Methodological artifacts in tests of rational choice theory

Criminal decision making is an inherently natural and highly individualized process; however, rather than allowing participants to self-identify the costs and benefits that impact their own decisions to offend, rational choice researchers have typically provided participants with a uniform list of consequences to consider. Indirect evidence suggests this technique may alter the participants' perceptions of consequences, yet no study to date has examined this supposition directly. In the current study, participants were randomly assigned to experimental conditions in which they either received a list of traditional costs and benefits to assess or were asked to self-generate their own list to assess. As in past research, when participants were allowed to self-generated consequences they identified several "novel" costs/benefits that have certainty/severity rating comparable to many of the traditionally examined consequences. Results also showed that consequences are more likely to be perceived as possible outcomes (i.e., receive a non-zero probability) when they are presented by researchers than when they are self-generated. Finally, the average certainty and severity of negative consequences do not differ across condition, while ratings of the certainty and value of benefits from crime are relatively lower when they are presented by researchers. Implications for rational choice theory and survey research in criminology more broadly are discussed.