Scientists Study Crime In Progress In a VR Simulated Environment

HughPickens.com writes: Claire Nee writes in the NYT that for psychologists, it's best to observe actual behavior, in real time, and afterward interview research participants. Yet for obvious ethical and safety reasons, it's almost never possible to observe a crime as it happens. Now psychologists have devised a simulated environment that can be navigated using a mouse or a game controller. and had willing, experienced ex-burglars to commit a mock burglary in it. Ex-burglars approached the task in a dramatically different way from a comparison group of postgraduate students, of a similar age as our experienced ex-burglars. Burglars entered and exited the house at the rear, while students, unaware of the cover that the side and rear of the house afforded, entered at the exposed front. Burglars spent significantly more time in areas of the house with high-value items and navigated it much more systematically than the students did. They also showed greater discernment, by stealing fewer but more valuable items. Most important, all participants burgled the real and the simulated houses almost identically (PDF). We concluded that using simulations can be a robust way to study crime, and in studying it this way, we will not be limited to just burglary. "A better understanding of criminal behavior will help us reduce opportunities for crime in our neighborhoods," concludes Nee. "By knowing what the burglar is looking for — what signals wealth, occupancy, ease of access and security in properties — we can make adjustments in awareness and protection."

Comments

Must have been some pretty stupid students

[Snotnose]

Any idiot knows to go in the back/side, and smaller items are easier to carry than larger items of equal value.

Re:Must have been some pretty stupid students

[Livius]

These were postgraduate students -- they were special idiots.

Re:Must have been some pretty stupid students

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt their motivations were the same as someone who had actually had the drive to steal in reality previously. Without having to be in the actual situation they never visualized the necessity of cover or the true value of the items they were stealing. A real burglar had already done these things before, so in the simulation all he had to do was emulate his previous actions from memory. It's a dumb study.

Short version

[Livius]

Professionals do something better than amateurs.

Online training for newbie thieves

[witherstaff]

If I learn how to be a thief from a MOOC do I still have to pay my thieves guild annual fee?

Not a discovery

[Oligonicella]

Burglars have been telling us this for decades. Nothing new has been learned simply by using a video game scenario. In this the psychologists are half a century behind law enforcement. But it probably makes for a good grant write up.

Re:Not a discovery

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, something new was learned. The goal of the experiement was to test whether virtual environments are a valid tool for observation of burglary techniques such that their use should be continued. They weren't looking for new insight into *actual* burglary techniques -- that comes later.

This is all called out explicitly in the paper -- the approx 10 page paper which took about 10 minutes to read.

Yes, it would make for a good grant write up because this paper suggests continued development of the virtual environment techique would be productive.

Re:Not a discovery

[swillden]

Burglars have been telling us this for decades. Nothing new has been learned simply by using a video game scenario. In this the psychologists are half a century behind law enforcement. But it probably makes for a good grant write up.

Similarly, there was no point in Galileo and Newton studying the way stuff falls because everyone has been watching stuff fall forever.

You don't seem to get science. Finding a way to systematically study a subject in a controlled environment is the first step to dramatically increasing knowledge in that subject, at a pace that non-systematic, anecdotal experience -- however broad and deep -- cannot touch. In the case of the psychology of crime this has been problematic for the reasons mentioned in the study. The discovery here is that simulation may offer mechanisms that enable previously impossible areas of study, not the lessons about how burglars search homes. It's no surprise that the findings of the initial tests didn't contradict law enforcement experience... in fact if they had contradicted that experience it would have been a bad thing, since odds are that the new methodology would have been at fault, not the old experience.

If they can manage to establish a solid research methodology, though, and outline clearly its strengths and weaknesses, then they can start using it to systematically explore the subject. Odds are that many initial findings will merely corroborate anecdotal evidence. That's fine, and contrary to common non-scientific wisdom, it does not mean that such confirmatory studies are a waste of time and money. It's worth effort to establish that what you believe to be true really is (or, more precisely, to increase your confidence that it really is; absolute "truth" isn't reachable). But it's also a near certainty that, given a good experimental methodology, researchers will quickly be able to learn things that traditional wisdom does not know.

But none of that can happen if the subject can't be effectively studied and, particularly in psychology, it's often the case that the real breakthrough is in devising a way to test and measure. After that, the rest is just grunt work.

Will this method really enable significantly better research into the psychology of crime? I don't know. But it seems promising, and noteworthy.

Re:Squeezing the balloon

[ShanghaiBill]

And as soon as one form of crime is understood and deterrents introduced, won't the (successful) criminals simply move their attentions to another neighbourhood, modus operandi or equally illegal field of endeavour?

No. Most crime is based on opportunity. More opportunities means more crime. Fewer opportunities means less crime.

This initiative doesn't seem to address the basic issue of the number of criminals

There is not a fixed number of criminals, nor a fixed amount of crime. If crime doesn't pay, potential criminals will do something else, and as crime in an area falls, businesses invest and other job opportunities tend to open up.

Re:Squeezing the balloon

[peragrin]

Exactly crime is a business. as long as someone is willing to do the work and make a profit at it they will do so.

Prisons are part of what makes crime expensive. Another thing is flooding the market with low value goods that simulate high value goods.

Look at car radios. since manufacturer's started putting high quality audio and navigation systems into cars, car radio theft has dropped off considerably. It isn't worth it to steal the radio.

Tv's aren't big ticket items anymore. neither are dvd players. Computers are a mixed bag but even they are so cheap now a days. jewels always will be. Though if you want to protect your diamonds the best way is to put staged storage areas filled with fakes. the crooks will steal the fakes.

Crime falls when the standard of living comes up, and inequality is lessened. As inequality is increased so does crime.

Re:Squeezing the balloon

[chipschap]

For instance, burglary skills are of little use to a Wall Street investment banker.

Wall Street investment bankers have moved well beyond simple burglary.