4

After looking at Merriam-Webster, Oxford, and dictionary.com, I'm left unsure about how closely "prevent" and "deter" are related.

I had always known the words to mean the same thing, just operating on different objects: By "deterring" the person, you "prevent" their action.

But is prevention of the action actually necessary? If the person still performs the action, were they still deterred? I had always thought not.

Is it possible for someone to be deterred but their action not be prevented?

EDIT:

Adding example for clarification:

Bob wants to date my sister. I don't want him to, so I tell him that if he does, I will punch him. He gets scared, but not enough to completely dissuade him, so he dates my sister anyway.

No action was prevented. So, did I "deter" him or not?

I had always thought not. After all, if he went through with it, that means he wasn't deterred, right?

I envision this as a black and white cutoff. If the action was prevented (as a result of my threat), the actor was deterred. Otherwise, they were not. Is that correct?

Thanks.

Improve this question
10
  • 1
    I think you're asking whether there can be degrees of deterrence, or if it's a binary either-deterred-or-not, no-in-between kind of thing. In other words, can one be a little bit deterred? If that's what you're wondering, you may want to clarify in the question.
    – 1006a
    Commented Feb 20, 2018 at 20:11
  • I always think of "deterred" as being something in between "discouraged" and "prevented." So I do think someone could be deterred without being prevented, but saying that they were deterred means that there was some extra hindrance placed in their way.
    – spoko
    Commented Feb 20, 2018 at 20:12
  • Thanks. I edited to include an example that relates to my question. Whoops, @spoko: so your answer to this would be that prevention is not a requirement, and that I did deter Bob?
    – SomeGuy
    Commented Feb 20, 2018 at 20:18
  • @SomeGuy: I had thought so, but then I looked at the example you added. And my description of Bob in that scenario would be "undeterred." So I'm rethinking my stance.
    – spoko
    Commented Feb 20, 2018 at 20:27
  • ODO has << deter verb 1 Discourage (someone) from doing something by instilling doubt or fear of the consequences. >> and << discourage ... verb ... 1.1 Prevent or try to prevent (something) by showing disapproval or creating difficulties.>> // And CED has << deter verb: ...
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Feb 20, 2018 at 23:29

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
1

To prevent and deter are different, you prevent a person leaving by locking the door and keeping the only key, you deter from leaving them by convinvincing them not to leave for whatever reason. You do not prevent somebody completing and action by convincing them not to because if they are convinced not to, then they had choice and were not prevented.

To be prevented is to be stopped by an outside force and to be deterred is ultimately the person's decision based on the deterrent factors.

When they change their mind and follow through with the action they are no longer deterred.

To answer the question look at the word undeterred, if a person was undeterred, they complete the action without hesitation regardless of what deterrents are in the way. If they were hesitant but continued, they may have been deterred in some way although have overcome that.

At the point the date in the example occurred he was no longer deterred although he had been deterred at the point he was scared of being punched.

Improve this answer
15
  • This hinges on prevention requiring physical interaction, though, which I don't think it does. If I talk someone out of killing themselves, you would say I deterred them -- but did I also not prevent their suicide?
    – SomeGuy
    Commented Feb 20, 2018 at 22:22
  • Ultimately did you prevent his suicide by making him choose not to do it or by removing his means to do it? If you helped him choose not to do it then you deterred it, not prevented it, you did not stop him, he chose not to do it himself based on what you had said. To have prevented him you would have had to remove the means to commit suicide- therefore a physical action.
    – Bernadette
    Commented Feb 20, 2018 at 22:34
  • The robbery, the physical action was prevented yes, although the person was not prevented, only deterred as you say.
    – Bernadette
    Commented Feb 20, 2018 at 22:40
  • Sorry, I deleted that comment because I didn't see your reply and wanted to read it before posting. Here was my original comment before deleting: A more on point example: A man plans to rob a bank. He walks in the door with his weapon ready, but sees an armed guard, gets scared, changes his mind, and leaves. We both agree the man was deterred, but was the robbery not also prevented? Though your point about whether or not someone is deterred changing over time is interesting
    – SomeGuy
    Commented Feb 20, 2018 at 22:41
  • This is what is confusing me: "the person was not prevented" <- I thought the object of 'prevent' had to be an action (in this case, the robbery). What does it even mean to prevent a person?
    – SomeGuy
    Commented Feb 20, 2018 at 22:45
1

This is a very good question and the OED does not provide clarity.

The word comes from the Latin deterrere - to frighten. But that doesn't get us far.

