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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

work. Despite this emphasis on experimental approaches, laboratory experiments remain rare.In criminology we are typically interested in testing causal theories. Causal theoriesinclude two components – statements about causal relations and statements about causalmechanisms. A causal relation asserts that by varying one factor (X) we can affect another factor(Y). Mechanisms are the processes through which one variable influences the other (Hedström,2005; Horne and Hechter, 2009). Laboratory experiments have unique strengths, not just inassessing causality (as field experiments do) but also in disentangling the mechanismsresponsible for causal relations. Thus they are valuable for testing causal theories.Laboratory experiments are less useful for establishing the substantive importance ofparticular causal mechanisms and relations in the field. In other words, they are good for testingcausal theories, but not for studying properties of natural settings (Webster and Sell, 2007).Laboratory experiments cannot tell us what the correlation is between disenfranchisement andrecidivism in the United States (Manza and Uggen, 2006). But they can provide insightregarding the effects of exclusion from group leadership on obedience to the group’s rules.Laboratory experiments cannot tell us how important a factor collective efficacy is forcontrolling crime in Chicago (or Seattle or Phoenix or Los Angeles) relative to other factors(Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls, 1997). But they can provide data showing that social supportfor sanctioning efforts affect levels of control in a group (Horne, 2009). Laboratory experimentscannot tell us how much guards abuse prisoners or why particular people at Guantanamobehaved as they did. But they can show us how prison-like power structures can lead normalpeople to behave in abusive ways (Zimbardo, 2008).In sum, laboratory experiments cannot tell us how substantively important particularcausal factors and mechanisms are for predicting patterns in the field. They cannot tell us howmuch of the variance a particular causal factor explains in a substantive setting outside thelaboratory. But they can help us to understand the mechanisms that link a causal factor to anobserved outcome. They help us to understand why we see the correlations we do. In otherwords, they increase our theoretical understanding. They increase (or decrease) our confidence3
in a theory and our expectation that the theory will be upheld in situations in which it is meant toapply. In turn, when we understand the mechanisms at work we are in a better position todevelop innovations for the field.Laboratory experiments have particular characteristics that make them valuable fortesting causal theory and for disentangling causal mechanisms. Below we discuss some of thesecharacteristics and their associated opportunities and pitfalls.RANDOM ASSIGNMENTLaboratory and field experiments share a common characteristic – the use of randomassignment to an experimental condition. Random assignment is a feature of experiments thatincreases our confidence in drawing conclusions about causality. Uggen argues that “thedisciplinary field of ‘criminology’ is largely organized around a single dependent variable. Weobserve the effect – conditions of crime and noncrime – in an observational sample, and thenmake heroic statistical efforts to disentangle the myriad forces that give rise to is. . . . [I]t ismuch more sensible for a researcher to actively manipulate a cause and then to observe itseffects – to do something and watch what happens. In doing so, researchers can compare theeffects of the cause they subject to treatment (t) with the counterfactual case in which some othercause or a control condition is applied (c)” (Uggen, 2008: 182; see also Freedman, 1991: 292,306 f; and Berk, 2004: 98, 102). Random assignment allows us to conclude that the effects weobserve are due to the manipulation and not to some unobserved characteristic of individuals.This is because individual traits are randomly distributed across the experimental conditions (andthe researcher can be confident that subjects were exposed to the intended treatment).4
Page 1 and 2: Using Laboratory Experiments to Stu
Page 3 and 4: Using Laboratory Experiments to Stu
Page 5: ththThe 19 and 20 centuries produce
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 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

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?