Criminal Decision-Making: Choice, Emotion, Opportunity, and Bias
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Criminal decision-making is the process through which a person perceives, evaluates, and selects actions in a situation that may involve breaking the law. Psychological and criminological research examines how perceived rewards, risks, emotions, habits, moral rules, available alternatives, and immediate opportunities shape those choices. The same action can arise through different pathways, and the same person may respond differently across situations.
Understanding these decisions matters for crime prevention, offender rehabilitation, investigative interpretation, and public policy. It also requires a crucial distinction: a scientific explanation of a decision is not a determination of guilt, criminal responsibility, or the legal mental state required for a particular offense.
What Is Criminal Decision-Making?
Criminal decision-making refers to the cognitive, emotional, social, and situational processes involved when someone considers, initiates, continues, changes, or abandons an action that may constitute an offense. Researchers investigate choices before an event, decisions made during it, and choices afterward, including whether to stop, flee, disclose, repair harm, or repeat behavior.
The concept concerns a decision process rather than a clinical diagnosis or a fixed personality type. Some decisions are deliberate and extended; others happen in seconds. Some involve explicit comparison of alternatives, while others rely on learned routines, emotional responses, or immediately accessible options. A person's perception of the circumstances can be inaccurate even when their behavior appears goal-directed.
The behavioral economics review of offender decision-making explains why a model based only on stable preferences and perfect calculations misses important features of actual offending choices. Research on situational opportunity theories likewise locates criminal events within the meeting of people, places, activities, and environmental conditions.
How a Criminal Decision Develops
A useful research-based reconstruction follows a sequence of interacting questions: What action becomes conceivable? Which immediate and long-term outcomes seem possible? How strongly are those outcomes valued? What emotional state is present? What obstacles, social expectations, and alternative courses of action are visible? What actually happens as circumstances change?
This sequence describes analytical components rather than a universal timeline. Perception, emotion, and action can occur simultaneously, while some familiar situations trigger habitual responses without conscious enumeration of choices. Researchers can study the components separately, but reconstructing the actual internal sequence in a historical criminal event is often uncertain.
Consider a hypothetical workplace theft. An employee notices a poorly controlled item, thinks about an urgent financial pressure, imagines that detection is unlikely, anticipates relief, and considers taking it. Another employee encountering the same item may regard taking it as morally impermissible and never treat it as a viable option. A third may notice a legitimate route for requesting help. The opportunity is shared, but its perception and the action alternatives differ.
A decision becomes more intelligible when these dimensions are examined together. Opportunity affects what is feasible; personal norms affect what seems acceptable; emotion affects attention and valuation; and beliefs about consequences affect which option seems attractive.
Rational Choice Theory: Decisions Have Purposes
Rational choice approaches start from the proposition that many offenses involve purposeful behavior. The decision-maker may pursue money, status, excitement, revenge, acceptance, relief, or another perceived benefit while weighing costs such as effort, moral discomfort, detection, punishment, and harm. Decisions about where, when, and how to act can reflect practical adaptation to constraints.
Purposeful conduct does not establish that the expected outcome was realistic, that information was accurate, or that the actor compared every alternative. Rational choice in criminology is typically more limited than the image of a perfectly calculating person. The individual may weigh a small subset of consequences, rely on recent experience, or react to what seems possible within a narrow time window.
The influential situational crime-prevention framework treats the risks, efforts, and anticipated rewards attached to particular opportunities as possible intervention points. Its value lies especially in analyzing specific types of events and environments, not in producing a universal explanation for every offense.
Bounded Rationality and Incomplete Information
Real decisions take place under uncertainty, incomplete information, attention limits, time pressure, and competing motives. Bounded rationality describes choice within those constraints. People use shortcuts to estimate danger, opportunity, and likely success. Habitual knowledge can make a choice quicker, but it can also keep the person from considering a safer alternative.
In interviews with 200 adults convicted multiple times of property or street offenses, Rossmo and Summers documented intuition, heuristics, uncertainty, beliefs about luck, and changing estimates of costs and rewards. Their qualitative sample illuminates how some experienced offenders describe decisions; it cannot establish the frequency of those processes across all offenses or prove that the accounts perfectly recover actual moment-by-moment cognition.
