The Rational Choice Theory in Criminology

Summary of the Theory 

The rational choice theory refers to the various models that attempt to explain social phenomena as the individual outcomes that may somewhat be construed as rational. The main concepts of the theory include beliefs, preferences, and constraints. Preferences refer to the positive or negative individual decisions connected with potential outcomes for every action. Beliefs refer to the perceived relations of taking certain actions, resulting in various outcomes, whether negative or positive. Constraints refer to the feasible limits that are associated with a specific set of actions. The theory is based on the concept of crime causation, which asserts that criminality results from an individual’s conscious choice. The theory assumes that the actions of an individual are instrumental, and they can be explained by the will of the actor to accomplish certain goals ( Boudon , 1998). According to this theory, determining whether an individual will commit a certain crime or not is a rational thought process that involves weighing the risks of paying the costs of committing a crime against the benefits accrued from such a venture ( Boudon , 1998). If the benefits of committing a certain crime outweigh the risks associated with it, then according to this theory, an individual is likely to commit it. Therefore, this decision-making process involved in the possibility of an individual committing a crime makes criminal behavior a rational choice. 

Theoretical Underpinnings of the Theory 

The rational choice theory has multiple critical theoretical underpinnings based on neoclassical economics, including core assumptions. These assumptions include optimality, individualism, structures, rationality and self-regarding interest. Individualism includes taking action promptly. Various actors in society behave and act as rational beings, making various decisions according to the circumstances at hand. In other words, the rational choice theory agrees with the fact that man is a rational being, is self-actuated. Another assumption that underpins the theory is referred to as optimality. Optimality opines that an individual’s preferences, including the constraints they face and the opportunities available to them (Ogu, 2013). At the same time, the course of action taken by an individual is considered the best from the perspectives of external judgment. Another critical assumption of the rational choice theory relates to structures. Norms and structures always dictate actions considered special cases of the rational choice theory (Ogu, 2013). Additionally, the structures can be considered damaging. Self-regarding interest assumes that an individual’s action is considered as their personal welfare. As much as this is a crucial option of the rational approach theory, it is considered less significant compared to the optimality assumption. At the same time, scholars argue that personal sentiments can be incorporated into the rational choice model by observing various sentiments aimed at pursuing a certain kind of self-interest. 

Rationality is also key in the rational choice theoretical model. In the first place, the rational choice theoretical model appears as the predominant assumption. According to this assumption, individual acts in a manner that gives them maximum benefit. Therefore, the assumption argues that the likely curse of action that an individual pursues will be perceived as the only best possible action that an individual would carry out to their advantage. Additionally, rationality provides that individuals are fully informed about all their decisions and their potential outcomes. Individuals make their decisions based on cost-benefit calculations. 

Evidence in Support of the Theory 

The rational choice theory has been argued as a behavioral theory that has seen a significant revolution in America. The theory arose from the American political science of the 1960s that sought to investigate the behavior of individuals through the use of empirical methods. The theory assumes that the rational actors work in such a manner as to maximize their advantage in every situation and will, therefore, be consistent in minimizing their losses ( Mehlkop, Graeff, 2010) . At the same time, Ogu (2013) claims that the rational choice theory was one of the fastest-growing approaches to political science, growing prominently in the 1950s and 1960s. According to Ogu (2013), Anthony Downs was the first educationist to apply the rational choice theory to observe electoral behavior and party competition ( Ogu, 2013). The underlying principle of rational decision theory is the viewpoint of an individual instead of the views of multiple individuals seeking to interact in groups, social situations, or professional categories. 

The rational choice theory is one of the most significant theories in several research fields. Although criminologists doubt its applicability and relevance as a general theory of crime, the misunderstanding results from its oversimplification by some criminologists. Ideally, the rational decision theory is broader than it is conceived to be. Additionally, the theory is backed by findings from several research studies. One of the most widely researched rational choice variables is the apprehension probability as far as crime prevention is concerned. Research also shows that a negative rapport between the police and the crime itself. Another heavily researched rational choice variable research in criminology is the benefits of apprehension in reducing the crime rates. Subjectivity tests on risks have also been found in various literature. When an individual is exposed to new information, there is a consequential change in the constancy of flux of change. This trend has been observed among various offenders, the general population and high-risk youth ( Ogu, 2013) . Some other scholars have taken a step further to find evidence that suggests how emotion plays a critical role in rational decision-making and subjective risk perceptions. This example can counter the claim that the rational choice theory is too rational to harmonize with other related theoretical models. The critics further argue that every component of the relational choice is influenced by several other variables that are also found in other crime theoretical models. Most studies related to criminology are concerned with risk perceptions that fail to consider the risk of an individual’s preferences. This situation is a limitation to most of the existing research. Other critiques of the rational choice theory opine that the criticisms are divided into three groups: Firstly, Wildavsky (1992) points out that cultural contexts focus on certain preferences ( Sato, 2013) . 