OED sense 1a says:

trans. To discourage and turn aside or restrain by fear; to frighten from anything; to restrain or keep back from acting or proceeding by any consideration of danger or trouble.

1854 H. H. Milman Hist. Lat. Christianity I. iii. vii. 461
Maurice..had been deterred by the alarming prophecy of a monk. 1877
J. D. Chambers Divine Worship Eng. 308 To deter instead of to invite communicants.

In practice I suspect "deter" does get used both ways.

People definitely say things like "he was undeterred" - meaning, presumably, he was not prevented.

But I feel sure that it is also used, in the following sense too "health warnings on cigarette packets are a deterrence, but some still smoke".

Unlike "prevent", "deter" is uncertain. If I say "I will prevent it from happening" you know the eventual outcome. It will not happen. But if you say "I will deter him from coming" - you don't at that moment know if it will work. He may still come. But you still use the word "deter". So in that sense "deter" is only an action designed to prevent. However if I say "He was deterred from going", at that point I know the outcome - so the meaning is that he didn't go. So the meaning is dependent on whether you know the outcome.

Improve this answer
5
  • In your cigarette/group example, I would argue that meaning is the same. If something is a deterrent, that doesn't necessarily imply that all are deterred. Contrarily, for something to be a deterrent, at least SOMEONE must be deterred. Ultimately, if a deterrent does not prevent anything, how can you call it a deterrent? Prevention appears to be a requirement. --- Or so this is what I always thought.
    – SomeGuy
    Commented Feb 20, 2018 at 21:57
  • @SomeGuy Interesting comment.
    – WS2
    Commented Feb 20, 2018 at 22:49
  • @SomeGuy I think I have grasped this. Unlike "prevent", "deter" is uncertain. If I say "I will prevent it from happening" you know the eventual outcome. It will not happen. But if you say "I will deter him from coming" - you don't at that moment know if it will work. He may still come. But you still use the word "deter". So in that sense it is only a hope. However if I say "He was deterred from going", at that point I know the outcome - so the meaning is that he didn't go. So the meaning is dependent on whether you know the outcome.
    – WS2
    Commented Feb 20, 2018 at 23:47
  • This seems like a very reasonable answer, and clarifies things the most for me. Thank you. Though I'm going to wait a bit more to see if there are more responses before I accept. On a side note, I have a very long discussion with Bernadette in the comments for her answer -- and I don't want to dismiss her answer but it seems to be more confusing to me than helpful. If you have the time and interest, I would appreciate your thoughts on her take, as well. Though if you don't want to bother with that I completely understand. Thanks again.
    – SomeGuy
    Commented Feb 21, 2018 at 0:10
  • @SomeGuy I believe that thread deals as much with the meaning of "prevent" as that of "deter". Both of these words are clearly nuanced according to context, and idiom, and often act together. Neither has an absolute meaning. For my part I've not given too much thought to "prevent", though I'm aware that I did refer to it in my answer, as a word which indicated a more certain outcome. But I think we are in danger of getting confused if we consider the two words in tandem. Let's try and stick with one at a time.
    – WS2
    Commented Feb 21, 2018 at 16:55
0

The common use of the word 'deter' is in the field of nuclear deterrence or in the field in which I currently work - Security Guarding. We are 'visible deterrents'.

The headline in the Guardian says it all, I feel :

Onboard a Trident submarine: 'If I have to pull the trigger, deterrence has failed'

A deterrent is supposed to deter. And the proof of the effectiveness of the deterrent is that the subject was, indeed, deterred.

I would say, in answer to the OP, a resounding Yes !

If the action was not prevented then the deterrent failed.

It did not deter.

Improve this answer
1
  • 'If the action was not prevented then the deterrent failed.' Unsound arguing. It may have delayed the fateful day; the 'hinder' rather than 'prevent' sense given in dictionaries is quite possible.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Feb 21, 2018 at 20:15
-1

Deterring can be achieved simply by the threat of action. My dictionary says, "To discourage or restrain from acting or proceeding." Sometimes peer pressure acts as a deterrent or the possibility of facing consequences.

Improve this answer
1
  • I understand that deterring doesn't need to involve physical force, but that doesn't really answer my main question of whether or not it needs to be successful. Example: Bob wants to date my sister. I don't want him to, so I scare him by telling him that if he does, I will punch him. He gets scared, but not enough to completely dissuade him, so he dates my sister anyway. No action was prevented. So, did I "deter" him or not?
    – SomeGuy
    Commented Feb 20, 2018 at 20:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .