The Gut Feeling of Rational Acting: Differentiation in Cognitive Strategies Within Commercial and Recreational Sellers in Hybrid Digital Social Media Markets

IF 1.4 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY International Criminal Justice Review Pub Date : 2024-03-22 DOI:10.1177/10575677241241072
Jakob Demant, Louise Anker Nexø
{"title":"The Gut Feeling of Rational Acting: Differentiation in Cognitive Strategies Within Commercial and Recreational Sellers in Hybrid Digital Social Media Markets","authors":"Jakob Demant, Louise Anker Nexø","doi":"10.1177/10575677241241072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the realm of cybercrime, technologies that facilitate illicit activities also produce uncertainties based on the hybridity between digital communication and offline presence. Social media platforms have blurred the lines between types of drug sellers, bringing the recreational and the commercial into the same marketplace. In the Nordic data used in this paper, 52 text-based qualitative interviews with recreational and commercial sellers are analyzed via process and variance analysis to identify the relationship between cognitive strategies and seller positions. We ask how sellers’ decision-making processes differ and intersect. Theoretically, we use cognitive sociology to enrich understanding of culture, trust, and rational decision-making in this context. Our findings reveal that recreational sellers often adopt a low-risk, low-gain strategy rooted in cognitive biases, reflecting the recreational nature of their engagement. In contrast, commercially competent sellers employ more complex cognitive strategies, including gut feelings, thus adjusting their decisions with less reliance on initial assessments, leading to a more calculated approach with higher risk tolerance. We conclude with a discussion of intervention strategies; here, we argue for the need for a dual strategy that targets and capitalizes on the differences in cognitive biases in an effective way that poses less harm to recreational sellers.","PeriodicalId":51797,"journal":{"name":"International Criminal Justice Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Criminal Justice Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10575677241241072","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the realm of cybercrime, technologies that facilitate illicit activities also produce uncertainties based on the hybridity between digital communication and offline presence. Social media platforms have blurred the lines between types of drug sellers, bringing the recreational and the commercial into the same marketplace. In the Nordic data used in this paper, 52 text-based qualitative interviews with recreational and commercial sellers are analyzed via process and variance analysis to identify the relationship between cognitive strategies and seller positions. We ask how sellers’ decision-making processes differ and intersect. Theoretically, we use cognitive sociology to enrich understanding of culture, trust, and rational decision-making in this context. Our findings reveal that recreational sellers often adopt a low-risk, low-gain strategy rooted in cognitive biases, reflecting the recreational nature of their engagement. In contrast, commercially competent sellers employ more complex cognitive strategies, including gut feelings, thus adjusting their decisions with less reliance on initial assessments, leading to a more calculated approach with higher risk tolerance. We conclude with a discussion of intervention strategies; here, we argue for the need for a dual strategy that targets and capitalizes on the differences in cognitive biases in an effective way that poses less harm to recreational sellers.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
理性行动的直觉:混合数字社交媒体市场中商业和娱乐卖家认知策略的差异化
在网络犯罪领域,为非法活动提供便利的技术也因数字通信和离线存在之间的混合性而产生不确定性。社交媒体平台模糊了毒品销售者类型之间的界限,将娱乐性和商业性毒品销售者带入同一市场。在本文使用的北欧数据中,我们通过过程分析和方差分析对 52 个基于文本的定性访谈进行了分析,访谈对象包括娱乐型和商业型卖家,以确定认知策略与卖家立场之间的关系。我们询问卖家的决策过程有何不同和交集。在理论上,我们利用认知社会学来丰富对文化、信任和理性决策的理解。我们的研究结果表明,娱乐型卖家通常采取低风险、低收益的策略,这种策略植根于认知偏差,反映了他们参与的娱乐性质。与此相反,有商业能力的卖家则采用更复杂的认知策略,包括直觉,从而在调整决策时减少对初步评估的依赖,从而采取更谨慎的方法,具有更高的风险承受能力。最后,我们讨论了干预策略;在此,我们认为有必要采取双重策略,以有效的方式针对并利用认知偏差的差异,减少对娱乐型卖家的伤害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Criminal Justice Review
International Criminal Justice Review CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: International Criminal Justice Review is a scholarly journal dedicated to presenting system wide trends and problems on crime and justice throughout the world. Articles may focus on a single country or compare issues affecting two or more countries. Both qualitative and quantitative pieces are encouraged, providing they adhere to standards of quality scholarship. Manuscripts may emphasize either contemporary or historical topics. As a peer-reviewed journal, we encourage the submission of articles, research notes, and commentaries that focus on crime and broadly defined justice-related topics in an international and/or comparative context.
期刊最新文献
Examining the Boost Account for Repeat and Near Repeat Burglary in Canada Victims of Corrupt Practices: Does Crime Seriousness Affect Bribe Payers’ Decision to Report? Book Review: European perspectives on attrition in sexual crimes by Erbaş, R. Exploring Methods in Crime and Safety Analysis Book Review: Crime, Justice and COVID-19 by Kay, Christopher & Case, Stephen
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1