Methodological and theoretical implications of using subjectgenerated consequences in tests of rational choice theory

Previous research on rational choice theory has typically asked subjects to evaluate the impact of research-derived consequences on offending likelihood using a hypothetical scenario design. However, this procedure may not produce results that accurately reflect the subjects' actual consideration of consequences. In this study, subjects were allowed to develop their own set of potential consequences in response to two hypothetical offending scenarios. The results support the use of this innovative technique, but also revealed many types of consequences that were not commonly used in previous tests of the theory. Limitations of the study and implications for future tests of rational choice theory are discussed.