Mark C. Stafford

A Reconceptualization of General and Specific Deterrence

The distinction between general and specific deterrence is widely recognized and accepted by deterrence researchers, and is used commonly to classify deterrence studies. However, the logical and empirical grounds for the distinction are not as clear as they might appear, and the conventional conception has done more to obfuscate than to clarify the deterrence process. Following a discussion of these issues, the authors propose a reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence, and apply it to several current controversies in the deterrence literature.

Public Goals of Punishment and Support for the Death Penalty

Social scientists and social commentators are often quick to impute motives to those who support capital punishment, but there is in fact little direct evidence on public goals of punishment or the way in which these goals influence public support for capital punishment. In a sample survey of Seattle residents, respondents were most likely to choose retribution as the primary purpose of punishment, followed by incapacitation, rehabilitation, specific and general deterrence, and normative validation. A preference for retribution increases dramatically with age, but declines with educational attainment. Proponents of retribution and normative validation are most likely to favor the death penalty, but, contrary to common assumption, retributivists constitute only a minority of those who support capital punishment.

Stigma, Deviance, and Social Control

One reason why it is difficult to approach the study of stigma with much confidence is that there are so many kinds. Consider just a short list: old age, paralysis, cancer, drug addiction, mental illness, shortness, being black, alcoholism, smoking, crime, homosexuality, unemployment, being Jewish, obesity, blindness, epilepsy, receiving welfare, illiteracy, divorce, ugliness, stuttering, being female, poverty, being an amputee, mental retardation, and deafness. One of the few common denominators of these characteristics may be that all of them generate ridicule and scorn. However, there is another, more important reason why the study of stigma must be approached cautiously. Conceptualization and use of the term have been so vague and uncritical that one may reasonably ask: What is a stigma? To many, the answer is simply a “flaw,” “shortcoming,” “blemish,” or “taint,” but that answer does little except to imply that stigmas are opprobrious.

Modeling the Deterrent Effects of Punishment

Nonexperimental (homicide) and experimental data are used to study the effects of the certainty and severity of punishment. Many deterrence researchers, working without systematic theory of how punishments should operate to influence behavior, have opted for a simple additive model of certainty and severity. However, a satisfaction balance model-a social psychological theory representing a modification of the matching equation and positing interactive effects of certainty and severity-fits both sets of data well and substantially better than an additive model. The implications of the satisfaction balance model for a theory of deterrence are discussed

A theory of problem-solving behavior

In this paper we develop a formal, testable theory of problem-solving behavior with special relevance to individuals and small groups. The theory is consistent with principles drawn from operant behavior and social exchange theories but also incorporates elements of cognitive psychology. Problem solving is defined as a nonroutine activity oriented toward changing an undersirable state of affairs. The focus on change differentiates problem solving from coping, which is oriented toward relieving feelings of stress. A decision-making model is presented, which takes the problem-solving process through its latter stages

Rewards and punishments in complex human choices

Building on work on the matching law, this paper proposes a model of choice behavior that includes costs and benefits. We compare our model with alternative models in the behavioral literature, and use the results of two experiments with human subjects to assess the predictive accuracy of the various models.

Public Perceptions of Social Problems: Some Propositions and a Test

Research on social problems has largely overlooked a central question: What characteristics must a phenomenon possess before the general public will consider it a social problem? Only by answering that question will one have a clear basis for predicting the outcomes of campaigns to define phenomena as social problems. The authors propose that any phenomenon will be perceived as a social problem to the degree that people (1) condemn it (i.e., view it as wrong or hazardous), (2) perceive it to be frequent or prevalent, and (3) consider it mutable. Data from a 1981 survey of Seattle residents provide strong support for this position, but they also show that the effect of perceived mutability is contingent on the type of social problem under consideration.

Central Analytical Issues in the Generation of Cumulative Sociological Knowledge

Abstract The growth of theories, methodologies, and substantive/empirical areas in sociology has not led to consensus about what sociology is or how to generate cumulative knowledge. Recourse to general or “grand” theories, conceptual frameworks, and methodological advances has not proven noticeably helpful in resolving this situation. Suggesting an alternative strategy, this paper delineates nine analytical issues central to “doing” sociology. The authors contend that systematic attention to these issues will increase the generation of cumulative sociological knowledge.

On Choice Behavior in Individual and Social Situations

Gray and Tallmans (1984) model of individual choice is extended to explain the choice behavior of groups. Experimental data on dyads tend to support the model and, when compared to comparable data on individuals, show how group choice behavior differs from individual choice behavior. Groups are less likely than individuals to choose a behavior whose relative worth is low, and are more likely to engage in a behavior if its relative worth is high. A general application of the model to groups larger than dyads is also presented.