Factorial Surveys and Crime Vignettes

doi:10.1017/9781108759458.052

52 - Factorial Surveys and Crime Vignettes

from Part VIII - Measuring and Evaluating Compliance

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2021

Nicole Leeper Piquero ,

Vrishali Kanvinde and

Whitney Sanders

Edited by

Benjamin van Rooij and

D. Daniel Sokol

Show author details

Benjamin van Rooij: Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Amsterdam
D. Daniel Sokol: Affiliation:
University of Florida

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Abstract: Factorial surveys or vignettes have become a popular research methodology for social scientists to use when studying issues surrounding compliance, crime, and justice. This chapter provides an overview of this specially designed self-report survey methodology, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses while also providing current examples within the field of criminology.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance , pp. 773 - 779

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108759458.052 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexander, C. S., and Becker, H. J. (1978). “The Use of Vignettes in Survey Research.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 42: 93–104.CrossRef Google Scholar

Aviram, H. (2012). “What Would You Do? Conducting Web-Based Factorial Vignette Surveys.” In Gideon, L. (ed.), Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences, 463–73. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Elis, L. A., and Simpson, S. S. (1995). “Informal Sanction Threats and Corporate Crime: Additive versus Multiplicative Models.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32: 399–425.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Green, D. E. (1989). “Measures of Illegal Behavior in Individual-Level Deterrence Research.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26(3): 253–75.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hickman, M., Piquero, A., Lawton, B., and Greene, J. (2001). “Applying Tittle’s Control-Balance Theory to Police Deviance.” Policing, 24: 497–520.Google Scholar

Kim, M., and Hunter, J. E. (1993). “Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Meta-analysis of Attitudinal Relevance and Topic.” Journal of Communications, 43(1): 101–42.Google Scholar

Klepper, S., and Nagin, D. S. (1989). “Tax Compliance and Perceptions of the Risks of Detection and Criminal Prosecution.” Law & Society Review, 23: 209–40.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nagin, D. S., and Paternoster, R. (1993). “Enduring Individual Differences and Rational Choice Theories of Crime.” Law & Society Review, 27(3): 467–96.Google Scholar

Nagin, D. S., Piquero, A. R., Scott, E. S., and Steinberg, L. (2006). “Public Preferences for Rehabilitation versus Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Survey.” Criminology & Public Policy, 5: 627–52.CrossRef Google Scholar

Paternoster, R., and Simpson, S. (1996). “Sanction Threats and Appeals to Morality: Testing a Rational Choice Model of Corporate Crime.” Law & Society Review, 30: 549–83.Google Scholar

Piquero, A. R., and Hickman, M. (1999). “An Empirical Test of Tittle’s Control Balance Theory.” Criminology, 37: 319–42.Google Scholar

Piquero, A., and Tibbetts, S. (1996). “Specifying the Direct and Indirect Effects of Low Self-Control and Situational Factors in Offending Decision Making: Toward a More Complete Model of Rational Offending.” Justice Quarterly, 13: 481–510.CrossRef Google Scholar

Piquero, N. L., Exum, M. L., and Simpson, S. S. (2005). “Integrating the Desire for Control and Rational Choice in a Corporate Crime Context.” Justice Quarterly, 22(2): 253–80.Google Scholar

Piquero, N. L., Tibbetts, S. G., and Blankenship, M. (2005). “Examining the Role of Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization in Explaining Corporate Crime.” Deviant Behavior, 26(2): 159–88.Google Scholar

Piquero, N. L., Schoepfer, A., and Langton, L. (2010). “Completely Out of Control or the Desire to Be in Complete Control? An Examination of How Low Self-Control and the Desire for Control Relate to Corporate Offending.” Crime & Delinquency, 56(4): 627–47.Google Scholar

Piquero, N. L., Cohen, M., and Piquero, A. R. (2011). “How Much Is the Public Willing to Pay to Be Protected from Identity Theft?” Justice Quarterly, 28(3): 437–59.Google Scholar

Pogarsky, G. (2004). “Projected Offending and Contemporaneous Rule-Violation: Implications for Heterotypic Continuity.” Criminology, 42: 111–35.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rossi, P. H., and Nock, S. L. (eds.) (1982) Measuring Social Judgments: The Factorial Survey Approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Schoepfer, A., Piquero, N. L., Langton, L. (2014). “Low Self-Control versus the Desire-for-Control: An Empirical Test of White-Collar Crime and Conventional Offending.” Deviant Behavior, 35: 197–214.Google Scholar

Simpson, S. (2002). Corporate Crime, Law, and Social Control. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Simpson, S. S., and Piquero, N. L. (2002). “Low Self-Control, Organizational Theory, and Corporate Crime.” Law & Society Review, 36(3): 509–47.Google Scholar

Vieraitis, L. M., Piquero, N. L., Piquero, A. R., Tibbetts, S. G., and Blankenship, M. (2012). “Do Women and Men Differ in Their Neutralizations of Corporate Crime?” Criminal Justice Review, 37(4): 480–94.Google Scholar

Wallander, L. (2009). “25 Years of Factorial Surveys in Sociology: A Review.” Social Science Research, 38: 505–20.CrossRef Google Scholar