Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:18:25.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Experimenting with Crime and Criminal Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

Brandon C. Welsh
Affiliation:
Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement
Anthony A. Braga
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Gerben J. N. Bruinsma
Affiliation:
VU University Amsterdam
Brandon C. Welsh
Affiliation:
Northeastern University
Anthony A. Braga
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, New Jersey
Gerben J. N. Bruinsma
Affiliation:
Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Experimenting with crime and social programs has a rich tradition. Some notable developments include the “lost letter” experiments of the 1970s (Farrington 1979) and the experimenting society concept advanced by Donald Campbell and others during the 1960s and 1970s (see Campbell 1969, 1979). Researchers used the lost letter experiments, which involved leaving cash in an apparently lost letter on the street, and other similar techniques to examine public dishonesty and minor deviance. The experimenting society concept is rooted in the large-scale social programs of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations and the need to identify valid and rigorous methods of evaluation. It has generated profound interest in the use of experiments to test the impact of criminological interventions.

Present-day experimental criminology very much has its roots in these developments (Sherman 2010). At its heart are the methods of experimentation introduced in science in the seventeenth century. The defining feature of an experiment is control of the independent variable. An experiment is designed to test a causal hypothesis about the effect of variations in one variable on variations in another. A hypothesis cannot be tested experimentally unless it can be expressed in these terms. The methodological adequacy of any test of a causal hypothesis can be assessed on four major criteria (Campbell and Stanley 1966; Cook and Campbell 1979; Shadish, Cook, and Campbell 2002). Statistical conclusion validity refers to whether the two variables of interest truly are related. Internal validity refers to whether a change in one variable did produce a change in another. Construct validity refers to the theoretical constructs that underlie the measured variables; and external validity refers to how far the results can be generalized to different persons, settings, and times.

Type
Chapter
Information
Experimental Criminology
Prospects for Advancing Science and Public Policy
, pp. 1 - 12
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

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.)

References

Berk, Richard A. 2008. “How Can You tell if the Simulations in Computational Criminology are Any Good?Journal of Experimental Criminology 4: 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berk, Richard A. 2010. “Recent Perspectives on the Regression Discontinuity Design.” In Handbook of Quantitative Criminology, edited by Piquero, Alex R. and Weisburd, David, pp. 563–79. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Boruch, Robert F. 1997. Randomized Experiments for Planning and Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braga, Anthony A., and Weisburd, David. 2010. Policing Problem Places: Crime Hot Spots and Effective Prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Donald T. 1969. “Reforms as Experiments.” American Psychologist 24: 409–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Donald T. 1979. “Assessing the Impact of Planned Social Change.” Evaluation and Program Planning 2: 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C.. 1966. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Cohen, Lawrence E., and Felson, Marcus. 1979. “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach.” American Sociological Review 44: 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Thomas D., and Campbell, Donald T.. 1979. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Falk, Armin, and Heckman, James J.. 2009. “Lab Experiments Are a Major Source of Knowledge in the Social Sciences,Science 326: 535–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrington, David P. 1979. “Experiments on Deviance with Special Reference to Dishonesty.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 12, edited by Berkowitz, Leonard, pp. 207–52. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Farrington, David P., and Welsh, Brandon C.. 2006. “A Half Century of Randomized Experiments on Crime and Justice.” In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 34, edited by Tonry, Michael, pp. 55–132. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Farrington, David P., and Welsh, Brandon C. 2007. Saving Children from a Life of Crime: Early Risk Factors and Effective Interventions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Farrington, David P., Weisburd, David, and Gill, Charlotte E.. 2011. “The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group: A Decade of Progress.” In Routledge Handbook of International Criminology, edited by Smith, Cindy J., Zhang, Sheldon X., and Barberet, Rosemary, pp. 53–63. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hollis-Peel, Meghan E., Reynald, Danielle M., Bavel, Maud van, Elffers, Henk, and Welsh, Brandon C.. 2011. “Guardianship for Crime Prevention: A Critical Review of the Literature.” Crime, Law and Social Change 56: 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jupp, Victor. 1989. Methods of Criminological Research. London: Unwin Hyman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lum, Cynthia, and Yang, Sue-Ming. 2005. “Why Do Evaluation Researchers in Crime and Justice Choose Non-Experimental Methods?Journal of Experimental Criminology 1: 191–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millenson, Michael L. 1997. Demanding Medical Excellence: Doctors and Accountability in the Information Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mosteller, Frederick, and Boruch, Robert F., eds. 2002. Evidence Matters: Randomized Trials in Education Research. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. 2009. Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders among Young People: Progress and Possibilities. Committee on Prevention of Mental Disorders and Substance Abuse among Children, Youth and Young Adults: Research Advances and Promising Interventions. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Raine, Adrian, and Liu, Jianghong. 1998. “Biological Predispositions to Violence and Their Implications for Biosocial Treatment and Prevention.” Psychology, Crime and Law 4: 107–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynald, Danielle M. 2010. “Guardians on Guardianship: Factors Affecting the Willingness to Supervise, the Ability to Detect Potential Offenders, and the Willingness to Intervene.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47: 358–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Robert J. 2010. “Gold Standard Myths: Observations on the Experimental Turn in Quantitative Criminology.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 26: 489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shadish, William R., Cook, Thomas D., and Campbell, Donald T.. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Sherman, Lawrence W. 2010. “An Introduction to Experimental Criminology.” In Handbook of Quantitative Criminology, edited by Piquero, Alex R. and Weisburd, David, pp. 399–436. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Sherman, Lawrence W., Farrington, David P., Welsh, Brandon C., and MacKenzie, Doris L., eds. 2006. Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, rev. ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weisburd, David. 2010. “Justifying the Use of Non-Experimental Methods and Disqualifying the Use of Randomized Controlled Trials: Challenging the Folklore in Evaluation Research in Crime and Justice.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 6: 209–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welsh, Brandon C., and Farrington, David P.. 2011. “Evidence-Based Crime Policy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Criminal Justice, edited by Tonry, Michael, pp. 60–92. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×