Advertisement

Quality & Quantity

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 1639–1655 | Cite as

Using laboratory experiments to study law and crime

  • Christine Horne
  • Heiko Rauhut
Article

Abstract

The 19th and 20th centuries produced breakthroughs in physics, chemistry, and the biological sciences. Laboratory research played an important role in the rapid advances made in these fields. Laboratory research can also contribute progress in the social sciences and, in particular, to law and criminology. To make this argument, we begin by discussing what laboratory experiments can and cannot do. We then provide three illustrations of lab experiments that have contributed to understanding of crime and law and discuss how these laboratory data complement those gained through other methods.

Keywords

Laboratory experiments Experimental methods Law Crime 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austin J., Clark J., Hardyman P., Henry D.A.: The impact of “three strikes and you’re out”. Punishm. Soc. 1(2), 131–162 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berk R.A.: Regression Analysis: A Constructive Critique. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (2004)Google Scholar
  3. Bohner G., Reinhard M., Rutz S., Sturm S., Effler D.: Rape myths and neutralizing conditions. Evidence for a causal impact of anti-victims attitudes on men’s self-reported likelihood of raping. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 28, 256–268 (1988)Google Scholar
  4. Bohner G., Jarvis C., Eyssel F., Siebler F.: The causal impact of rape myth acceptance on men’s rape proclivity: comparing sexually coercive and noncoercive men. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35(6), 819–828 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell T.C., Campbell T.M.: The China Study. BenBella Books, Dallas (2004)Google Scholar
  6. Chiappori P.-A., Levitt S.D., Groseclose T.: Testing mixed-strategy equilibria when players are heterogenous: The case of penalty kicks in soccer. Am. Econ. Rev. 92, 1138–1151 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen S.: Visions of Social Control: Crime, Punishment, and Classification. Polity Press, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  8. Cohen D.: Law, social policy, and violence: the impact of regional cultures. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 70, 961–978 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen D., Nisbett R.E.: Self-protection and the culture of honor: explaining southern violence. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 20, 51–567 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen D., Nisbett R.E.: Field experiments examining the culture of honor: the role of institutions in perpetuating norms. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23(11), 1188–1199 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen D., Nisbett R.E., Bowdie B.F., Schwarz N.: Insult, aggression, and the southern culture of honor: an “experimental ethnography”. Interpers. Relat. Group Process. 70(5), 945–960 (1996)Google Scholar
  12. Cook, P.J.: Research in criminal deterrence: laying the groundwork for the second decade. Crime Justice Annu. Rev. Res. 2 (1980)Google Scholar
  13. Cook T.D., Campbell D.D.: Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston (1979)Google Scholar
  14. Doob A.N., Webster C.M.: Sentence severity and crime: accepting the null hypothesis. Crime Justice Rev. Res. 30, 143–195 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. Drag F., Balbiati R., Vertova P.: The deterrent effects of prison from a natural experiment. J. Polit. Econ. 117(2), 257–280 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Farrington D.P., Welsh B.C.: A half century of randomized experiments on crime and justice. Crime Justice 34, 55–132 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fetchenhauer D., Simon J., Fetchenhauer F.: Gottfredson and Hirschi in the lab: an experimental test of the general theory of crime. In: Horne, C., Lovaglia, M.J. (eds) Experiments in Criminology and Law, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham (2008)Google Scholar
  18. Freedman D.A.: Statistical models and shoe leather. Sociol. Methodol. 21, 291–313 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibbs J.P.: Crime, punishment and deterrence. Soc. Sci. Q. 58, 15–28 (1968)Google Scholar
  20. Ginsburg T., McAdams R.H.: Adjudicating in anarchy: an expressive theory of international dispute resolution. William Mary Law Rev. 45, 1229–1339 (2004)Google Scholar
  21. Grasmick H., Bryjak G.J.: The deterrent effect of perceived severity of punishment. Soc. Forces 59, 471–491 (1980)Google Scholar
  22. Guala F.: On the scope of experiments in economics: comments on Siakantaris. Camb. J. Econ. 26, 261–267 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hechter, M., Horne, C. (eds): Theories of Social Order. Stanford Social Sciences, Stanford (2009)Google Scholar
  24. Horne C.: The Rewards of Punishment: A Relational Theory of Norm Enforcement. Stanford University Press, Stanford (2009)Google Scholar
  25. Horney J., Marshall I.H.: An experimental comparison of two self-reported methods for measuring lambda. J. Res. Crime Del. 29, 102–121 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hudson B.: Punishment and control. In: Maguire, M., Morgan, R., Reiner, R. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  27. Jensen G.: Crime doesn’t pay: correlates of a shared misunderstanding. Soc. Probl. 17, 189–201 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kalkhoff W., Willer R.: Deterring deviance: rationality and self-control. In: Horne, C., Lovaglia, M.J. (eds) Experiments in Criminology and Law, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham (2008)Google Scholar
  29. Kessler D., Levitt S.: Using sentence enhancements to distinguish between deterrence and incapacitation. J. Law Econ. 17(1), 343–363 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krumpal I., Rauhut H., Böhr D., Naumann E.: The framing of risks and the communication of subjective probabilities for victimizations. Qual. Quant. 6, 1331–1348 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lochner L.: Individual perceptions of the criminal justice system. Am. Econ. Rev. 97(1), 444–460 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lovaglia M.J., Lucas J.W., Houser J.A., Thye S.R., Markovsky B.: Status processes and mental ability test scores. Am. J. Soc. 104(1), 195–228 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacCoun R., Reuter P.: Drug control. In: Tonry, M. (ed.) The Handbook of Crime and Punishment, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)Google Scholar
