Measuring offending: self-reports, official records, systematic observation and experimentation

ABSTRACT

Criminological knowledge can only be as accurate as the measure of crime itself. Concern with crime measurement starts with the definition of crime, which has consequences for the measurement techniques preferred in different domains. The two main methodologies used to measure criminal behaviour are official records (ORs) and self-reports (SRs) of offending. Although some researchers are concerned about ORs being filtered and deeply flawed estimates of criminal activity, others doubt that people can or will provide reliable information about their own criminal behaviour by completing a survey. In this article, we present a historical overview of the development of these techniques and discuss some of the main results of comparing ORs and SRs of offending. Throughout this discussion, we explore to what extent criminological conclusions differ depending on the measurement method and the potential implications of these differences. Finally, we present some alternative ways to measure offending, such as systematic observation, which could prove to be very important in improving criminological knowledge. In a period when criminologists seem to be increasingly concerned with the validity of measures of crime, this article reviews the major issues in crime measurement, as well as the advantages and limitations of the primary methodologies.

KEYWORDS:

• Measurement
• crime
• official records
• self-report
• observation

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This study was conducted at the Psychology Research Centre [UID/PSI/01662/2013], University of Minho, and supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education through national funds and co-financed by FEDER through COMPETE2020 under the PT2020 Partnership Agreement [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007653]. The first author was supported by a doctoral grant from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [FCT – SFRH/BD/122919/2016].

Notes on contributors

Hugo S. Gomes

Hugo S. Gomes is a PhD Candidate, funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT – grant SFRH/BD/122919/2016), in the School of Psychology, University of Minho, and a visiting PhD visiting student at the Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge. He is a Portuguese psychologist with a master’s degree in Criminal Psychology (with an Exceptional Academic Achievement award). His research interests are in juvenile delinquency; validity of self-reports of offending; developmental and life-course criminology; and experimental criminology.

Ângela Maia

Ângela Maia holds a PhD in Clinical Psychology from the University of Minho and is a Professor in the Department of Applied Psychology at the School of Psychology, University of Minho. She is the Vice President of the School of Psychology and President of the Pedagogical Council. She has collaborated and is the Principal Investigator of multiple research projects in the area of health, trauma, justice and violence. She has published dozens of national and international publications on these topics.

David P. Farrington

David P. Farrington, O.B.E, is Emeritus Professor of Psychological Criminology in the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University. He has received the Stockholm Prize in Criminology, and he is a former President of the American Society of Criminology. His major research interest is in developmental criminology, and he is Director of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, which is a prospective longitudinal survey of over 400 London males from age 8 to age 56. He has published over 100 books, monographs and government reports, and over 740 journal articles and book chapters, on criminological and psychological topics.