ABSTRACT
This section deals with situational action theory (SAT), based on Wikström and Treiber (2016). We select three sets of central hypotheses. (1) Three key propositions claiming, in particular, that there is a perception-choice process and that relevant aspects of the person and the environment lead to action. (2) The PEA hypothesis assumes that propensities (P) and exposure to relevant settings (E) lead to action. (3) SAT further proposes a sequential model addressing the process of how crime emerges.
There are three fundamental problems of SAT. There is no general action theory (that is regarded as important by proponents of SAT); there is no decision mechanism (utility maximization is rejected for spontaneous action); there is a strong normative bias claiming a “natural inclination to be rule-guided.” We further reject the critique of RCT that mainly addresses a narrow version and ignores recent applications of the theory in criminology.
The comparison of those propositions with RCT shows that they are in part consistent – internalized “morals” are also relevant according to RCT. RCT is, however, much more specific. It explains, for example, which perceptions lead to which action. The other propositions of SAT have serious weaknesses, from the perspective of RCT. One major flaw is SAT’s low informative content. Our conclusion is that SAT is not a “good-enough theory” for criminology (this expression was used in SAT for RCT).
