Theoretical perspectives can be judged by a number of standards, but two important dimensions include (1) the potential of a perspective to stimulate new lines of research and (2) its utility in the policy arena. Focusing on these criteria, I find the contextually appropriate response perspective (CARP) to be highly significant. Further, I believe CARP can shed new light on issues that stretch well beyond socioeconomic status differences in future discounting and risky behavior. To illustrate, I discuss some unexpected findings in criminology and show how CARP can make sense of these findings and advance related research.
Of special interest is CARP's ability to explain the failure of interventions based on fear and deterrence. Specifically, as Pepper & Nettle observe, health promotion efforts that highlight the risks of unhealthy behavior can have unintended consequences and may decrease healthy behavior. In particular, such efforts may increase pessimism about the future and lead to future discounting – especially when the health risks are seen as uncontrollable. This observation is extremely relevant to fear-based interventions in criminal justice.
In the United States, “Scared Straight” programs remain popular and are the focus of a highly rated television series. In such programs, juvenile offenders visit a prison and hear a presentation by inmates about the horrors of prison life. They are told they will end up in prison if they continue their behavior and that there is a good chance they will be raped and assaulted once in prison. Despite the popularity of such programs, evaluation research indicates they lead to more offending (Petrosino et al. Reference Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, Hollis-Peel and Lavenberg2013). The reasons for this outcome remain a mystery and came as a surprise to researchers. One possible explanation is that participating juveniles felt a need to engage in future delinquent acts to show they are not scared by the program. Another intriguing possibility is that, by highlighting the prison horrors that await them, these programs increase pessimism about the future and thereby elicit a contextually appropriate response (i.e., future discounting and more present-oriented, risky behaviors).
Regardless of whether they have formally participated in a Scared Straight program, young offenders report that they often receive similar fear-based messages from teachers and family members (Hoffman Reference Hoffman2004). As with Scared Straight programs, there is reason to believe these messages produce the very response they are designed to deter. To use an example from my own research, the following young offender describes how such messages increased his pessimism about the future and, in turn, his motivation to offend: “The way I was going, I didn't think I was ever going to see [age] 19. I swear. My aunties used to always say, ‘Man you gonna be dead..’ . . Made me wanna go do some more bad stuff” (Brezina et al. Reference Brezina, Tekin and Topalli2009, 1114).
In short, CARP may help explain the failure of deterrence, including unexpected “backfire” effects. The threat of punishment may increase future discounting and lead to more risky behavior, and this may be especially true for individuals who are pessimistic about their futures to begin with. Fear-based approaches may remind individuals of their current low statuses, reinforce negative future expectations, and thereby trigger contextually appropriate responses. According to “commonsense” notions about punishment and deterrence, the threat of future punishment should serve as a powerful deterrent – but this belief assumes that the target of the threat has a desirable future to jeopardize.
In terms of actual punishment, it appears that some individuals are more responsive than others to punishment experiences, and this issue is now receiving a good deal of attention from criminologists. Punishment appears to deter some offenders, while others respond with defiance and more offending. The reasons for “differential deterrence” are not entirely clear, but variables highlighted by CARP may prove to be key. Differential deterrence may be a product, in part, of individual variations in perceived control over the future. Qualitative studies indicate that many serious offenders assume they are “doomed to deviance” – an assumption that punishment experiences may reinforce. Perhaps punishment is more effective as a deterrent when individuals believe they have the power to select an alternative future (see Maruna Reference Maruna2001).
Positive expectations for the future have been described as an important type of “motivational capital” or cognitive resource that individuals can draw on in the decision-making process. In effect, positive expectations can incentivize behavior that is “designed to achieve that ‘future me’” (Clinkinbeard & Zohra Reference Clinkinbeard and Zohra2012, 238). Further, interventions that focus on positive future outcomes have shown some success. For instance, a seven-week “school-to-jobs” intervention that targeted disadvantaged students used structured class sessions to promote the development of positive future expectations (especially future “academic” selves) and to help youth identify strategies for realizing these expectations. An experimental evaluation revealed that, relative to a control group of nonparticipants, the intervention was associated with increased school attendance, time spent on homework, class participation, and a reduced risk of classroom misbehavior and depression (Oyserman et al. Reference Oyserman, Bybee and Terry2006).
In summary, CARP is likely to stimulate new policy-relevant research in criminology. If future research confirms my suspicions, CARP will help us better understand why programs often produce unintended effects – an understanding that could lead to more effective and humane interventions (e.g., programs that combine punishment/incarceration with services that better prepare ex-offenders for the future). In this sense, CARP may help us exercise greater control over the future. The timing appears to be right in the United States, as there is growing recognition among policy makers of the limits of harsh and costly punitive measures, such as mass incarceration and strict “zero-tolerance” policies in schools – measures that reduce the life chances of those affected and often backfire.
