IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v33y2013i11p2013-2022.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Opportunity Matters: Comparing the Risk‐Taking Attitudes of Prisoners and Recently Released Ex‐Prisoners

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan J. Rolison
  • Yaniv Hanoch
  • Michaela Gummerum

Abstract

Risk‐taking tendencies and environmental opportunities to commit crime are two key features in understanding criminal behavior. Upon release from prison, ex‐prisoners have a much greater opportunity to engage in risky activity and to commit criminal acts. We hypothesized that ex‐prisoners would exhibit greater risk‐taking tendencies compared to prisoners who have fewer opportunities to engage in risky activity and who are monitored constantly by prison authorities. Using cumulative prospect theory to compare the risky choices of prisoners and ex‐prisoners our study revealed that ex‐prisoners who were within 16 weeks of their prison release made riskier choices than prisoners. Our data indicate that previous studies comparing prisoners behind bars with nonoffenders may have underestimated the risk‐taking tendencies of offenders. The present findings emphasize the central role played by risk‐taking attitudes in criminal offending and highlight a need to examine offenders after release from prison.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan J. Rolison & Yaniv Hanoch & Michaela Gummerum, 2013. "When Opportunity Matters: Comparing the Risk‐Taking Attitudes of Prisoners and Recently Released Ex‐Prisoners," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 2013-2022, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:33:y:2013:i:11:p:2013-2022
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12042
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12042?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary S. Becker, 1974. "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," NBER Chapters, in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 1-54, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Adam Booij & Bernard Praag & Gijs Kuilen, 2010. "A parametric analysis of prospect theory’s functionals for the general population," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 68(1), pages 115-148, February.
    3. David Dubois & Ena Inesi & Simona Botti & Derek D. Rucker & Adam D. Galinsky, 2011. "Power and Choice: Their Dynamic Interplay in Quenching the Thirst for Personal Control," Post-Print hal-00696608, HAL.
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    5. Anderson, David A, 1999. "The Aggregate Burden of Crime," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 42(2), pages 611-642, October.
    6. Inesi, M. Ena, 2010. "Power and loss aversion," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(1), pages 58-69, May.
    7. Block, Michael K & Gerety, Vernon E, 1995. "Some Experimental Evidence on Differences between Student and Prisoner Reactions to Monetary Penalties and Risk," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(1), pages 123-138, January.
    8. Camerer, Colin F, 1989. "An Experimental Test of Several Generalized Utility Theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 61-104, April.
    9. Helga Fehr-Duda & Manuele Gennaro & Renate Schubert, 2006. "Gender, Financial Risk, and Probability Weights," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 283-313, May.
    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. Filiz-Ozbay, Emel & Guryan, Jonathan & Hyndman, Kyle & Kearney, Melissa & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2015. "Do lottery payments induce savings behavior? Evidence from the lab," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 1-24.
    2. Syngjoo Choi & Jeongbin Kim & Eungik Lee & Jungmin Lee, 2022. "Probability Weighting and Cognitive Ability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(7), pages 5201-5215, July.
    3. Dacey, Raymond & Gallant, Kenneth S., 1997. "Crime control and harassment of the innocent," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 325-334.
    4. Narges Hajimoladarvish, 2017. "Very Low Probabilities in the Loss Domain," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, Springer;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 42(1), pages 41-58, March.
    5. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    6. Songfa Zhong & Salomon Israel & Hong Xue & Richard P Ebstein & Soo Hong Chew, 2009. "Monoamine Oxidase A Gene (MAOA) Associated with Attitude Towards Longshot Risks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(12), pages 1-4, December.
    7. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier, 2013. "Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1057-1065.
    8. David Bruner, 2009. "Changing the probability versus changing the reward," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 12(4), pages 367-385, December.
    9. Narat Charupat & Richard Deaves & Travis Derouin & Marcelo Klotzle & Peter Miu, 2013. "Emotional balance and probability weighting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 17-41, July.
    10. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    11. Géraldine Bocquého & Julien Jacob & Marielle Brunette, 2020. "Prospect theory in experiments : behaviour in loss domain and framing effects," Working Papers hal-02987294, HAL.
    12. Narges Hajimoladarvish, 2017. "Very Low Probabilities in the Loss Domain," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 42(1), pages 41-58, March.
    13. Ayako Suzuki & Koichi Kume, 2008. "Aging, Probability Weighting, and Reference Point Adoption: An Experimental Study," ISER Discussion Paper 0720, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    14. Booij, Adam S. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2009. "A parameter-free analysis of the utility of money for the general population under prospect theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 651-666, August.
    15. Géraldine Bocquého & Julien Jacob & Marielle Brunette, 2023. "Prospect theory in multiple price list experiments: further insights on behaviour in the loss domain," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(4), pages 593-636, May.
    16. Araujo, A. & Gama, J. & Suarez, C.E., 2022. "Lack of prevalence of the endowment effect: An equilibrium analysis," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    17. van Ours, Jan C. & Williams, Jenny & Ward, Shannon, 2015. "Bad Behavior: Delinquency, Arrest and Early School Leaving," CEPR Discussion Papers 10755, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Menusch Khadjavi, 2018. "Deterrence works for criminals," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 165-178, August.
    19. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    20. Tomas Bonavia & Josué Brox-Ponce, 2018. "Shame in decision making under risk conditions: Understanding the effect of transparency," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-16, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:33:y:2013:i:11:p:2013-2022. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.