An offense can therefore be goal-directed while depending on a mistaken estimate of detection, an unstable valuation of reward, or a failure to consider a realistic lawful alternative.
Opportunity: Why Situations Change Choices
Opportunity is a central component of criminal events. Access to an attractive target, weak supervision, environmental design, timing, movement patterns, and the presence or absence of potential witnesses can change the practical options available to an individual. Opportunity theories examine how daily routines and physical environments organize encounters where offending becomes possible.
This research suggests that prevention can work by changing settings even when the motivations of potential offenders remain unchanged. Improvements in the visibility of a location, management of access, protection of vulnerable targets, or reliable human guardianship can alter an opportunity structure. The mechanisms vary across offenses, and interventions should be evaluated rather than assumed effective everywhere.
The evidence includes a Campbell systematic review of hot-spots policing, which found small, statistically significant crime reductions at targeted places across experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations. A 2022 meta-analysis of street lighting also supports attention to environmental changes, although the exact mechanism and effect depend on context. These findings concern prevention outcomes in places; they do not reveal what any specific individual was thinking.
Opportunities Are Not Sufficient Explanations
The mere presence of an accessible target does not explain why a particular person acted. Norms, resources, peer influences, immediate needs, emotions, and anticipated consequences still matter. Conversely, strong motivation does not guarantee an offense if the relevant opportunity never arises.
Opportunities are also structured socially. Work schedules, neighborhood design, transport, digital access, supervision, economic conditions, and institutional practices affect where people encounter possible actions. A complete account therefore considers the environment without turning geography or socioeconomic position into a label of criminality.
Emotion: How Feeling Changes What Matters
Emotion helps organize attention, perceived urgency, and the value attached to outcomes. Anger may shift attention toward provocation or retaliation; fear may increase avoidance or, in some circumstances, intensify a defensive response; excitement can increase the immediate attractiveness of risky action; and shame or guilt may inhibit an act or motivate repair afterward. These effects depend on appraisal, context, individual learning, and the alternatives available.
Van Gelder's hot/cool framework argues that offender decision-making integrates affective processes with deliberative cognition. The distinction is useful because a person reflecting calmly on future costs may evaluate an action differently from that same person while highly aroused, socially threatened, or overwhelmed.
A systematic qualitative synthesis of 23 studies on fear and criminal decision-making documents variation in when fear appears, what triggers it, and how people manage it. Fear cannot simply be assumed absent because an offense occurred; some offenders anticipate danger and act despite it.
What Experiments Show About Anger and Arousal
Controlled experiments make it possible to manipulate emotional circumstances and test immediate responses. In a 2023 study involving 67 convicted adult men, researchers examined anger and time pressure while participants considered fraud-related scenarios. Such experiments test decisions within defined tasks rather than reproducing actual criminal events.
A 2024 immersive 360-degree-video study published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology showed that staged environments could evoke measurable anger and sexual arousal. Its central contribution concerned methods for creating and studying emotional states, rather than proving that those states cause a particular crime outside the laboratory.
Emotional activation is therefore a mechanism to investigate, not a post hoc verdict that someone acted involuntarily or that legal intent was absent.
Cognitive Biases and Heuristics in Offending Choices
A heuristic is a mental shortcut that simplifies judgment when a person has limited information, time, or attention. Such shortcuts are ordinary features of human cognition. In some criminal decision contexts, they can produce systematic errors in estimates of danger, control, effort, or reward.
The 2022 offender-interview study provides direct evidence that some participants described relying on intuition and heuristics during target selection and risk evaluation. Behavioral-economic approaches predict that the same objective circumstances can be evaluated differently depending on how a decision is framed and which outcomes are most vivid or accessible.
Present Bias and Immediate Reward
An immediate benefit may command more attention than a larger but delayed cost. This does not mean the person is incapable of planning; someone may plan extensively while still discounting distant consequences. Immediate financial need, social reward, excitement, or emotional relief may make the short-term outcome unusually salient.
The strength of this tendency cannot be inferred reliably from a single criminal act. Different offenses involve different time horizons, and some sophisticated offending requires prolonged organization. Present bias is a useful hypothesis to examine alongside opportunities and alternatives rather than a complete personality explanation.
Optimism, Overconfidence, and the Illusion of Control
Some people may believe they are less likely than others to be detected, especially after previous undetected conduct. A prior successful outcome can shape expectations, even when circumstances have changed. An intuitive sense of expertise may replace a realistic estimate of uncertainty.
These mechanisms are plausible applications of general judgment research and are supported in part by offender accounts. For a specific individual, however, they require case-relevant evidence. Observing risky conduct after the fact does not prove that the actor felt invulnerable, underestimated detection, or possessed any particular bias.
Availability, Framing, and Selective Attention
Recent experiences, emotionally memorable incidents, stories from peers, or vivid examples can affect what risks come to mind. The way a choice is represented—as avoiding a loss, gaining a reward, proving loyalty, or responding to disrespect—can change its subjective meaning.
A framing interpretation remains an explanation to test against the evidence. Researchers and forensic experts should avoid reconstructing a person's thoughts solely from the apparent logic of the outcome.
Perceived Risk, Deterrence, and the Fear of Getting Caught
Deterrence involves a person's anticipated consequences of an action. The important psychological variables include the perceived probability of detection, anticipated sanction, immediacy of consequences, and the credibility of enforcement. Official penalties matter only to the extent that they enter the decision process and influence behavior.
In an influential review of deterrence evidence, Nagin concluded that evidence for the deterrent role of certainty of apprehension was more consistent than evidence for punishment severity. He also identified important unresolved questions about how enforcement changes subjective risk perceptions and how punishment itself may influence later behavior.
It follows that merely increasing statutory penalties does not automatically change decisions at the moment of offending. The person may know little about the penalty, assume detection is improbable, or give limited weight to consequences in an emotional or urgent situation. This is a population-level policy inference; it cannot predict how any named person would respond to a given enforcement change.
Moral Rules, Social Context, and Perceiving Crime as an Option
For some people, an illegal action is rejected immediately because it conflicts with internalized moral commitments, identification with others, or anticipated guilt. In other settings, peers, organizational practices, perceived injustice, pressure, or local norms may alter what seems acceptable or expected.
Situational action theory describes a perception-choice process in which personal moral rules and exposure to settings interact. A longitudinal study of German adolescents followed into adulthood offers empirical support for the importance of morality and social context over the life course. A three-wave comparative study published in 2026 found stronger morality-exposure interactions in its UK sample than in its Chinese sample, underscoring that mechanisms and measurements may not transfer identically across populations.
Social context matters without reducing individuals to passive products of a group. People interpret norms, weigh consequences, and respond differently to similar exposure. Ethical prevention can expand lawful opportunities and supportive relationships rather than defining an entire peer group or neighborhood as a source of inevitable offending.
Different Offenses Involve Different Decision Processes
There is no single psychological decision pattern that covers shoplifting, fraud, assault, intimate-partner violence, cybercrime, organized offending, driving offenses, and homicide. Offenses differ in planning time, available information, emotional intensity, interpersonal context, access to opportunity, and the practical meaning of success or failure.
Property offenses may involve assessments of access, target suitability, effort, and detection risk. Fraud can require elaborate preparation and decisions about deception over time. An assault may involve rapid threat appraisals and social escalation, sometimes following earlier deliberate steps. Cyber-enabled offending may depend on digital design, perceived anonymity, and repeated opportunities, while organized activities can involve negotiated roles and persistent routines.
These distinctions matter because the prevention method and research evidence suitable for one offense may be poorly suited for another. Studies of burglary target choice should not be treated as direct evidence about violent offending, and laboratory choices about hypothetical fraud cannot establish why a real homicide occurred.
Self-Control, Impulsivity, and the Time Horizon
Self-control is relevant when a person must regulate attention, inhibit a response, tolerate frustration, or prioritize a future goal. Impulsivity encompasses several partially distinct tendencies, such as acting rapidly without consideration or preferring immediate rewards. Their associations with offending do not make them diagnostic categories or sufficient causal explanations.
