Using Laboratory Experiments to Study Law and Crime - Chair of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

was shifted from low to high, theft rates dropped from 60 % to 40 %. But, this effect declinedover time and subjects gradually started committing more crime. Note that the severity ofpunishment affected crime more than expected, suggesting that subjects were not good atanticipating that law enforcers were going to reduce their efforts. Further, theft increased slowlyover time – suggesting also that subjects were not good at using their experience to update theirperceptions of punishment. That is, they updated their perceptions based on experience, but didso slowly.The results show that subjects varied in their reactions to punishment severity. Thosewho originally were the most deterred by strong punishment increased their theft behavior morethan those who started out with high theft levels. One interpretation of this finding is thatsubjects varied in their expectations of being punished. Those whose expectations were the leastaccurate, updated them over time as they realized that they were not being punished. Gradually,they increased their stealing. Those who started out with more accurate perceptions had lesschange in their behavior over time. This finding is consistent with criminological argumentssuggesting that people are naive about the consequences of law breaking (Minor and Harry,1982; Paternoster et al., 1987; and Tittle, 1980).Rauhut’s findings are consistent with studies showing that severe punishments initiallydiscourage crime, but that over time, crime rates rebound (see, for example, Ross, 1973; 1975).They are also consistent with research showing that crackdowns have residual deterrent effectsthat extend after the crackdown stops. If people are slow to update their perceptions based ontheir experience, then we would expect them to continue to refrain from crime and then slowlyreturn to their usual criminal activities.Experiment 2 produced complementary results and provided additional support for theproposed mechanism (Rauhut, 2010). It showed that as rewards for enforcement increased, crimerates dropped from 47% to 38%. Enforcement efforts also increased from 39% to 60%. Aspredicted, strengthening the incentives for law enforcers reduced crime.19
These experiments provide evidence that incentives (punishments for criminals andrewards for enforcers) not only have direct effects on behavior; they also have indirect effects.Because criminals and control agents have opposing interests, each is sensitive to the incentivesof the other. They change their behaviors in response to the behaviors of others. But the resultsalso suggest that people are not as sensitive as the theory would predict – they are slow to updatetheir perceptions.Evidence from the field shows inconsistent results for the effect of punishment severityon crime. The laboratory experiments described here explore one possible set of mechanismsthat may help to explain these different results. These experiments manipulate the severity ofpunishment and the incentives for law enforcers and accurately measure the behaviors of bothcitizens and enforcers. Because the causal factors are manipulated, and subjects are randomlyassigned to an experimental condition, evidence of causal relations is clear. The laboratoryexperiments provide evidence of mechanisms relevant to arguments in the criminologicalliterature – that experience with enforcement can lead people to update their expectations ofenforcement and, in turn, to reduce their criminal behavior. They provide evidence ofmechanisms that can help to explain the discrepancy between studies that compare policychanges and crime rates with those that ask respondents about their perceptions of enforcementand their own criminal activity.THE EXPRESSIVE POWER OF LAWTwo prominent approaches explain why people obey the law. One (as in the experimentsabove) explains obedience in terms of sanctions. Law discourages certain behaviors bythreatening punishment. A second focuses on legitimacy (Tyler, 1990). Richard McAdams andJanice Nadler propose a third mechanism through which law may have effects. They argue thatthe law has expressive effects. That is, it provides a focal point that helps people to coordinatetheir behavior.20
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 12: and Willer, 2008). We cannot have s
Page 13 and 14: It is possible that we could see co
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: This mechanism is difficult to test
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

Using Laboratory Experiments to Study Law and Crime - Chair of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?