  34. Maguire M.: Crime statistics. The “data explosion” and its implications. In: Maguire, M., Morgan, R., Reiner, R. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)Google Scholar
  35. Manza J., Uggen C.: Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy. Oxford University Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Matsueda R.L., Kreager D.A., Huizinga D.: Deterring delinquents: a rational choice model of theft and violence. Am. Soc. Rev. 71, 95–122 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McAdams R.H., Nadler J.: Testing the focal point theory of legal compliance: the effect of third-party expression in an experimental hawk-dove game. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 2, 87–123 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McAdams R.H., Nadler J.: Coordinating in the shadow of the law: two contextualized tests of the focal point theory of legal compliance. Law Soc. Rev. 42, 865–898 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Minor W.W., Harry J.: Deterrence and experiential effects in perceptual deterrence research: A replication and extension. J. Res, Crime Del. 19, 190–203 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Moschini G.C.: Nash equilibrium in strictly competitive games: Live play in soccer. Econ. Letters 85(3), 365–371 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nagin D.S.: Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. Crime Justice Rev. Res. 23, 1–42 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Palacios-Huerta I.: Professionals play minimax. Rev. Econ. Stud. 70(2), 395–415 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paternoster R.: The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues. Justice Q. 4, 173–218 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Paternoster, R., Saltzman, L.E., Waldo, G.P., Chiricos, T.G.: Assessment of risk and behavioral experience: An exploratory study of change. Criminology 23, 417–436 (1985)Google Scholar
  45. Rauhut H.: Higher punishment, less control? Experimental evidence on the inspection game. Ration. Soc. 21(3), 359–392 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rauhut, H.: Stronger Incentives for Control Reduce Crime: A Lab Experiment on Paradoxical Effects of Incentives and a Game Theoretical Explanation. Mimeo ETH Zurich (2010)Google Scholar
  47. Rauhut, H., Junker, M.: Punishment deters crime because humans are bounded in their strategic decision-making. J. Artif. Soc. Syst. Soc. (JASSS) 12(3), 1 (2009)Google Scholar
  48. Rauhut H., Krumpal I.: Rechtfertigungen und sexuelle Gewalt. Eine experimentelle Studie. Soziale Probleme 19(2), 219–237 (2008)Google Scholar
  49. Rauhut, H., Krumpal, I., Beuer, M.: Rechtfertigungen und Bagatelldelikte: Ein experimenteller Test. In: Kriwy, P., Gross, C. (eds.) Klein aber fein! Quantitative empirische Sozialforschung mit kleinen Fallzahlen, pp. 373–396. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften (2008)Google Scholar
  50. Ross, H.L.: Law, science, and accidents: The British road safety act of 1967. J. Leg. Stud. 2, 1–78 (1973)Google Scholar
  51. Ross, H.L.: The Scandinavian myth: The effectiveness of drinking and driving legislation in Sweden and Norway. J. Leg. Stud. 4, 285–310 (1975)Google Scholar
  52. Sampson R.J.: Whither the sociological study of crime. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 26, 711–714 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sampson R.J., Raudenbush S.W., Earls F.: Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277, 918–924 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sellin T.: Capital punishment. Fed. Probat. 25, 3–10 (1961)Google Scholar
  55. Shadish W.R., Cook T.D., Campbell D.T.: Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  56. Shepherd J.M.: Fear of the first strike: the full deterrent effect of California’s two and three-strikes legislation. J. Leg. Stud. 31, 159–201 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sherman L.W.: Police crackdowns: initial and residual deterrence. Crime Justice Rev. Res. 12, 1–48 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Singleton R.A. Jr., Straits B.C.: Approaches to Social Research, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  59. Steffensmeier D.J., Terry R.M.: Examining Deviance Experimentally. Alfred Publishing, Port Washington (1975)Google Scholar
  60. Sunstein C.R.: On the expressive function of law. Univ. Pa. L. Rev. 144(5), 2021–2053 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sykes G.M., Matza D.: Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency. Am. Sociol. Rev. 22, 664–670 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tierney J.: Criminology. Theory and Context. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1996)Google Scholar
  63. Tittle C.R.: Crime rates and legal sanctions. Soc. Probl. 16, 409–423 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tittle C.R.: Labeling and crime. An empirical investigation. In: Gove, W.R. (ed.) The Labeling of Deviance: Evaluating a Perspective, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills (1980)Google Scholar
  65. Tsebelis G.: The abuse of probability in political analysis: the Robinson Crusoe fallacy. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 1, 77–91 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tsebelis G.: Penalty has no impact on crime. A game theoretic analysis. Ration. Soc. 2, 255–286 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tyler T.R.: Why People Obey the Law. Yale University Press, New Haven (1990)Google Scholar
  68. Uggen, C.: Thinking experimentally. In: Horne, C., Lovaglia, M.J. Experiments in Criminology and Law, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham (2008)Google Scholar
  69. Webster M. Jr, Kervin J.B.: Artificiality in experimental sociology. Can. Rev. Sociol. Anthropol. 8(4), 263–272 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Webster, M. Jr., Sell, J. (eds): Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2007)Google Scholar
  71. Welsh, B.C., and Farrington, D.P.: Toward an evidence-based approach to preventing crime. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 2001, 158–173 (2001)Google Scholar
  72. Willer D., Walker H.A.: Building Experiments: Testing Social Theory. Stanford Social Sciences, Stanford (2007)Google Scholar
  73. Zelditch, M. Jr.: Can you really study an army in the laboratory? In: Etzioni, A. A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Austin (1960)Google Scholar
  74. Zimbardo P.: The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  75. Zimring F.E., Hawkins G., Kamin S.: Punishment and Democracy: Three Strikes and You’re Out in California. Oxford University Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  2. 2.ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations