IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i18p7419-d411227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Eye-Tracking Technology to Measure Environmental Factors Affecting Street Robbery Decision-Making in Virtual Environments

Author

Listed:
  • Jae weon Yang

    (Department of Architecture, Sejong University, 209, Seoul 05006, Korea)

  • Dowoo Kim

    (Department of Police Science, Kyungnam University, Gyeongsangnam-do 51767, Korea)

  • Sungwon Jung

    (Department of Architecture, Sejong University, 209, Seoul 05006, Korea)

Abstract

There is a lack of quantitative data regarding how offenders make decisions about committing a crime or how situational factors influence such decisions. Detailed crime data on decision-making among criminals are required to improve the accuracy of research. Demonstrating a new methodology for assessing the factors impacting criminal decision-making among street robbery offenders, this study identifies visual data that influence criminal decision-making, and verifies the significance of the measured data. To this end, this study first identified and organized the physical aspects affecting criminal decision-making based on the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) literature. Next, participants were informed of a street crime scenario and asked to replicate the behaviors of criminals in the virtual environment of Grand Theft Auto 5. Factors affecting criminals’ decision-making were then quantitatively assessed using eye-tracking technology. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to verify the significance of the measured data. Results show that windows placed adjacent to the street, balconies and verandas, and signs indicating territoriality have a significant effect on criminals’ decision-making. Confirming the influence of CPTED factors on the occurrence of street robbery, this study advances a new way of acquiring quantitative data through eye-tracker technology, a method hitherto unexplored by existing research on street robbery.

Suggested Citation

  • Jae weon Yang & Dowoo Kim & Sungwon Jung, 2020. "Using Eye-Tracking Technology to Measure Environmental Factors Affecting Street Robbery Decision-Making in Virtual Environments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-24, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:18:p:7419-:d:411227
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7419/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/18/7419/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Przemysław Piotrowski, 2011. "Street robbery offenders: Shades of rationality and reversal theory perspective," Rationality and Society, , vol. 23(4), pages 427-451, November.
    2. Wedel, Michel & Pieters, Rik, 2008. "Eye Tracking for Visual Marketing," Foundations and Trends(R) in Marketing, now publishers, vol. 1(4), pages 231-320, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sridhar, Shrihari & Naik, Prasad A. & Kelkar, Ajay, 2017. "Metrics unreliability and marketing overspending," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 761-779.
    2. Michel Wedel & Rik Pieters, 2015. "The Buffer Effect: The Role of Color When Advertising Exposures Are Brief and Blurred," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(1), pages 134-143, January.
    3. repec:cmj:networ:y:2013:i:1:p:114-124 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Huddleston, Patricia T. & Behe, Bridget K. & Driesener, Carl & Minahan, S., 2018. "Inside-outside: Using eye-tracking to investigate search-choice processes in the retail environment," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 85-93.
    5. Serhat Peker & Gonca Gokce Menekse Dalveren & Yavuz İnal, 2021. "The Effects of the Content Elements of Online Banner Ads on Visual Attention: Evidence from An-Eye-Tracking Study," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, January.
    6. Li, Xi & Shi, Mengze & Wang, Xin (Shane), 2019. "Video mining: Measuring visual information using automatic methods," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 216-231.
    7. Savannah Wei Shi & Michel Wedel & F. G. M. (Rik) Pieters, 2013. "Information Acquisition During Online Decision Making: A Model-Based Exploration Using Eye-Tracking Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(5), pages 1009-1026, May.
    8. Adriana-Emilia ROBU, 2013. "An Assessment Of E-Commerce Websites Through A Mouse Tracking Investigation," Review of Economic and Business Studies, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, issue 12, pages 107-119, June.
    9. Yegoryan, Narine & Guhl, Daniel & Klapper, Daniel, 2018. "Inferring Attribute Non-Attendance Using Eye Tracking in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 111, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    10. Yasheng Chen & Johnny Jermias & Tota Panggabean, 2016. "The Role of Visual Attention in the Managerial Judgment of Balanced‐Scorecard Performance Evaluation: Insights from Using an Eye‐Tracking Device," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 113-146, March.
    11. repec:cmj:networ:y:2013:i:1:p:131-142 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Jaikumar, Saravana & Sahay, Arvind, 2016. "Effect of Overlapping Price Ranges on Price Perception: Revisiting the Range Theory of Price Perception," IIMA Working Papers WP2016-02-02, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    13. Grebitus, Carola & Davis, George C., 2017. "Change is good!? Analyzing the relationship between attention and nutrition facts panel modifications," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 119-130.
    14. Xuhong Ye & Xixian Peng & Xinwei Wang & Hock-Hai Teo, 2020. "Developing and Testing a Theoretical Path Model of Web Page Impression Formation and Its Consequence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 929-949, September.
    15. Michel Wedel & Rik Pieters & Ralf Lans, 2023. "Modeling Eye Movements During Decision Making: A Review," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 697-729, June.
    16. Majid Zahmati & Seyed Morteza Azimzadeh & Mohammad Saber Sotoodeh & Omid Asgari, 2023. "An eye-tracking study on how the popularity and gender of the endorsers affected the audience’s attention on the advertisement," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 1665-1676, September.
    17. Yegoryan, Narine & Guhl, Daniel & Klapper, Daniel, 2020. "Inferring attribute non-attendance using eye tracking in choice-based conjoint analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 290-304.
    18. Ghosh, Tathagata & Sreejesh, S. & Dwivedi, Yogesh K., 2022. "Brand logos versus brand names: A comparison of the memory effects of textual and pictorial brand elements placed in computer games," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 222-235.
    19. Adriana-Emilia ROBU, 2013. "Using Eye Tracking To Measure Online Interactivity: A Theoretical Framework," Network Intelligence Studies, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 1, pages 118-129, July.
    20. Lindström, Annika & Berg, Hanna & Nordfält, Jens & Roggeveen, Anne L. & Grewal, Dhruv, 2016. "Does the presence of a mannequin head change shopping behavior?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 517-524.
    21. Grebitus, Carola & Seitz, Carolin, 2014. "Relationship between attention and choice making," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182669, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    22. Hayk Khachatryan & Alicia Rihn & Bridget Behe & Charles Hall & Ben Campbell & Jennifer Dennis & Chengyan Yue, 2018. "Visual attention, buying impulsiveness, and consumer behavior," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 23-35, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:18:p:7419-:d:411227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.