See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314837382

Rational Choice Theory

Chapter · December 2015

DOI: 10.1002/9781118519639.wbecpx038

CITATION READS
1 3,945

1 author:

Maude Beaudry-Cyr
Northeastern University
13 PUBLICATIONS   97 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Maude Beaudry-Cyr on 20 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Rational Choice

Maude Beaudry-Cyr
University of South Florida
maudebeaudry@mail.usf.edu

Word Count: 1,917

Abstract

Rational choice theory is one of the core criminological theories. While its earliest roots can be
traced back to classical criminology, the rational choice theoretical framework has more recently
felt the influence of routine activity theory and situational crime prevention. As it stands, rational
choice theory assumes that participation in criminal activity is the result of a rational decision-
making process by which the costs and benefits associated with crime are consciously weighed.
An individual may decide to participate in criminal activity if the benefits of crime are
determined to be greater than its costs.

Rational choice theory and deterrence theory are both core theories in classical

criminology. Central to the ideology of deterrence theory is the idea that crime can be deterred if

the expected rewards of a criminal behavior are outweighed by the negative consequences

associated with that criminal behavior. As a modern counterpart of deterrence theory, the rational

choice perspective assumes that man has the power and ability to freely choose his own actions

and behaviors. Inherent in the rational choice framework is also the principle of the “utility” of

partaking in a certain behavior. What is meant by this is that as one progresses through the

decision-making process, costs and benefits of potential outcomes are weighed, and rational,

conscious choices are made to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. According to this

utilitarian principle, individuals freely choose to engage in criminal activity because crime is

perceived as gratifying, rewarding, and easy. However, considering the theory’s assumption that

man is rational by nature, it is assumed that the threat or fear of punishment should result in the

individual conforming to the central idea of deterrence. The general assumptions of rational

choice theory can be summarized as follows:

1). Humans are purposive and goal oriented;
2). Humans have sets of hierarchically ordered preferences, or utilities; and
3). In choosing behavior, humans make rational decisions with respect to:
a. the utility of alternative behaviors with reference to the hierarchically ordered
preferences,
b. the costs of each alternative, and
c. the best potential to maximize utility (Turner, 1997, p. 354).

The linkage between man as a rational being and criminal behavior dates back to the

seventeenth century, at a time when more naturalistic views about human behavior began to

replace the predominantly religious approaches to crime. Many of the basic principles of rational

choice can be found in Leviathan ([1651] 1960), in which Thomas Hobbes argued that people are

rational actors seeking to better their interests, regardless of the outcomes on others. Clearly,

chaos within societies would ensue from such behavior were it not for the “social contract”

argument, which suggests that individuals agree to sacrifice a certain level of freedom in order to

live in a safe and orderly society.

More than a century later, some of the ideas from Hobbes’s work were applied to

criminal behavior to begin laying the foundation for classical criminology. According to the

works of Beccaria ([1764] 1996), and in time Bentham ([1789] 1948), people possess free-will

and are therefore empowered to choose their own behaviors. They argue that in a conscious

effort to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, individual decision-making involves the process

of weighing of the costs and benefits of actions. Criminal activity is thus expected to take place

whenever a decision is reached that the benefits associated with committing a crime outweigh the

perceived consequences of the action (Becker, 1968; Cornish & Clarke, 1986; McCarthy, 2002).

While many of the present criminological theories see punishment as the best deterrent to

crime, rational choice theory focuses instead on prevention. As such, Beccaria proposed that

swift, severe, and certain punishment that is proportional to the crime being committed will serve
as the most effective deterrent (Kubrin, Stucky, & Krohn, 2009). Accordingly, due to the

seemingly large increase in the number of incarcerated criminals over the past few decades,

rational choice theory has returned to the forefront as a potentially viable explanation for

criminal behavior.

According to the current rational choice theoretical framework, decision-making models

are believed to vary by crime type, and therefore crime is not considered to be random (Cornish

& Clarke, 1986). Rather, criminal activity is believed to be the product of the interaction between

an individual and the situational context of decision-making. Specifically, empirical testing

across various offense types is suggestive of some degree of foresight and planning among

criminals, in addition to some modifications in behavior to account for “proximal and distal

contingencies” (Cornish & Clarke, 1986, p.13). The rational decision-making process of the

offender also distinguishes between “criminal involvement” and participation in the “criminal

event”. Criminal involvement is based on factors such as moral codes, previous learning

experiences, and personal experiences with crime, and refers to the decision regarding the

willingness to commit crime in order to satisfy needs. Criminal events, on the other hand, refer to

specific offenses that an individual may decide to commit. The decision to carry out the crime is

heavily influenced by contextual and situational factors, such as immediate need for money, as

well as the perceived costs and benefits of the crime (Cornish & Clarke, 1986; Guerette, Stenius,

& McGloin, 2005). This dynamic nature of rational choice decision-making is implicit of the

modernized theory. In sum, a constant revolving cycle of planning, adapting, and evaluating

information leads to the decision-making process involved with present and future criminal

activity (Paternoster, 1989).

 Two subsidiary theories are at the center of modern rational choice theory: situational

choice theory, also known as situational crime prevention, and routine activity theory. The first

theory, situational crime prevention theory, was advanced by R.V. Clarke and later incorporated

into his rational choice theory framework. Founded on the idea that people commit crime based

on situational factors in addition to the crime itself, situational crime prevention attempts to

manipulate the environment to reduce opportunities likely to lead to crime. In essence,

situational crime prevention theory aims to portray criminal activity as harder, riskier, and less

rewarding in the hopes of reducing criminal activity.

