DOI: 10.3886/icpsr36844.v1
title: Decision Making Among Adult Offenders and Non-Offenders, Delaware, 2014-2015
title: Version 1

description: This study examined the relationship between social preference game behavior and offender status, while testing whether this relationship was attributed to genuine prosocial preferences or confounded by individual differences in future orientation, sensation seeking, and risk-taking. The research team administered a hypothetical crime scenario (assault), which allowed for the experimental manipulation of certain key situational and contextual characteristics (e.g., rewards, peers) and framing considerations. The scenarios were crafted to be realistic for both the offender and non-offender respondents. The research team collected specific measures of parameters of the offender utility function, including measures of risk preferences, items that measure their discount rate and preferences for immediate vs. delayed rewards and costs, the magnitude of their motivation or craving for crime, and their decision-making style (intuitive vs. cognitive). Additionally, this study includes other measures of offender preferences, including fairness and social considerations, as well as related cognitive and behavioral measures (e.g., sensation-seeking, impulsivity).
description: The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that when compared to nonoffenders, offenders would demonstrate increased self-interest, while also considering competing theoretical mechanisms.
description: This study employed data from the Delaware Decision Making Study (DDMS) to compare decision making competencies between a sample of offenders (n=510) and a control group of non-offenders drawn from the local community (n=247). Those who were interested were then screened to ensure they were at least 18 years old and had never been convicted for a nontraffic offense. The nonoffender sample was 41 percent male, 34 percent White (52 percent Black, 5 percent Hispanic/Latino, and 8 percent other), and on average were 34 years old. The survey was done in a group setting at a research office or work release center. In addition to the survey, respondents were asked to play a computer game as part of the data collection. By agreeing to participate in this study, offenders were notified that their criminal history records would be obtained. The research team also collected one year follow-up information from official sources from all those in the offender sample. This follow-up information is included in the SPSS data file for this release ("Decisions_Base_FU_Arrst_to_UMD-1.sav")
description: The variables in this study include specific measures of parameters of the offender utility function, including measures of risk preferences, items that measure their discount rate and preferences for immediate vs. delayed rewards and costs, the magnitude of their motivation or craving for crime, and their decision-making style (intuitive vs. cognitive). Additionally, this study includes other measures of offender preferences, including fairness and social considerations, as well as related cognitive and behavioral measures (e.g., sensation-seeking, impulsivity).
description: Not applicable.
description: Response Rates: Not applicable.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Likert-type scales.
description: The offender sample consists of males (77 percent) and females (25 percent), who as of 2014-2015, were incarcerated within a Delaware state penitentiary for a felony offense, but nearing supervised release. The offender sample was primarily White (48 percent) and Black (43 percent) but also included Hispanic/Latinos (5 percent) and individuals who classified themselves as "other" (4 percent). The average offender age was 33 years old, with an age range of 18-60 years old. The nonoffender sample was recruited from the same county to best approximate a "citizen" nonoffender population from the same geographic area in which the offender sample would soon return. Individuals were recruited through advertisements placed in local newspapers, public libraries, college newspapers, and provided to local community groups. Potential participants were provided a phone number to call whether they wanted to be involved in a "decision-making" study and incentivized with $50 for participation.
description: Datasets: DS1: Decision Making Among Adult Offenders and Non-Offenders, Delaware, 2014-2015
description: Offenders and individuals from the general population in Delaware. Smallest Geographic Unit: None.
description: on-site questionnaireThese data are a Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped for release, but not checked or processed except as noted in the accompanying README file.