A person can display both strong planning in one context and weak inhibition in another. The criminal event must be analyzed alongside opportunities, learned behavior, social conditions, and the person's actual choice set. More information about the general construct is available in the English Hub article Self-Control vs. Self-Regulation: Differences and Connections.
Whether a particular offense resulted from impaired inhibition, opportunistic evaluation, habitual behavior, or sustained planning is a separate empirical question. A conviction, a behavioral observation, or a score from a cognitive task alone cannot settle it.
Substance Use, Mental Health, and Decision-Making
Substance intoxication can alter attention, arousal, memory, inhibition, or risk evaluation, depending on the substance, dose, context, and individual. Substance use problems can also interact with financial pressure, social conditions, and immediate motivation. These processes deserve investigation when the relevant evidence is present, while the presence of substance use alone does not establish the causal explanation for a crime.
Clinical conditions likewise require careful interpretation. A systematic review and meta-analysis of neuropsychological decision tasks among offenders with mental disorders included 23 studies; the pooled analyses using the Iowa Gambling Task found no statistically significant overall offender-control differences. The authors emphasized task heterogeneity, methodological uncertainty, and the need for further research.
This finding illustrates an important limit: a laboratory score cannot be converted into an individualized account of criminal motivation or legal responsibility. A diagnosis is a clinical determination, whereas offense-specific intentions, actions, and applicable legal standards require their own evidence. People with mental disorders constitute diverse populations, and a diagnosis should never function as shorthand for criminality or dangerousness.
What Evidence Can Actually Reveal a Decision?
Researchers use complementary methods because no single method observes the full mental process of offending.
Interviews with people who have offended can provide detailed accounts of goals, experience, opportunity, and interpretation, but memory may be incomplete, and participants may reconstruct events through later knowledge or social expectations. Interview samples may also overrepresent people detected and convicted by the justice system.
Surveys and longitudinal studies can reveal associations and changes over time. Their strengths include observing patterns across individuals and settings, while causal interpretation remains limited by measurement, confounding, attrition, and reporting differences.
Experiments and immersive simulations allow researchers to change a specific factor and compare responses. They improve control over alternative explanations, but many rely on hypothetical or simulated situations and may not reproduce the stakes, consequences, or social meanings of real offending.
Administrative records and natural experiments measure real events or intervention outcomes. Arrest data, convictions, victimization surveys, and self-reports each capture different parts of crime. Changes in detection, enforcement, legal definitions, or reporting can affect recorded rates independently of the underlying decision process.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses synthesize available studies, but their conclusions depend on the designs, quality, populations, and outcome definitions represented. A meta-analysis of decision-task performance, for instance, asks a different question from a meta-analysis of place-based crime prevention.
From Group Evidence to an Individual Forensic Opinion
Explaining a pattern across hundreds of people is different from explaining one person's alleged decision. A group-level association between an exposure and offending cannot establish that it caused a particular event. A risk factor indicates statistical association under specified conditions; it does not prove an act, identify its author, or establish a mental element required by law.
Forensic interpretation should reconstruct the timeline from admissible or otherwise reliable case-relevant material, consider alternative explanations, identify the limits of retrospective inference, and distinguish observation from interpretation. Evidence of an apparent motive, opportunity, or planning step is relevant to a hypothesis; it does not by itself establish the full psychological or legal meaning of the conduct.
The American Psychological Association's Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology emphasize impartiality, a sound scientific foundation, attention to individual and cultural differences, and candid communication about the limitations of assessment and expert opinion.
Psychological Explanation and Criminal Responsibility
Criminal intent, mens rea, knowledge, recklessness, negligence, legal insanity, and other legal constructs are defined and applied under particular jurisdictions and statutes. Psychological constructs such as impulsivity, fear, attention, planning, and decision difficulty do not map one-to-one onto those standards.
The same behavior can raise separate questions: What options were psychologically available? What did the person believe? What acts occurred? What legal elements does the charged offense require? What evidence is admissible? Which findings belong to judge or jury? Psychological research may inform a legally relevant question when properly applied, but the trier of fact applies the governing law.
