Abstract The explanatory power of criminological theories may differ across decision‐making stages because involvement decisions (the choice to become involved in crime) and event decisions (the choice between criminal opportunities) are theoretically distinct. Although our understanding of offender decision‐making has advanced greatly in recent years, event decisions remain understudied. Rational choice theory (RCT) indicates that crime benefits, arrest risk, sanction severity, opportunity cost, and payout timeliness should drive event decisions. Other scholarship indicates that the presence of co‐offenders and victim type may also matter. To test the causal effects of each of these factors, we conducted a paired‐profile conjoint experiment with a national sample ( N = 1,023), wherein participants collectively evaluated more than 10,000 criminal opportunities. Consistent with RCT, crime benefits, arrest risk, and sanction severity exerted sizable effects on event decisions. Victim type also mattered, such that participants preferred to target wealthy individuals and large corporations. Other factors (e.g., co‐offenders and opportunity cost) had weaker effects. Event decision‐making was mostly similar regardless of participants’ self‐control or past offending. Our experiment suggests that RCT may be especially useful for explaining event decisions, even if other theories provide a stronger account of involvement decisions.
Krajewski et al. (Wed,) studied this question.