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Theory 

The rational choice theory is derived from the classical school. While the rational choice theory makes various assumptions, but it has various criticisms. However, most of the criticisms are unproductive, at least from the viewpoint of the scientific methodologies. At the same time, the various hypothesis derived from the various assumptions has not been empirically tested. Lakatos (1970) and Popper (1959) derive the principle of falsifiability ( Sato, 2013) . Some of the empirical evidence that has survived the falsifiability tests includes the sociology problems associated with social order ( Sato, 2013). Therefore, the rational choice theory has significantly contributed to research efforts in criminology. 

Like every other theory, the rational choice theory has its strengths. Firstly, the theory helps explain collective and individual behaviors. Rational decision theory clarifies why groups, society, and people tend to make certain choices. Additionally, the theory helps explain irrational behavior since its key theoretical underpinning is the assumption that all behaviors are based on rational actions that can be carefully scrutinized for the proper understanding of their underpinning rational motivations. Rational behavior is defined as the kind of behavior that is preferable for the achievement of certain goals, provided that the limitations are determined by the prevailing situation ( Wittek et al., 2020) 

One strength of the social decision theory is that the theory explains the motives of most criminals. Studies that have been conducted in prisons show that most criminals were motivated to commit various crimes because of the benefits associated with the crimes. Simultaneously, the theory also explains what goes on in the minds of criminals as they engage in crime. For example, the theory explains what goes on in the minds of criminals as they try to determine whether or not to engage in a certain criminal activity. Secondly, the rational decision theory also makes it very clear how to understand the psychology of criminals. Thus, it has enabled several scholars and educationists to explain various instances of crime that would not have been unraveled without the proper understanding of the theory. At the same time, criminology is better understood from the perspective of this theory. Therefore, the theory makes it easy to understand why people involve themselves in criminal activities. 

Another advantage of the theory is that its simplicity. It is easy to understand the theory and to explain its concepts, theoretical underpinnings and its applicability. Additionally, the theory can be easily generalized. For example, a particular set of assumptions related to each other in given circumstances can be compatible with a particular set of assumptions concerning an environmental setting where individuals are present. The theory also allows the rational choice theories to be treated with particular variations of choices among the various actors. Therefore, beliefs and preferences are considered the only applicable variables to determine a certain course of action ( Ogu, 2013). As well, the rational decision theory makes t easy to make predictions concerning decisive theories that are geared towards the measurable components in real-world phenomena. At the same time, the decisiveness of the rational choice theories depends on significantly larger outcome considerations than what has already been generally accepted in society. 

A limitation of the rational choice theory is that it emphasizes the actions of individuals, which limits the approach. In other words, the theory does not focus on the general aspects of crime but is only limited to individual persons’ perceptions, decisions, and moral obligations. Additionally, the theory lacks a comprehensive etiological argument behind its proximate causality ( Alalehto, 2015). T he rational choice theory does not account for the intuitive reasoning that may drive some individuals to pursue criminal courses. The rational choice theory removes all logic from consideration when it comes to understanding how individuals get to commit a crime. However, the theory fails to explain crimes of passion or insanity. Another weakness of the theory is that it is selective and does not allow for debate. In other words, the theory fails to explain the development of personality among individuals and how this influences their inclination towards criminal activities. As well, the theory does not consider an individual’s prior experiences and motivators that might have been the decisive impetus for them to involve themselves in crime (Sato, 2013). Some individuals committing a crime may argue that they will override the theory if they argue that they only choose to commit a crime when the benefits of being accrued from such a venture clearly outweigh the consequences. Thus, the theory fails to explain the true motivation of an individual towards participating in a specific crime and how the community’s influence can enhance the creation of criminals by failing to support the modern system or through exclusion ( Mooney et al., 2004) . Overall, the theory does not consider the cultural and economic influences on the people’s targets and crime. 

