Rational choice (Cornish and Clarke, 1986) explains crime as a decision guided by self-interest: effort, risk and reward are weighed, and one acts if it pays. Per-Olof Wikström's situational action theory, developed from 2004, defines crime as a breach of moral rules and holds that what is decisive happens before any calculation: in the moral filter that determines which alternatives a person perceives in a given setting. If offending does not appear as an option, there is nothing to calculate. Crime arises from the interaction between the person's propensity —their morality and self-control— and exposure to criminogenic settings.
| Situational action (Wikström) | Rational choice | |
|---|---|---|
| Authors and year | Per-Olof Wikström, from 2004 | Derek Cornish and Ronald Clarke, 1986 |
| What crime is | An act that breaks a moral rule laid down in law | A behaviour chosen for its benefits |
| What guides action | Personal morality and that of the setting; often habit | Self-interest and the balance of costs and benefits |
| Process | Perception of alternatives, then choice | Choice among alternatives already given |
| Role of self-control and deterrence | They matter only when one's morality conflicts with temptation | Expected costs always weigh |
| Reference study | PADS+, in Peterborough | Interviews with offenders about specific crimes |
// What they shareThe common ground
Both explain crime at the point where it happens: one person, in one place, at one moment. Both reject the idea that the characteristics of the individual or of the setting are enough taken separately, and both give weight to the immediate situation, which brings them close to prevention. Wikström, in fact, does not deny that deliberation occurs: he accepts that people sometimes choose by weighing things up. What he disputes is that this is the rule and that the engine is always benefit.
// Where they partThe differences that matter
The moral filter. This is the concept that changes the order of things. For rational choice, everyone sees the opportunity and decides whether to take it. For Wikström, most people do not see crime as an alternative: faced with a forgotten wallet, it does not occur to many to keep it, and not because they have calculated the risk.
Habit and deliberation. Situational action distinguishes two processes. In familiar settings we act out of habit, without deliberating, and that includes those who offend routinely. Only in new situations, or when one's morality collides with temptation, is there deliberation, and only then do controls come into play: self-control, which is internal, and deterrence, which is external.
Who deterrence works on. A different prediction follows. For rational choice, raising the risk deters anyone. For Wikström, the threat of punishment is irrelevant to someone with firm morals —they were not going to offend— and counts only for those who do contemplate it. His Peterborough data point that way.
// One villain, two readingsMr. Blonde
Mr. Blonde is the proof of why something more than calculation is needed. With rational choice, the jewellery store robbery is a reasonable decision for everyone in the crew: a high payoff, a plan, an accepted risk. But when the alarm goes off, the others run and he starts shooting the staff; and afterwards he tortures a policeman for no purpose at all, as he himself admits. No balance of costs and benefits explains that, because he gains nothing and risks everything. Situational action does explain it. The six men were in the same setting, with the same temptation and the same provocation; what separates them is propensity. The others' moral filter rules out killing civilians as an option, which is why they are appalled. Mr. Blonde's rules out nothing. For him that alternative was there from the start, and he did not have much deciding to do.
The mistake everyone makes
Confusing situational action with situational prevention, or with a variant of rational choice, because of the word "situational". They are different things: Wikström's is a general theory of the causes of crime, centred on morality, and it criticises rational choice for assuming everyone perceives the same options. The formula usually asked for is that crime results from the interaction between propensity and exposure, not from either alone.
Which villains each one explains
Case files the archive analyses with each theory. The number is the total; the list shows the first ones.
Sources · further reading
- Wikström, P.-O. H. (2006). "Individuals, Settings, and Acts of Crime: Situational Mechanisms and the Explanation of Crime". In The Explanation of Crime. Cambridge University Press.
- Wikström, P.-O. H., Oberwittler, D., Treiber, K. & Hardie, B. (2012). Breaking Rules: The Social and Situational Dynamics of Young People's Urban Crime. Oxford University Press.
- Cornish, D. B. & Clarke, R. V. (eds.) (1986). The Reasoning Criminal. Springer-Verlag.
Theory questionsFrequently asked questions
What is the difference between situational action theory and rational choice?
Rational choice explains crime as a decision based on the balance of costs and benefits. Situational action theory holds that, before any calculation, the person's morality filters which alternatives they perceive: someone who does not see crime as an option never gets as far as deliberating. Crime results from the interaction between personal propensity and setting.
What is the moral filter?
It is the process by which the person's moral rules and those of the setting determine which action alternatives they perceive in response to a motivation. If the criminal alternative is excluded by the filter, there is no choice to make.
What is crime propensity in Wikström's theory?
It is a person's tendency to see crime as an alternative and to choose it. It depends on their morality —their rules and the associated emotions of guilt and shame— and on their capacity for self-control.