Rational Choice and the Gender Gap in Crime: Establishing the Generality of Rational Choice Theory in Russia and Ukraine

Abstract

Using data elicited from a random sample of 1435 adults residing in Lviv, Ukraine, and Nizhni Novgorod, Russia, this study tests rational choice theory (RCT) across gender groups. It seeks to determine whether men and women have different perceptions of sanction risk and crime rewards, whether the formation of these perceptions is gender-specific, and whether RCT predicts criminal behavior equally for men and women. Results suggest that, for both genders, perceptions of crime rewards appear more important than sanction threats. Furthermore, perceived rewards of crime, but not sanction threats, partially explain associations between offending and personal and vicarious experiences with crime. Finally, the performance of RCT is consistent, but not identical, in explaining crime by men and women. The gender gap in offending appears to reflect differences between men and women in levels of perceived rewards, most likely acquired through direct and vicarious experiences with crime as well as through gender-variant emotional bonds.

Keywords:

• RCT
• gender
• utilitarian calculus
• Ukraine
• Russia

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Katharina Neissl is PhD Student in School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Northeastern University. Her interests include criminological theory and juvenile justice.

Ekaterina Botchkovar is Associate Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Northeastern University. Her research interests include criminological theory development and comparative criminology.

Olena Antonaccio is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Miami. Her research interests include theory testing and development and comparative criminology.

Lorine Hughes is Associate Professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver. Her research interests include youth street gangs, criminological theory testing, and social networks.

Notes

1 The latter attempts are consistent with the notion of “thick” rational choice models (Hechter & Kanazawa, 1997: 194) that allow additional contingencies for key postulated relationships and introduce potential sources of variability in perceptions of rewards and punishments associated with specific acts of crime.

2 As Brame and colleagues (1998, p. 250) argue, the test applies equally to OLS and maximum likelihood estimates.