AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Extracurricular activities and school security devices had among the weakest associations in the meta-analysis, and several traditional criminological predictors did not perform well in the school context. The results revealed that the strongest correlates of school violence perpetration were antisocial behavior, deviant peers, antisocial attitudes, victimization, and peer rejection and that the strongest correlates of school victimization were prior/other victimization, social competence, risk avoidance, antisocial behavior, and peer rejection. Violence and victimization were conceptualized broadly to include various forms of aggression and crime at school. Across 761 studies, the relative effects of 30 different individual, school, and community level correlates were assessed (8,790 effect size estimates). To better understand its sources, a comprehensive meta-analysis of the school violence and victimization literature was undertaken. School violence is a significant social concern. The online version contains supplementary material available at doi:10.1007/s11162-x. Our results yield implications for the design of institutional policies aimed at mitigating misconduct and reducing recidivism. By varying these dimensions of delay systematically, we find a surprising non-monotonic relation with deterrence: either no delay (immediate resolution and immediate punishment) or maximum delay (both resolution and punishment as much as possible delayed) emerge as most effective at deterring deviant behavior and recidivism. We consider two dimensions: the timing at which the uncertainty about whether one will be punished is dissolved and the timing at which the punishment is actually imposed, as well as the combination thereof. This paper presents the first controlled experiment to study a third important factor that has been mainly overlooked: the swiftness of formal sanctions. Specifically, we distinguish between the timing of punishment and the timing of the resolution of uncertainty regarding the punishment.Įconomic theory suggests that the deterrence of deviant behavior is driven by a combination of severity and certainty of punishment. We adopt a wider definition of celerity, using it as a catch-all phrase for the timing of the various facets of a deterrence mechanism (Pratt & Turanovic, 2018). 2 Classically, celerity referred exclusively to the temporal delay of a potential sanction following a transgression. Naturally, the concepts of decision-making 1 Recent scholarly contributions have broadened this perspective and emphasized the importance of institutional structures, including staff rotations in the public administration, whistleblower protection, the bite of audits and formal punishment, and use of norm-nudge interventions (Shleifer & Vishny, 1993 Abbink, 2004 Nikiforakis, 2008 Sutter et al., 2010 Serra, 2011 Balafoutas & Nikiforakis, 2012 Abbink et al., 2014 Khadjavi, 2014 Buckenmaier et al., 2018 Bicchieri & Dimant, 2019 Hajikhameneh & Rubin, 2019 Dimant & Gesche, 2020).
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |