Opportunity-Rationality Theories Quiz

A theory that explains crime as a result of opportunities, target suitability, and the absence of guardians. Criminals make rational decisions based on the opportunity for profit and the potential risks. This theory suggests that crime is not inherent to individuals, but rather a consequence of circumstance and opportunity.

These are recurring daily activities that fulfill basic needs, such as work, school, leisure, and social interaction. These activities create predictable patterns of movement and interaction, making individuals susceptible to crime.

A person who is likely to commit a crime due to motivations and circumstances. These motivations could be financial gain, revenge, or simply thrill seeking.

This refers to the assumption that anyone has the potential to commit crime if the opportunity arises. It doesn't necessarily state all people are criminal, but rather that factors like motivation and opportunity can influence behavior.

Crimes that involve an identifiable victim or object, like theft, assault, or vandalism. These are often easier to analyze using RAT because of clear targets.

Crimes that are harder to analyze with RAT because they lack a traditional target or victim, making it difficult to define 'opportunity' and 'suitability'. Examples include crimes like corporate fraud or environmental damage.

This focuses on the idea that individuals make rational choices based on cost-benefit analysis, weighing potential rewards against potential risks. They argue that crime occurs when the perceived benefits of criminal activity outweigh its costs.

A school of thought in criminology that focuses on identifying differences between criminals and non-criminals, examining causes of crime, and using scientific methods to study criminal behavior.

A set of beliefs that emphasize factors outside of individual control, like biological or social factors, as the main drivers of criminal behavior, suggesting that criminals are 'predestined' to their actions.

The early biological theories of criminology, such as Lombroso's theory, often emphasized the idea that criminal behavior stems from inherent physical or biological abnormalities.

Cesare Lombroso, a pioneer in the biological theory of crime, believed that criminals could be identified based on certain physical characteristics that suggested they were 'atavistic' or reverted to a primitive state.

The term 'atavistic' refers to the idea of a criminal being a 'throwback' to a more primitive evolutionary stage, based on Lombroso's theory.

Lombroso believed that some individuals were 'born criminals' with predetermined criminal tendencies due to biological factors.

Lombroso categorized criminals into various groups based on their physical and psychological characteristics, emphasizing their unique biological differences.

Biological theories of crime that consider the interplay of biological and environmental factors in explaining criminal behavior, acknowledging the complexity of the relationship between biology and environment.

A theoretical perspective within the Positivist School that examines the psychological factors that contribute to criminal behavior.

The theory that criminal behavior is influenced by a lack of effective controls, both internal (e.g., conscience) and external (e.g., social sanctions).

Internalized moral codes and values that prevent individuals from engaging in criminal behavior.

External pressures and sanctions that deter criminal behavior, such as laws, rules, and social disapproval.

The ability of parents, school, and community to effectively supervise and discipline individuals, preventing delinquent behavior.

The internal strength of an individual's character, self-control, and commitment to conventional values, acting as a buffer against delinquent behavior.

Factors that push individuals towards criminal behavior, such as poverty, abuse, or peer pressure.

Factors that pull individuals towards criminal behavior, such as opportunities for easy money or gang membership.

The theory that delinquency occurs when outer containment is weak, inner containment is weak, and pushes and pulls are strong.

Types of social control that directly discourage delinquency by using punishment or rewards.

Social control that relies on the fear of disappointing loved ones, influencing individuals to avoid delinquency.

A deviant response where individuals reject both societal goals and conventional means of achieving them, but don't replace them with alternatives. They essentially drop out of society.

A deviant response characterized by individuals who continue to follow societal norms and approved means, even though they have given up on achieving the societal goals. They focus on the process, not the outcome.

A deviant response where individuals reject both societal goals and means, replacing them with new ones. They seek to overturn the existing system with their own alternative.

A deviant response where individuals accept societal goals but reject the conventional means of achieving them, often resorting to illegal or illegitimate methods to achieve success.

A deviance theory that suggests that crime and delinquency arise from the inability of individuals to achieve culturally valued goals through legitimate means. This strain creates pressure to adapt through deviant strategies.

Deviance is more likely when individuals are less involved in conventional activities like studying, family time, or extracurriculars. This is because these activities take up time and energy that could be used for deviance.

The strength of an individual's belief in the moral validity of laws and norms influences their likelihood of deviating from these norms. Individuals with weaker belief systems in societal rules and values are more likely to commit deviant acts.

Social bonding theory suggests that strong social bonds with family, friends, community, and society decrease the likelihood of deviant behavior. Individuals with strong bonds are more likely to conform to societal norms.

Attachment to peers influences conformity only when the peers are conventional. Individuals who are strongly attached to delinquent peers are more likely to engage in delinquent activities.

Self-control theory suggests that individuals with high self-control are less likely to engage in crime, while individuals with low self-control are more prone to criminal behavior. Self-control is seen as a key factor in determining whether someone will engage in criminal acts.

Self-control theory explains individual differences in crime, suggesting that low self-control leads to criminal behavior regardless of age or circumstance.

Individuals with high levels of self-control are less likely to engage in criminal acts at any point in their lives, indicating that self-control is a consistent predictor of criminal behavior across the lifespan.

Hirschi's original social bonding theory focused on multiple factors like attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. However, research indicates that involvement in conventional activities is not a strong predictor of criminal behavior, suggesting that other factors, like belief and attachment, are more influential.

Social bonding theory suggests that strong bonds with conventional people and institutions, like family, community, and school, decrease the likelihood of deviant behavior, but research shows that association with delinquent peers leads to increased delinquency.

Self-control theory posits that low self-control is a key factor in the likelihood of committing crimes, while social bonding theory highlights the importance of social bonds in preventing deviance. These theories provide different explanations for why individuals may engage in criminal acts.