Predicting differences in the perceived relevance of crime's costs and benefits in a test of rational choice theory

Previous hypothetical scenario tests of rational choice theory have presented all participants with the same set of consequences, implicitly assuming that these consequences would be relevant for each individual. Recent research demonstrates that those researcher-presented consequences do not accurately reflect those considered by study participants and that there is individual variation in the relevance of various consequences. Despite this and some theoretical propositions that such differences should exist, little empirical research has explored the possibility of predicting such variation. This study allows participants to develop their own set of relevant consequences for three hypothetical offenses and examines how several demographic and theoretical variables impact those consequences' relevance. Exploratory results suggest individual factors impact the perceived relevance of several cost and benefit types, even among a relatively homogenous sample of college students. Implications for future tests of rational choice theory, as well as policy implications are discussed.