Situational sources of rule-breaking acts : an analytic criminology approach

Criminology has long been divided by mainly focusing on people’s propensities to commit crimes, on the one hand, and environmental characteristics conducive to crime, on the other. Such a division must be bridged to advance knowledge about why some people, but not others, commit rule-breaking acts in some environments but not in others. Furthermore, explanations require causal mechanisms explaining how the outcome, a rule-breaking act, is produced. Analytic Criminology offers a general framework for how to theoretically and empirically structure the study of crime. It does so by connecting macro- and micro-levels – structuring the convergence of certain people in certain places – through a mechanistic account. Within this framework, the situational action theory (SAT) proposes a causal mechanism explaining how said convergence triggers the perception-choice process: a rule-breaking act must first be perceived to be subsequently chosen. The main drivers during this process are the person’s crime propensity and the criminogeneity of the behaviour setting. Identifying the central components also enables the theorising of changes in crime involvement, which is the subject of the developmental ecological action (DEA) model of SAT. Drawing on data from the longitudinal project Malmö Individual and Neighbourhood Development Study, this thesis aimed to test SAT and its DEA model, thus bridging said division. It did so through four studies with specific reference to adolescents’ crime propensity, exposure to criminogenic settings, their convergence, and finally, change over time. Study I and study II investigated adolescents’ time use and connections to rule-breaking. The former examined how adolescents spend time in unsupervised and unstructured socialising with peers, during which hours of the day, in which neighbourhoods, and what level of collective efficacy the neighbourhoods have. Study II focused on adolescents’ routine activities and how they differentially place adolescents in unstructured socialising. Furthermore, it tested whether adolescents with higher crime propensity run a higher probability of reporting a rule-breaking act during unstructured socialising irrespective of their routine activities. Study III extended the situational analysis by investigating how adolescents form rule-breaking intentions in randomised scenarios depending on their morality, self-control, and the setting characteristics (varying in level of motivation and deterrence). Study IV applied a developmental perspective to key theoretical constructs derived from the DEA model, focusing on how morality, peer delinquency, and unstructured socialising change, and how the change in each is related to change in the others. Together, the studies found that adolescents with different levels of crime propensity are differently exposed to criminogenic settings but that such exposure simultaneously increases the probability of rule-breaking more for adolescents with higher crime propensity. In sum, the studies have bridged the person–place division in different ways by being rooted in a mechanistic account of rule-breaking, which is proposed as a way forward for criminology as a discipline.