ESC pauwels van damme 2012

FAIRNESS AND PATHWAYS TO
COMPLIANCE: FINDINGS FROM
THE ESS (BELGIAN DATA) AND
AN INDEPENDENT STUDENT
SAMPLE
Prof. Dr. Lieven J.R. Pauwels
Drs. Anjuli Van Damme

Introduction
Pauwels, L., (2012). Trust in PF and pathways to compliance. ESC
conference, Bilbao, 13 september 2012
2
 Studies on law breaking have predominantly
focused on why people break (moral) rules
(stated in law) MOTIVATIONAL THEORIES
 But also on compliant behaviour
 CONTROL THEORIES (Hirschi, 1969) and
many others…
 Recently, criminologists have regained interest
in theories of procedural justice

Procedural Justice Theory
3
 Argues that institutions of crime control need
legitimacy in order to obtain compliance
 PJT studies the causes and consequences of
legitimacy
 A key argument is that perceived legitimacy is
of uttermost importance in shaping compliance
and cooperation
 Why would citizen comply with the law if they
perceive institutions of control as corrupt?

Why study perceived procedural
justice and legitimacy?
4
 Procedural justice is also related to
punitiveness & public support for
vigilantism, independent of anomia,
ethnocentrism and authoritarianism (Van
Damme & Pauwels, 2012)
 Studies on extremism and terrorism suggest
that lack of procedural justice may foster
violent extremism
 The present study aims at studying these
causes and consequences of perceived
legitimacy of the police

How does that affect the public?
Procedural fairness theories have been espacially tested in the U.S. and U.K.
Procedural fairness of the Belgian police?
5
Pauwels, L., & Van Damme, A., 2012, NVK Congres
Presentatie procedurele rechtvaardigheidstheorie
Critical events in the ’80s & ’90s:
The “wild 1980s”: “unsolved cases” and lack of
cooperation between police services
Killers of Brussels (Les tueurs du Brabant)
Dutroux-case (child murderer)
Major police reform in Belgium

Competing pathways to compliance
6
Source: Jackson, J., Bradford,B., Hough, M., Myhill, A.,Quinton, P., Tyler, T., in press

Competing pathways to
compliance
7
 We report the results of:
 Two studies, similar to identical measures,
 (1) ESS data
 (2) independent survey of university students

The ESS (round 5.10)
8
 The European Social Survey provides free
access to all of its data and documentation.
These can be browsed and downloaded from
its website:
 http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/
 Round 5: especially designed to study trust

The ESS (round 5.20)
 What is so special
about the ESS?
 Data quality!
 Unit non response &
coverage!!
 Excellent reliability
and validity of
meaures with regard
to the module of trust:
++++
 Excellent pretest in
England and Wales
(Eurojustis Project:
see Jackson &
Hough)
 Cross-cultural
equivalence of
measurement models:
promising but more
research necessary
 Measurement of
compliance through
self-reported
offending is a weak
point (self-reported
offending among
adults-affected by
data collection)
9

Measurement issues of trust and
legitimacy
 Trust in procedural fairness of the police is the citizens’
belief that the police take fair decisions!
 Trust in police effectiveness is the citizens’ belief that
the police succeeds in realising its goals
 The ESS R5 module asks about people’s perceptions of
the trustworthiness of the police to act effectively and
fairly
 Legitimacy is the right to govern and the recognition of
that right by the governed
 2 dimensions of legitimacy : moral obligation to obey
and moral alignment
10

 Measurement of compliance: self-reported offending:
how often in the past 5 years have you bought
something you thought might be stolen?
 Measurement of cooperation (ESS) ‘If the situation
arose, how likely would you be to do the following three things
…?’ Response alternatives were ‘very likely’, ‘somewhat likely’, ‘not
too likely’ and ‘not likely at all’
…call the police to report a crime they had witnessed
…report suspicious activity near their house
…provide information to the police to help find a suspected
criminal
11
Measurement issues of trust and
legitimacy

