Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)

8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)

1/24

|Date 03-09-2012

|Date 03-09-2012 1

Motivational postures andcompliance

Willem Bantema PhD Student


2/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Statements

Compliance can be explained bymotivational postures

1. Motivational postures are reliable and valid measures

2. Motivational postures have an independent influence oncompliance

2


3/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Case

Smoking ban in Dutch pubs (2008)

Compliance low (pubs)

- At the beginning: 80percent

- After two years: 52percent

3


4/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Other countries (compliance)

Scotland (UK): 99 %

Norway: 97 %

Ireland: 90 %

Conclusion: Compliance is low in the Netherlands

4


5/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Literature

2 Predominant explanations for (non-)

compliance

1. Instrumental explanations

2. Normative explanations

5


6/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Normative explanation

1. Motivational postures (Braithwaite)

2. five normative profiles of clusters ofcompliance motivations

6


7/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Posture Committment

Support for specific law

Support for regulator

Compliance related

7


8/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Posture Capitulation

Support for regulator (to avoid problemens)

Support for specific law is superficial

Compliance related

8


9/24


10/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Posture Disengagement Support for specific law is low

Support for laws in general is also law, dissatisfaction isbroader.

Support for the regulator is low

Contact with regulator is avoided and not openly expressed

Related to non-compliance

10


11/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Posture Game-Playing Low support for specific law

Low support for regulator

Dissatisfaction is not expressed openly, but by competitionto the regulator (loopholes in law, games with regulator)

Related to non-compliance

11


12/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Statements (2)

1. Motivational postures are reliable and valid measures

2. Motivational postures have a independent influence oncompliance

Is this the case: Apilot study is performed to support thisearlier mentioned statements

12


13/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Pilot study

Operationalization motivational postures

Based on 23 (translated) statements

13


14/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Motivational postures (1) Commitment (examples) I feel a moral obligation to obey the smoking ban

To obey the smoking ban is the right thing to do

Capitulation (examples) The smoking ban may not be perfect, but it works

well enough for most of us If you cooperate with the regulator, the are likely to

be cooperative with you

14


15/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Motivational postures (2) Resistance (examples) Once the regulator has you branded as a non-

compliant, they will never change their mind If you dont cooperate with the regulator, they will

tough to you

Disengagement (examples) I dont really know what the regulator expects of me

and Im not going to ask

If the tax office gets tough to me, I will becomeuncooperative with them

15


16/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Motivational postures (3) Game-Playing (examples) I enjoy talking to friends about loopholes in the

smoking ban (related law) I like the game of finding the grey area of thesmoking ban (related law)

Choices vary from totally disagree (coded as 1) to totally agree(coded as 5)

16


17/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Pilot Study (2)

300 survey requests were send (two times)

The posted letter includes a request and weblink to my survey

80 persons out of these 300 completed the survey (around 25percent)

17


18/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Results (1) Beside capitulation the postures are (sufficient)

reliable

Based on a factor-analysis there are 4(valide)postures: commitment, resistance,disengagement en game-playing.

18


19/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Results (2) CorrelationsSchaal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Commitment -

Resistance -.36 ** -

Disengagement -.32 **

.42 **

-

Game-playing -.40 ** .18 .12 -

Certainty -.48 ** .33 ** .15 .34 ** -

Compliance .72 ** -.36 ** -.34 ** -.44 ** -.18 -

Costs -.58 ** .28 * .25 * .25 * .28 * -.41 ** -

19


20/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Results (3) RegressionsCommittment Resistance Disengagement Game-playing

Posture (sort) .79 ** -.30 * -.24 * -.41 **

Costs -.02 -.35 ** -.35 ** -.34 **

Certainty .21 * .08 -.02 .07

Adjusted R .52 .20 .19 .30

20


21/24


22/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Discussion (1) Postures, summary statements, what is in it?

Solution: Relate to other variables

- Legitimacy of laws in general

- Legitimacy of the smoking ban (specific)- Legitimacy of regulator

- Political cynism

- Other background variables

22


23/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Explaining differences in compliance

Some differences on macro level (1)

Levels op public support for a ban (smokers)

23

Country Before(% support)

After one year(% support)

Netherlands 10 18

Ireland 14 48


24/24

|Date 03-09-2012

Explaining differences in compliance

Some differences on macro level (2)

Intensity of enforcement

24

Country Inspectionsfirst 3 months

Frequency ofpubs

The Netherlands 750 10.000

Ireland 4800 6.500Scotland 6291 5.000

Documents

Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)