Behavior,” in Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 2). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
BICKMAN, Leonard and Dennis P., ROSENBAUM (1977) “Crime Reporting as a Function of Bystander Encouragement, Surveillance, and Credibility,” 35 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 577.Google Scholar
BLACK, Donald (1971) “The Social Organization of Arrest,” 23 Stanford Law Review 1087.Google Scholar
BLACK, Donald J. and Albert J., REISS Jr. (1967) “Patterns of Behavior in Police and Citizen Transactions,” in President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Studies in Crime and Law Enforcement in Major Metropolitan Areas, Field Surveys III, Vol. II. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
BOWER, Gordon H., John B., BLACK and Terrence J., TURNER (1979) “Scripts in Memory for Text,” 11 Cognitive Psychology 177.Google Scholar
CAMPBELL, Donald T. and Julian C., STANLEY (1966) Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
DAWSON, Robert O. (1967) Sentencing: The Decision as to Type, Length, and Conditions of Sentence. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
EBBESEN, Ebbe B. and KONEČNI, Vladimir J. (1975) “Decision Making and Information Integration in the Courts: The Setting of Bail,” 32 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 805.Google Scholar
EFRAN, Michael G. (1974) “The Effect of Physical Appearance on the Judgement of Guilt, Interpersonal Attraction, and Severity of Recommended Punishment in a Simulated Jury Task,” 8 Journal of Research in Personality 45.Google Scholar
FESTINGER, Leon (1954) “A Theory of Social Comparison Processes,” 7 Human Relations 117.Google Scholar
GAROFALO, James (1977) Local Victim Surveys: A Review of the Issues. Analytic Report SD-VAD-2, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
GOFFMAN, Erving (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.Google Scholar
GREENBERG, Martin S., R. Barry, RUBACK, Chauncey E., WILSON, and Michael K., MILLS (1980) “Theft Victims' Decision to Call the Police: An Experimental Approach,” in Cooke, G. (ed.), The Role of the Forensic Psychologist. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
GREENBERG, Martin S., Chauncey E., WILSON, and Michael K., MILLS (1982) “Victim Decision Making: An Experimental Approach,” In V.J. Konečni and E.B. Ebbesen (eds.), The Criminal Justice System: A Social-Psychological Analysis. San Francisco, W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
GREENBERG, Martin S., Chauncey E., WILSON, R. Barry, RUBACK, and Michael K., MILLS (1979) “Social and Emotional Determinants of Victim Crime Reporting,” 42 Social Psychology Quarterly 364.Google Scholar
HALL, Donald J. (1975) “Role of the Victim in the Prosecution and Disposition of a Criminal Case,” 28 Vanderbilt Law Review 931.Google Scholar
HINDELANG, Michael J. and Michael, GOTTFREDSON (1976) “The Victim's Decision not to Invoke the Criminal Justice Process,” In W.F. McDonald (ed.), Criminal Justice and the Victim. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
KONEČNI Vladimir, J. and Ebbe B., EBBESEN (1979) “External Validity of Research in Legal Psychology,” 3 Law and Human Behavior 39.Google Scholar
LATANÉ, Bibb and John M., DARLEY (1970) The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn't He Help? New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.Google Scholar
LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION (1981) Criminal Victimization in the United States—1979. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION (1977) Criminal Victimization in the United States: A Comparison of 1974 and 1975 Findings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION (1972) San Jose Methods Test of Known Crime Victims. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
LOFTUS, Elizabeth F. (1979) Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
PAYNE, John W., Myron L., BRAUNSTEIN, and John S., CARROLL (1978) “Exploring Predecisional Behavior: An Alternative Approach to Decision Research,” 22 Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 17.Google Scholar
RUBACK, R. Barry, Martin S., GREENBERG, and David R., WESTCOTT (in press) “An Archival Analysis of Victim Reporting,” Victimology: An International Journal.Google Scholar
RUBACK, R. Barry, Martin S., GREENBERG, and Chauncey E., WILSON (1979) “Theft Victims' Decision to Call the Police: Some Parameters of Bystander Influence.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York, September, 1979.Google Scholar
SCHACHTER, Stanley, and Jerome E., SINGER (1962) “Cognitive, Social, and Physiological Determinants of Emotional States,” 69 Psychological Review 379.Google Scholar
SCHANK, Roger C. and Robert P., ABELSON, (1977) Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
STEWART, John E. III (1980) “Defendant's Attractiveness as a Factor in the Outcome of Criminal Trials: An Observational Study,” 10 Journal of Applied Social Psychology 348.Google Scholar
SULS, Terry M. and Richard L., MILLER (eds.) (1977) Social Comparison Processes: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere/Halstead.Google Scholar
VAN KIRK, Marvin (1978) Response Time Analysis: Executive Summary. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
VIDMAR, Neil (1979) “The Other Issues in Jury Simulation Research,” 3 Law and Human Behavior 95.Google Scholar
WEBB, Eugene J., Donald T., CAMPBELL, Richard D., SCHWARTZ, Lee, SECHREST, And J.B., GROVE (1981) Nonreactive Measures in the Social Sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
WEITEN, Wayne and Shari, DIAMOND (1979) “A Critical Review of the Jury Simulation Paradigm,” 3 Law and Human Behavior 71.Google Scholar
WESTCOTT, David R., Martin S., GREENBERG, and R. Barry, RUBACK (1982) “The Effect of Social Influence on Victims' Decision to Report a Crime.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Louisville, Kentucky, March, 1982.Google Scholar
WESTCOTT, David R. (1980) “Social Influence and Theft Victims' Decision to Call the Police.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada, September, 1980.Google Scholar
YOST, L.R., and R.W., DODGE (1970) Household Survey of Victims of Crime, Second Pretest (Baltimore, Maryland). Prepared by the Demographic Surveys Division of the Bureau of Census. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar