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
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
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
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
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
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
4/24
|Date 03-09-2012
Other countries (compliance)
Scotland (UK): 99 %
Norway: 97 %
Ireland: 90 %
Conclusion: Compliance is low in the Netherlands
4
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
5/24
|Date 03-09-2012
Literature
2 Predominant explanations for (non-)
compliance
1. Instrumental explanations
2. Normative explanations
5
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
6/24
|Date 03-09-2012
Normative explanation
1. Motivational postures (Braithwaite)
2. five normative profiles of clusters ofcompliance motivations
6
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
7/24
|Date 03-09-2012
Posture Committment
Support for specific law
Support for regulator
Compliance related
7
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
8/24
|Date 03-09-2012
Posture Capitulation
Support for regulator (to avoid problemens)
Support for specific law is superficial
Compliance related
8
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
9/24
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
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
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
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
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
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
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
13/24
|Date 03-09-2012
Pilot study
Operationalization motivational postures
Based on 23 (translated) statements
13
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
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
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
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
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
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
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
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
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
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
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
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
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
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
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
21/24
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
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
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
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
8/11/2019 Legal Network Conference - Budapest (2012)
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
Top Related