INTEGRATING CELERITY, IMPULSIVITY, AND EXTRALEGAL SANCTION THREATS INTO A MODEL OF GENERAL DETERRENCE: THEORY AND EVIDENCE*

By Dan Nagin, Greg Pogarsky. 2001

648 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1fc82a7564b7fb0ba50118434d5dc5251783325c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Criminal Deterrence: A Review of the Literature (2017, background): “12 For related modeling ideas from criminology, see Nagin and Pogarsky (2001), for example. sought to test whether these predictions hold in the real world.”
Can Punishment Encourage Offending? Investigating The “resetting” Effect (2003, background): “True to recent deterrence/rational choice work, our risk index includes both individual and situational factors (cf. Nagin and Paternoster 1993; Nagin and Pogarsky 2001; Piquero and Tibbetts 1996; Wright et al. 1999).”
Beyond Stafford and Warr's Reconceptualization of Deterrence: Personal and Vicarious Experiences, Impulsivity, and Offending Behavior (2002, background): “Recent work suggests both that higher impulsivity reduces the deterrent impact of sanction severity (Nagin and Pogarsky 2001) and that extreme impulsivity can eliminate the influence of legal sanction threats entirely (Pogarsky forthcoming).”
User Awareness of Security Countermeasures and Its Impact on Information Systems Misuse: A Deterrence Approach (2009, background): “Deterrence research has shown consistently that sanction fear predicts various criminal and deviant behaviors (Nagin and Pogarsky 2001, Tittle 1980).”
Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century (2013, result): “Concerning the first prediction, numerous studies find that increases (or decreases) in perceived apprehension risk are associated with failure (success) in avoiding apprehension (Bridges and Stone 1986; Piliavin et al. 1986; Paternoster and Piquero 1995; Pogarsky, Piquero, and Paternoster 2004; Pog”
In the Eye of the Impulsive Beholder (2009, background): “Others have found either no moderating effect ( Nagin & Pogarsky, 2001 ) or a curvilinear effect in which individuals either high or low in impulsivity were the most affected by perceived deterrence (Piquero & Pogarsky, 2002).”
Time and Punishment: Delayed Consequences and Criminal Behavior (2004, background): “Our prior research has shown the conceptual linkages between discounting and the deterrence concepts of sanction ‘‘celerity’’ and ‘‘severity’’ ( Nagin and Pogarsky, 2001, 2003 ).”
Sanctions, Perceived Anger, and Criminal Offending (2004, background): “conduct in terms of the certainty and severity associated with discovery, capture, and imposition of legal sanctions, informal costs such as social censure, loss of esteem of friends, family, and self-respect, as well as moral evaluations associated with criminal conduct (Williams and Hawkins, 1986;”