Abstract
This chapter builds on the concept on individual differences in deterrence theory in several important ways. First, we review recent studies expressly designed to test for heterogeneous deterrent effects based on individual differences, mainly focusing on the role of criminal propensity as a moderating factor in the deterrence process. Second, we argue for a focus on individual differences in the sensitivity to rewards from crime as a new and theoretically rich dimension around which to study this concept. Finally, we outline future directions for the study of individual differences in the deterrence process, specifically by considering the limitations of most current data sets used for exploring offender decision-making, and ways in which future studies on the topic can be planned out.
This chapter builds on the concept on individual differences in deterrence theory in several important ways. It reviews some recent advancements on this topic in the key areas identified by the Piquero et al. review, which represent studies expressly designed to test for heterogeneous deterrent effects based on individual differences. These recent studies tend to focus on the role of criminal propensity as a moderating factor in the deterrence process. The chapter focuses on a new dimension for consideration largely overlooked by many scholars—individual differences in the sensitivity to rewards from crime. It explores future directions for the study of individual differences in the deterrence process. Thomas A. Loughran, Greg Pogarsky, Alex R. Piquero, and Raymond Paternoster lay out a rationale to advance the notion of differential deterrence by arguing that "evidence of heterogeneity can show that some offenders may be more deterrable than others; that is, they may react and adjust their sanction threat perceptions in heterogeneous ways".