Using Laboratory Experiments to Study Law and Crime - Chair of ...
Using Laboratory Experiments to Study Law and Crime - Chair of ... Using Laboratory Experiments to Study Law and Crime - Chair of ...
Typically however, laboratory experiments are most useful for testing general, abstracttheories. If we have a theory that applies to crime in general (for example, a theory about the roleof power in motivating people to engage in behavior that harms others) then that theory could betested in the laboratory. In other words, laboratory experiments will be more useful for testingabstract, general theories than concrete, specific theories.GENERALIZABILITYGeneralizability refers to two things – the ability to generalize from the sample to thepopulation from which it was drawn and the ability to generalize from the sample to otherpopulations and settings (Lucas, 2003). The results of laboratory experiments that rely onconvenience samples of college students cannot be generalized to the larger population, becausethose students are not drawn appropriately from such a population. In that sense, laboratoryexperiments have low external validity.But, the theories that are tested using laboratory experiments can be applied to othersettings. One of the characteristics of a theory is that it is general – it applies across a range ofsettings. Theories are not about specific individuals or unique situations. If the theory onlyapplies in the laboratory and not elsewhere, then that suggests a problem with the theory, notwith the laboratory. Similarly, a theory of crime tested in Chicago ought to be applicable to otherAmerican cities. If it is not, it suggests that the theory should be revised – not that Chicago is abad place to test theories of crime.If the theory is general, then it can be applied both in the laboratory and in the field. If wetest a theory in one setting (like the laboratory) and our findings are consistent with it, then wehave greater confidence in the theory. If these findings are consistent with an applicationelsewhere, we can have even greater confidence (Singleton and Straits 2010: 226).9
It is possible that we could see consistent findings across settings just by coincidence.But, such a conclusion would require us to accept the existence of a lot of coincidence in theworld (Guala 2002: 263). Most of the time, consistent results are not the result of coincidence.We can therefore identify three conditions for drawing internally and externally valid causalinferences from data collected in both the field and the laboratory: First, we have a theory thatidentifies a mechanism connecting a causal factor with an outcome. Second, we have evidencefrom the field that there is a correlation between the causal factor and the outcome. Third, wehave evidence of a mechanism linking the causal factor and the outcome in the laboratory. Ifthese conditions are met, it is reasonable to think that the mechanism that operates in thelaboratory is also operating in the field.SUMMARYExperiments are particularly well-suited for disentangling causal relations and causalmechanisms. Other methods have other strengths. For example, surveys are very useful fordescribing the distribution of behaviors in a sample and, if the sample is well-constructed, forgeneralizing it to a larger population. Further, using sophisticated statistical techniques andsurvey methods, criminologists have been successful at identifying correlations and causalrelations. Qualitative methods provide in-depth understanding of particular settings and canproduce new insights and hypotheses about important social processes. Integrating thesemethods will allow us to take advantage of the strengths of each. Integration may involvereporting the results of multiple methods in a single paper. But it may also involve publishingpapers based on laboratory experiments, papers based on surveys, and papers based onqualitative methods – with the authors of each building on the knowledge gained from theothers.To illustrate how data from laboratory experiments and other methods may togetherincrease our understanding more than a single method alone, we focus on three issues in the10
- Page 1 and 2: Using Laboratory Experiments to Stu
- Page 3 and 4: Using Laboratory Experiments to Stu
- Page 5 and 6: ththThe 19 and 20 centuries produce
- Page 7 and 8: in a theory and our expectation tha
- Page 9 and 10: financial and social investments ma
- Page 11: and Willer, 2008). We cannot have s
- Page 15 and 16: elationship between type of violenc
- Page 17 and 18: shooting someone in a bar. But, giv
- Page 19 and 20: In turn, when punishments are not i
- Page 21 and 22: This mechanism is difficult to test
- Page 23 and 24: These experiments provide evidence
- Page 25 and 26: In their first experiment, McAdams
- Page 27 and 28: The experimental results provide re
- Page 29 and 30: REFERENCESAustin, James, John Clark
- Page 31 and 32: Grasmick, Harold, and George J. Bry
- Page 33 and 34: Rauhut, Heiko, and Ivar Krumpal. 20
- Page 35 and 36: Review of Sociology and Anthropolog
Typically however, labora<strong>to</strong>ry experiments are most useful for testing general, abstracttheories. If we have a theory that applies <strong>to</strong> crime in general (for example, a theory about the role<strong>of</strong> power in motivating people <strong>to</strong> engage in behavior that harms others) then that theory could betested in the labora<strong>to</strong>ry. In other words, labora<strong>to</strong>ry experiments will be more useful for testingabstract, general theories than concrete, specific theories.GENERALIZABILITYGeneralizability refers <strong>to</strong> two things – the ability <strong>to</strong> generalize from the sample <strong>to</strong> thepopulation from which it was drawn <strong>and</strong> the ability <strong>to</strong> generalize from the sample <strong>to</strong> otherpopulations <strong>and</strong> settings (Lucas, 2003). The results <strong>of</strong> labora<strong>to</strong>ry experiments that rely onconvenience samples <strong>of</strong> college students cannot be generalized <strong>to</strong> the larger population, becausethose students are not drawn appropriately from such a population. In that sense, labora<strong>to</strong>ryexperiments have low external validity.But, the theories that are tested using labora<strong>to</strong>ry experiments can be applied <strong>to</strong> othersettings. One <strong>of</strong> the characteristics <strong>of</strong> a theory is that it is general – it applies across a range <strong>of</strong>settings. Theories are not about specific individuals or unique situations. If the theory onlyapplies in the labora<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>and</strong> not elsewhere, then that suggests a problem with the theory, notwith the labora<strong>to</strong>ry. Similarly, a theory <strong>of</strong> crime tested in Chicago ought <strong>to</strong> be applicable <strong>to</strong> otherAmerican cities. If it is not, it suggests that the theory should be revised – not that Chicago is abad place <strong>to</strong> test theories <strong>of</strong> crime.If the theory is general, then it can be applied both in the labora<strong>to</strong>ry <strong>and</strong> in the field. If wetest a theory in one setting (like the labora<strong>to</strong>ry) <strong>and</strong> our findings are consistent with it, then wehave greater confidence in the theory. If these findings are consistent with an applicationelsewhere, we can have even greater confidence (Single<strong>to</strong>n <strong>and</strong> Straits 2010: 226).9
Change language