Treiber Kyle, Wikström Per-Olof H
Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.
Crim Behav Ment Health. 2025 Apr;35(2):106-114. doi: 10.1002/cbm.2378. Epub 2025 Mar 28.
This paper takes on 'Farrington's challenge' 'to bridge the gap between risk factor research and more complex explanatory theories' by offering an explanation for the unexplained statistical phenomenon of cumulative risk. We argue that cumulative risk primarily reflects the social contexts which crime relevant causal processes operate in and draw upon for their content and efficacy.
This paper tests if the immediate causes of crime according to Situational Action Theory (crime propensity and criminogenic exposure) can account for the relationship between cumulative risk (reflecting key features of family, neighbourhood, school and peer contexts) and crime involvement.
The paper uses data from the Peterborough Adolescent and Young Adult Development Study (PADS+) reflecting the social lives and criminal behaviour of a randomly sampled UK age cohort from ages 12 to 24 (2003-2016). Data used are drawn from parent and participant questionnaires, space-time budgets, community surveys, the UK Census and land use databases.
Cumulative risk statistically accounts for 7% and 8% of the variance in crime prevalence and frequency, respectively, whereas crime propensity and criminogenic exposure account for 52% and 58%, respectively. Moreover, and importantly, measures of crime propensity and criminogenic exposure fully account for (statistically mediate) the association between cumulative risk and both crime prevalence and crime frequency.
Cumulative risk does not represent cumulative causation. The phenomenon of cumulative risk is best understood as representing the social context. Future research should focus on identifying features of social contexts that provide relevant content to and impact the efficacy of key action (and developmental) processes in crime causation.
本文通过对累积风险这一无法解释的统计现象作出解释，来应对“法林顿的挑战”，即“弥合风险因素研究与更复杂的解释性理论之间的差距”。我们认为，累积风险主要反映了犯罪相关因果过程在其中运作并从中获取内容和效力的社会背景。
本文检验情境行动理论中犯罪的直接原因（犯罪倾向和犯罪ogenic暴露）是否能够解释累积风险（反映家庭、邻里、学校和同伴背景的关键特征）与犯罪参与之间的关系。
本文使用了彼得伯勒青少年和青年发展研究（PADS+）的数据，该数据反映了一个从12岁到24岁（2003 - 2016年）随机抽样的英国年龄队列的社会生活和犯罪行为。所使用的数据来自家长和参与者问卷、时空预算、社区调查、英国人口普查和土地利用数据库。
累积风险在统计学上分别解释了犯罪发生率和犯罪频率方差的7%和8%，而犯罪倾向和犯罪ogenic暴露分别解释了52%和58%。此外，重要的是，犯罪倾向和犯罪ogenic暴露的测量完全解释了（在统计学上介导了）累积风险与犯罪发生率和犯罪频率之间的关联。
累积风险并不代表累积因果关系。累积风险现象最好被理解为代表社会背景。未来的研究应专注于识别社会背景的特征，这些特征为犯罪因果关系中的关键行动（和发展）过程提供相关内容并影响其效力。