Policies to Prevent or Control Crime Based Upon the Theory 

The rational choice theory proposes that crime rates result from the accessibility and availability of targets. Therefore, it is believed that through the expansion of the security guard numbers, reducing the number of targets and lowering the populace of criminals, the crime rate can significantly decrease. In most cases, criminals, especially younger ones, do not plan for a crime. Thus, the offence may not be considered as the product of a carefully thought-out plan. Simultaneously, most criminals do not acknowledge the long-term effects of their criminal activities but only focus on the short-term effects of their actions. Additionally, most criminals, especially the younger ones, are attracted to the benefits they will receive by involving themselves in criminal activities instead of the punishments they may get if they get apprehended. A study conducted on prisons shows that the increase in expressive crime can be attributed to the “culture-of-now,” associated with selfish consumerism ( Farrell, 2010) . Therefore, most of those criminals only aim at escaping apprehension as opposed to avoiding indulging in criminal activities. Another study also showed that most criminals are oblivious of the seriousness of the punishment for their criminal activities at the time of the crime (Wesley, 2011). 

One of the surest ways of deterring criminal activities is by increasing the possibilities of apprehension. For example, suppose justice is quick, punishment extreme. In that case, crimes can easily be prevented because the criminals will desist from engaging in criminal activities because they fear the consequences that will follow. Generally, it is assumed that crime rates can be controlled and affected by the inevitability and risk of criminal punishment. The general expectation is that if a crime is buffeted more often and in more serious terms, criminals, as rational beings, would not prefer to commit crimes since they would realize that criminal activities are not worth the punishment they will receive (Young, 2013). 

Leader development training programs in organizations and the community are also critical in controlling crime rates. Besides having the advantage of accelerating an organization’s objectives and mission, leader development programs also help reduce crime rates. Educational programs and effective leader development programs should focus on developing both the leader and the followers. Motivation is one of the essential skills in leadership development because it propels leaders to achieve the goals of their organization. Additionally, fostering excellent communication skills and promoting verbal reinforcements will significantly enhance the effectiveness of crime reduction efforts. Furthermore, leaders that have the best mastery of their immediate environment are poised to motivate others to become great leaders. Generally, leader development should prioritize the creation and co-creation of positive relationships in an organization. Overall, the primary goal of leader development is when the leader develops an initiative and a belief that developing others is the best way to enhance one’s leadership skills. 

Understanding and embracing essential leadership skills leadership increases the followers’ confidence and fosters an agile culture that fosters good morals among people. Good leadership skills will encourage followers to make a rational decision to follow a moral code of conduct that will encourage followers to be hardworking instead of engaging in criminal activities. The observation of leadership through the formation of small-scale societies will provide society with unique insights into collective human actions and form a good basis for creating a complex sociopolitical environment deterrent to crime ( Glowacki & von Rueden, 2015). Additionally, motivated and self-actuated leaders positively influence their followers to work synergistically together for one goal – to achieve the goals of their organization and to develop society. Leader development is best exemplified when the leader focuses on developing good judgment and an initiative to help others grow and become better. 

Ignorance in terms of personal development skills leads to an increase in criminal trends because individuals lack motivation and a personal drive towards sticking to society’s moral code of conduct. Leadership development includes developing both personal leaders and followers ( Rybakova et al., 2020) . Leader development programs should focus on the need to involve everyone in finding solutions for the various issues that affect their organization and the employees themselves. More focus should be given to the leadership styles that emphasize personal development. Another policy that will lead to the reduction of crime is to encourage transformational leadership. For the training and the development of agile leaders, transformational leadership should be fostered. Additionally, transformational leadership influences the workers’ behavior as opposed to controlling them. Allowing individuals to have their freedom of creativity and developing their intellectual capacity is the best way to develop their leadership skills to help them reason away from crime. Therefore, leader development programs should be focused on the need for organizational leaders to empower their employees to be more committed to achieving common goals that will leave a positive impact on an organization. 

As well, leader development will also set good examples in society to enhance crime reduction. Leader development entails teaching leaders the importance of cooperation and collaboration and leading as an example. For effective employee motivation, leaders must carefully assess the needs of their employees to find the best ways of motivating them ( Tabassi & Bakar, 2010) . Having strong motivation and a clear vision enables leaders to perform at high levels. Additionally, the leader development programs should have well-defined ways of testing the motivation of the leaders and continuously help the leaders to realize how their behaviors and personalities are affecting others. The co-creation of leadership means that leaders will work together with their followers. Therefore, leader development programs should educate the followers on the benefits of sticking to society’s moral code. Teamwork should be aligned towards hierarchical and functional boundaries to achieve the mission and vision of the organization. Leader development promotes transformations in any organization. Organizational transformation is crucial for the creation of a dynamic and high-performing organization. For this to be possible, leader development programs should leverage communication by ensuring that effective communication plans are prioritized. To promote information sharing, effective communication plans should be formulated to encourage employees to contribute towards decision-making and establish a clear communication process structure that will enhance ease when reporting issues that affect the organization’s success. 