No behavioral-science model can replace that jurisdiction-specific process. Experts should identify the precise referral question before interpreting clinical interviews, cognitive measures, or offense narratives.
Can a Decision-Making Model Predict Future Crime?
A decision model may clarify mechanisms associated with offending and suggest targets for prevention. Predicting future conduct requires additional prospective validation using appropriate populations, measurable outcomes, and a specified time horizon. A theoretical account of choice should not be presented as a validated individual prediction instrument.
If a model is used for risk decisions, the evaluator must examine discrimination, calibration, base rates, sensitivity, specificity, false-positive and false-negative outcomes, and whether results remain valid for the population and setting where they are applied. A score based on data from one jurisdiction or offense category may not transfer to another without testing.
Calibration asks whether estimated probabilities correspond to observed frequencies in groups. Even satisfactory group calibration does not yield certainty for one person. Classification thresholds involve practical tradeoffs: lowering a threshold may identify more later events while also increasing false positives. Such errors have consequences for liberty, fairness, services, and public protection.
This article examines the psychology of choosing an action. Specialized violence-risk and recidivism assessments require separate validation literatures and decision standards.
Crime Prevention: Change Opportunities, Improve Alternatives, Support Choice
Research on decision-making offers several complementary routes to prevention. Environmental interventions can make harmful opportunities less accessible and lawful activities more convenient. Organizational procedures can improve oversight and reduce ambiguous opportunities. Early supportive interventions can strengthen access to housing, education, treatment, financial stability, and trustworthy relationships when those needs are relevant.
The logic is to analyze the precise action and setting before choosing an intervention. Prevention of theft in a store may differ substantially from prevention of interpersonal violence or digital fraud. Practical measures should be evaluated with appropriate comparison conditions, outcomes, time horizons, and attention to whether crime shifts elsewhere.
The hot-spots policing systematic review found that crime displacement is not inevitable and that benefits can extend to nearby places in some studies. Such findings support careful place-based evaluation. They do not establish that any intensive enforcement strategy is harmless, equally effective across communities, or sufficient for long-term well-being.
Fairness is inseparable from implementation. Agencies should consider unequal exposure to surveillance, possible effects on community trust, legal safeguards, and how enforcement changes the data later used to claim that an area or population is risky.
Common Misconceptions About Criminal Choices
“People commit crime only when the benefits exceed the costs.”
Actual choices involve perception, emotion, uncertainty, morality, habit, and incomplete information. Benefits and costs are experienced subjectively and can change within minutes.
“An impulsive offense has no decision process.”
A rapid act may still involve appraisal of threat, opportunity, goals, and alternatives. Speed of action alone does not determine the presence or absence of legal intent.
“A mental disorder explains why someone committed a crime.”
Diagnosis and offense-specific conduct are separate questions. Clinical evidence may be relevant in some cases, but causal explanations and legal conclusions require distinct assessment.
“Harsher penalties always deter more crime.”
The research is more consistent for certainty of apprehension than for severity of punishment, and perceptions and context affect whether sanctions influence a choice.
“A criminal decision can be reconstructed just by observing the outcome.”
The outcome supplies behavioral evidence, not a direct record of thoughts. Reconstructing a decision requires multiple sources, alternative hypotheses, and attention to retrospective bias.
“The same technique prevents every kind of crime.”
Prevention depends on the offense, environment, population, and implementation. Evidence from one setting must be evaluated before application elsewhere.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is criminal decision-making in psychology?
It is the study of how people perceive and choose actions that may violate the law, including how emotion, beliefs, goals, opportunities, moral rules, social context, and uncertainty affect those choices.
Is criminal behavior always a rational choice?
Offending can be purposeful, but the decision may be affected by cognitive shortcuts, mistaken beliefs, intense feelings, immediate pressures, and limits on information. A purely calculating model does not explain every event.
How do emotions influence criminal decisions?
Emotions influence attention, perceived threats, urgency, and the value of possible outcomes. Their effects depend on the individual, situation, and type of emotion; emotional arousal is not itself proof of crime or a legal defense.