Consistent with the rational choice perspectives, routine activity theory focuses on the

characteristics of crime rather than on those of the actual offenders (Cohen & Felson, 1979).

Specifically, the authors examined how the role of opportunities in the rational decision-making

process can converge with certain aspects of everyday life to increase an individual’s inclination

toward criminal activity. According to the theory, three elements must be present for a crime to

occur: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of capable guardianship.

Consistent with the tenets of rational choice theory, Felson and Cohen (1980) argue that

predatory violations occur under conditions that are “neither random not trivial, but rather are

structurally significant phenomena” (p.390). Essentially, whether an individual commits a crime

is largely dependent on the interplay between motivation, opportunity, and the targets that are

present in his or her everyday life. In a more recent assessment of the principles of the routine

activity perspective, Osgood and colleagues (1996) extended the situational explanation of crime

to explain individual differences in offending among a sample of young adults. The authors

reported that a large portion of delinquent behaviors occur during periods of informal and

unsupervised socializing with peers, away from home and authority figures. Specifically, they
found that routine activities are strongly associated with a wide range of delinquent and criminal

behaviors, including heavy alcohol use, illicit drug use, and dangerous driving (Osgood et al.,

1996; Kubrin et al., 2009). The authors conclude that the likelihood of an individual making a

rational decision to commit a crime significantly increases with involvement in unstructured

socializing with peers.

As the modern counterpart of deterrence theory, the rational choice theoretical framework

offers a logical explanation for criminal behavior founded on the premise of man as an agent of

free will and rational decision-making. From this point of view, an individual’s likelihood of

committing a crime is thus based on a relative balance of risks and rewards; crime will only be

deterred if the costs associated with criminal activity outweigh the benefits received if the crime

were committed. Given that this principle of utility is at the base of the rational choice

framework, its direct ties and implications to deterrence and crime control policy should come as

no surprise (Paternoster & Piquero, 1995; Pogarsky & Piquero, 2003). Effective crime deterrence

policy should follow the most basic tenet of rational choice theory and acknowledge that

individuals seek to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. As suggested in the works of Beccaria

([1764] 1996), policymakers should strive for laws that are swift, severe, and certain, and yet

remain proportional to the crime committed. It should also be noted that empirical support for

crime prevention and reduction incentives grounded in a rational choice framework and aimed at

the reduction of situational opportunities for criminal activity has been reported in numerous

case studies (Clarke, 1997). While the simplistic nature of these measures is undoubtedly a great

strength, caution should be exercised to prevent potential unintended long-term consequences

from emerging as a result of crime policies with short-term deterrent effects. The immediate

benefits to society presented by rational choice theory and situation crime prevention may be
attractive from a policy point of view, yet much remains to be tested of this core criminological

perspective. Future research should continue to investigate the validity and potential applicability

of rational choice concepts to crime control policies and crime prevention programs.

SEE ALSO: Crime and Prevention; Deterrence Theory; Routine Activities Theory

References and Further Readings

Beccaria, C. [1764] (1996). Of crimes and punishments. (J. Grigson, Trans.) New York, NY:
Marsilio Publishers.

Becker, G.S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political
Economy, 76, 169–217.

Bentham, J. [1789] (1948). An introduction to the principle of morals and legislations. Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.

Clarke, R. V. G. (1997). Situational crime prevention. Criminal Justice Press.

Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-604.

Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. (1986). Introduction. In D. Cornish & R. Clark (Eds.), The reasoning
criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Felson, M., & L.E. Cohen. (1980). Human ecology and crime: A routine activity
approach. Human Ecology, 8(4), 389−405.

Guerette, R., Stenius, V., McGloin, J. (2005). Understanding offense specialization and
versatility: A reapplication of the rational choice perspective. Journal of Criminal Justice, 3, 77-
87.

Hobbes,T. [1651] (1960). Leviathan: Or the matter, form and power of a commonwealth
ecclesiastical and civil. Yale University Press.

Kubrin, C. E., Stucky, T. D., & Krohn, M. D. (2009). Researching theories of crime and
deviance. New York: Oxford University Press.

McCarthy, B. (2002). New economics of sociological criminology. Annual Review of

Sociology, 28, 417–42.

Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., Bachman, J. G., O’Malley, P. M., & Johnson, L. D. (1996).
 Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61, 635-655.

Paternoster, R. (1989). Decisions to participate in and desist from four types of common
delinquency: Deterrence and the rational choice perspective. Law & Society Review, 23, 7-40.

Paternoster, R., & Piquero. A. (1995). Reconceptualizing deterrence: An empirical test of

personal and vicarious experiences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 251-286.

Pogarsky, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2003). Can punishment encourage offending? Investigating the
“resetting” effect. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(1), 95-120.

Turner, J. (1997). The structure of sociological theory. 6th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Author Mini-Biography: Maude Beaudry-Cyr is a graduate student at the University of South

Florida. Her research interests include criminological theory, racial/ethnic disparities in the
juvenile justice system, and sex offender continuity and recidivism.

Keywords: Classical Theory; Deterrence; Free Will; Rational Choice

View publication stats