Humility and open-mindedness are also critical skills that can enhance the reduction of crime. For individual leadership, leader development will be about the continuous learning and growth of the leader’s humility. Humility in leadership begins with the leader realizing that they have a lot to learn. Besides, open-mindedness is a critical leadership quality that enhances leadership development. Additionally, transformational leadership helps leaders accept input and contributions from others to promote relational and co-creating styles that focus on developing the individual leaders and empowering others to become effective leaders (Tabassi & Bakar, 2010). This characteristic is a central factor as far as the reduction of crime is concerned. Fostering collaboration is a crucial leader development element because it enhances the development of interpersonal relationships between leaders and their followers. Furthermore, self-awareness of what is happening in a leader’s immediate environment is also a critical factor in leader development. Generally, leader development programs should encourage leaders to get out of their comfort zones to allow them to gain a deeper insight into understanding what is happening in and around them. Additionally, critical thinking and viewing things from a broader perspective enables the leader to understand what others are going through. When the leaders achieve this (having a perfect knowledge of what is happening in him and around him), then he/she will effectively develop the critical skills within themselves that will also allow for the empowerment of others. 

Conclusion 

The rational decision theory attempts to explain why individuals involve themselves in criminal activities. The theory argues that crime is a decision of an individual. The major underpinning assumption for this theory is that all individuals are rational beings, and they make rational decisions depending on their rational state of mind and their living conditions. Rational actors define individuals that make rational choices according to the information and calculations available to them. The rational choice theory has its strengths and weaknesses. The theory challenges people’s motivations directly and suggests that people participate in criminal actions based on the benefits they will accrue from such a venture. Simultaneously, the theory opines that individuals tend to shun involving themselves in criminal activities based on the consequences. The rational choice theory has found much relevance in multiple spheres for microeconomics and politics. The theory finds application in microeconomics and politics and argues that rational choice refers to looking for affordable ways of accomplishing tasks without regarding the value that such an action will achieve. Therefore, the theory places itself between the glorification and denigration of reason. The theory works within the precincts of problem-solving and applied reason. 

References 

Alalehto, T. (2015). Integrated criminology and biological related criminology facing white collar crime. In G. Julia (Ed.),  Advances in criminology research (pp. 41-72). Nova Science Publishers. 

Boudon, R. (1998). Limitations of rational choice theory. American Journal of Sociology, 104 (3), 817–828. https://doi.org/10.1086/210087  

Farrell, G. (2010). Situational crime prevention and its discontents: rational choice and harm reduction versus ‘cultural criminology’. Social Policy Administration, 44 (1), 40–66 .  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2009.00699.x  

Glowacki, L., & von Rueden, C. (2015). Leadership solves collective action problems in small-scale societies.  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences ,  370 (1683), 20150010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0010 

Mehlkop, G., & Graeff, P. (2010). Modelling a rational choice theory of criminal action: Subjective expected utilities, norms, and interactions . Rationality and Society, 22 (2), 189–222.    https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463110364730  

Mooney, G., Kelly, B., Goldblatt, D., & Hughes, G. (2004). Introductory chapter: Tales of fear and fascination: The crime problem in the contemporary UK . The Open University. 

Ogu, M. I. (2013). Rational choice theory: Assumptions, strengths, and greatest weaknesses in application outside the western milieu context.  Nigerian Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review ,  1 (3), 90-99. http://arabianjbmr.com/pdfs/NG_VOL_1_3/9.pdf 

Rybakova, A., Vinogradova, M., & Sizikova, V. (2020). Advancing leadership careers with leadership competencies. 5th International Conference on Social, Economic, and Academic Leadership (ICSEALV 2019)  (pp. 74-79). Atlantis Press. 

Sato, Y. (2013). Rational choice theory.  Sociopedia ,  2013 , 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/205684601372 

Tabassi, A. A., & Bakar, A. H. (2010). Towards assessing the leadership style and quality of transformational leadership: The case of construction firms of Iran.  Journal of Technology Management in China , 5(3):245-258. https://doi.org/10.1108/17468771011086256 

Wittek, R., Snijders, T. A., & Nee, V. (Eds.). (2020).  The handbook of rational choice social research . Stanford University Press.