How do opportunities influence crime?
Settings influence whether a particular action is feasible, accessible, visible, or difficult. Research supports some opportunity-reducing prevention strategies, although results vary by setting and offense.
What is the difference between criminal decision-making and criminal motivation?
Motivation concerns what a person wants or seeks. Decision-making concerns how the person perceives possible actions, evaluates them, and selects what to do within an actual situation. Motivation is one component of that process.
Can psychologists determine why a specific person committed an offense?
Experts may evaluate documented behavior, interviews, contextual evidence, and plausible psychological explanations within their competence. They must communicate uncertainty and distinguish their opinions from legal findings about guilt, intent, or responsibility.
Is criminal decision-making the same as impulsivity or psychopathy?
No. Impulsivity is one potential contributor to a decision process. Psychopathy is a separate research and assessment construct. Neither is synonymous with offending, and neither explains a specific crime on its own.
What helps prevent choices that lead to crime?
The evidence supports matching interventions to the particular opportunity and mechanism: effective environmental design, appropriately evaluated guardianship, credible deterrence, accessible lawful alternatives, and evidence-based support or rehabilitation when relevant.
Conclusion
Criminal decision-making emerges from the interaction of choice, emotion, opportunity, social conditions, learned expectations, moral evaluation, and cognitive limits. Its scientific importance lies in explaining how different pathways can produce superficially similar acts and why small changes in settings or perceived alternatives can change what people do.
The practical value of this science depends on precision. Researchers can establish patterns, compare explanations, and evaluate preventive interventions. Forensic professionals can assess case-relevant evidence and explain what psychological findings support. Courts determine legal elements and responsibility under applicable law. Preserving these distinctions makes criminal decision-making research more useful for prevention, rehabilitation, and justice.
Related Articles
References
American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029889
Braga, A. A., Turchan, B., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2019). Hot spots policing of small geographic areas effects on crime. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(3), e1046. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1046
Cimalanskaitė-Kazlauskienė, V., & Valickas, G. (2023). The effect of anger on criminal decision-making. Teisė, 128, 21–40. https://doi.org/10.15388/Teise.2023.128.2
Clarke, R. V. (1995). Situational crime prevention. Crime and Justice, 19. https://doi.org/10.1086/449230
Gill, P., Tompson, L., Marchment, Z., Hetzel, F., Zolghadriha, S., & Sidebottom, A. (2020). A configurative synthesis of evidence for fear in the criminal decision-making process. Security Journal, 33, 581–601. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-019-00201-w
Herman, S., Barnum, T. C., Minà, P. E., Wozniak, P., & van Gelder, J.-L. (2025). Affect, emotions, and crime decision-making: Emerging insights from immersive 360° video experiments. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 21, 965–998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-024-09615-y
Jones, K. A., Hewson, T., Sales, C. P., & Khalifa, N. (2019). A systematic review and meta-analysis of decision-making in offender populations with mental disorder. Neuropsychology Review, 29, 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-018-09397-x
Kessler, G., & Reinecke, J. (2021). Dynamics of the causes of crime: A life-course application of situational action theory for the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 7, 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-021-00161-z
Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice, 42, 199–263. https://doi.org/10.1086/670398
Pogarsky, G., Roche, S. P., & Pickett, J. T. (2018). Offender decision-making in criminology: Contributions from behavioral economics. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092036
Rossmo, D. K., & Summers, L. (2022). Uncertainty and heuristics in offender decision-making: Deviations from rational choice. Journal of Criminal Justice, 81, 101923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101923
van Gelder, J.-L. (2013). Beyond rational choice: The hot/cool perspective of criminal decision making. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19(9), 745–763. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2012.660153
Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P., & Douglas, S. (2022). The impact and policy relevance of street lighting for crime prevention: A systematic review based on a half-century of evaluation research. Criminology & Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12585
Wilcox, P., & Cullen, F. T. (2018). Situational opportunity theories of crime. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092421
Xun, X., Roman, G. D., Li, X., Wang, L., & Li, Z. (2026). Morality–environment interactions and youth crime: A three-wave panel study in the UK and China. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 234(3). https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000626