Self-reported offending in the
ESS
12
How often bought som ething that m ight be stolen last 5 years
1589 93,3 93,4 93,4
67 3,9 3,9 97,4
33 1,9 1,9 99,3
8 ,5 ,5 99,8
4 ,2 ,2 100,0
1701 99,8 100,0
3 ,2
1704 100,0
Never
Once
Tw ice
3 or 4 times
5 times or more
Total
Valid
Don't knowMissing
Total
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent

Sample descriptives ESS
Belgium
 N: 1704
 52% females
 80% fully native
background
 Age: 15-94 (m:46)
 ES-ISCED scale (full
range: not finished
primary education to
higher tertiary
education)
 Scales included:
 Proc. Fairnes
 Effectiveness
 Personal morality
 Perceived risk of
sanction
 Moral obligation
 Moral alignment
 Cooperation
 Self-reported
offending
13

Analysis plan
14
 Structural Equation Modeling (Lisrel 8.8)
 Latent Variable Approach (measurement
model + structural model)
 Input data
 Covariance matrix between indicators
 Ordinal data: Asymptotic covariance matrix
based on polychoric correlations
 Weighted Least Squares

Results ESS Belgium
15
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.028
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) = 0.91

Results: SEM tests on Belgian
ESS data
16
Structural Equations
obey = 0.17*effect + 0.32*procjust, Errorvar.= 0.85 , R² = 0.15
(0.049) (0.041) (0.063)
3.47 7.82 13.53
align = - 0.24*effect - 0.64*procjust, Errorvar.= 0.47 , R² = 0.53
(0.053) (0.044) (0.053)
-4.49 -14.53 8.90
coop = - 0.14*align + 0.17*moral, Errorvar.= 0.95 , R² = 0.055
(0.037) (0.039) (0.070)
-3.76 4.24 13.45
offend = 0.24*align - 0.22*moral, Errorvar.= 0.61 , R² = 0.16
(0.050) (0.053) (0.054)
4.79 -4.08 11.32

RESULTS
17
 Key findings:
 No empirical evidence for instrumental
compliance
 Empirical evidence for normative
explanations of compliance
 Pathways from procedural justice and police
effectiveness to (1) cooperation and (2)
offending
 Legitimacy (Moral alignment) as a key
mediator of procedural justice and
effectiveness

Independent Survey of University
Students
18
 Why an additional test?
 External validity
 ESS: less variation in offending
 Can the theory be applied to explain the
commitment of traffic offences by students?
 Constructs: derived from ESS module on trust
 N = 1.107 from different faculties
 Additional mechanisms: “legitimacy of the law”
and “legal cynicism” scales.
 Traffic offences scale: drunken driving, ignoring
traffic lights, speeding, ignoring traffic signs (no
parking)

19

Conclusion & Discussion
 Multiple pathways from procedural
justice variables through legitimacy
(moral alignment and obligation to
obey)
 Perceived risk of sanction: effect is
highly indirect, but not convincing!
 Legal cynicism is the key construct
through which the effects of procedural
justice variables are channelled.
20

21
 Morality is the strongest direct pathway to
ofending, (Cf. Wikström et al., 2012 for a
discussion)
 But still a critical note is necessary:
procedural justice is important but not
enough…..
 (1) to explain cooperation (R sq: 5% ESS -
10% Student sample
 (2) to explain compliance (offending) (17%
ESS - 5 % Student sample)

22
 Despite the amount of studies, it remains hard
to make some definite conclusion about
deterrence and its reducing role in crime
causation (Tonry, 2007; Nagin, 1998).
 Perceived deterrence studies also show
inconsistent results
 Empirically, the effects of perceived procedural
justice outweigh the effects of perceived risk of
sanctions!

ESC pauwels van damme 2012

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ESC pauwels van damme 2012

Similar to ESC pauwels van damme 2012 (20)

More from Lieven J.R. Pauwels

More from Lieven J.R. Pauwels (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ESC pauwels van damme 2012