Theoretical perspectives can be judged by a number of standards, but two important dimensions include (1) the potential of a perspective to stimulate new lines of research and (2) its utility in the policy arena. Focusing on these criteria, I find the contextually appropriate response perspective (CARP) to be highly significant. Further, I believe CARP can shed new light on issues that stretch well beyond socioeconomic status differences in future discounting and risky behavior. To illustrate, I discuss some unexpected findings in criminology and show how CARP can make sense of these findings and advance related research.
Of special interest is CARP's ability to explain the failure of interventions based on fear and deterrence. Specifically, as Pepper & Nettle observe, health promotion efforts that highlight the risks of unhealthy behavior can have unintended consequences and may decrease healthy behavior. In particular, such efforts may increase pessimism about the future and lead to future discounting – especially when the health risks are seen as uncontrollable. This observation is extremely relevant to fear-based interventions in criminal justice.
In the United States, “Scared Straight” programs remain popular and are the focus of a highly rated television series. In such programs, juvenile offenders visit a prison and hear a presentation by inmates about the horrors of prison life. They are told they will end up in prison if they continue their behavior and that there is a good chance they will be raped and assaulted once in prison. Despite the popularity of such programs, evaluation research indicates they lead to more offending (Petrosino et al. Reference Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, Hollis-Peel and Lavenberg2013). The reasons for this outcome remain a mystery and came as a surprise to researchers. One possible explanation is that participating juveniles felt a need to engage in future delinquent acts to show they are not scared by the program. Another intriguing possibility is that, by highlighting the prison horrors that await them, these programs increase pessimism about the future and thereby elicit a contextually appropriate response (i.e., future discounting and more present-oriented, risky behaviors).
Regardless of whether they have formally participated in a Scared Straight program, young offenders report that they often receive similar fear-based messages from teachers and family members (Hoffman Reference Hoffman2004). As with Scared Straight programs, there is reason to believe these messages produce the very response they are designed to deter. To use an example from my own research, the following young offender describes how such messages increased his pessimism about the future and, in turn, his motivation to offend: “The way I was going, I didn't think I was ever going to see [age] 19. I swear. My aunties used to always say, ‘Man you gonna be dead..’ . . Made me wanna go do some more bad stuff” (Brezina et al. Reference Brezina, Tekin and Topalli2009, 1114).
In short, CARP may help explain the failure of deterrence, including unexpected “backfire” effects. The threat of punishment may increase future discounting and lead to more risky behavior, and this may be especially true for individuals who are pessimistic about their futures to begin with. Fear-based approaches may remind individuals of their current low statuses, reinforce negative future expectations, and thereby trigger contextually appropriate responses. According to “commonsense” notions about punishment and deterrence, the threat of future punishment should serve as a powerful deterrent – but this belief assumes that the target of the threat has a desirable future to jeopardize.
In terms of actual punishment, it appears that some individuals are more responsive than others to punishment experiences, and this issue is now receiving a good deal of attention from criminologists. Punishment appears to deter some offenders, while others respond with defiance and more offending. The reasons for “differential deterrence” are not entirely clear, but variables highlighted by CARP may prove to be key. Differential deterrence may be a product, in part, of individual variations in perceived control over the future. Qualitative studies indicate that many serious offenders assume they are “doomed to deviance” – an assumption that punishment experiences may reinforce. Perhaps punishment is more effective as a deterrent when individuals believe they have the power to select an alternative future (see Maruna Reference Maruna2001).
Positive expectations for the future have been described as an important type of “motivational capital” or cognitive resource that individuals can draw on in the decision-making process. In effect, positive expectations can incentivize behavior that is “designed to achieve that ‘future me’” (Clinkinbeard & Zohra Reference Clinkinbeard and Zohra2012, 238). Further, interventions that focus on positive future outcomes have shown some success. For instance, a seven-week “school-to-jobs” intervention that targeted disadvantaged students used structured class sessions to promote the development of positive future expectations (especially future “academic” selves) and to help youth identify strategies for realizing these expectations. An experimental evaluation revealed that, relative to a control group of nonparticipants, the intervention was associated with increased school attendance, time spent on homework, class participation, and a reduced risk of classroom misbehavior and depression (Oyserman et al. Reference Oyserman, Bybee and Terry2006).
In summary, CARP is likely to stimulate new policy-relevant research in criminology. If future research confirms my suspicions, CARP will help us better understand why programs often produce unintended effects – an understanding that could lead to more effective and humane interventions (e.g., programs that combine punishment/incarceration with services that better prepare ex-offenders for the future). In this sense, CARP may help us exercise greater control over the future. The timing appears to be right in the United States, as there is growing recognition among policy makers of the limits of harsh and costly punitive measures, such as mass incarceration and strict “zero-tolerance” policies in schools – measures that reduce the life chances of those affected and often backfire.