This study tests deterrence theory and procedural justice theory in prisons. Severe sanctions in prisons may deter detainees from misconduct. Recent research suggests that this deterrent effect may only occur if individuals are treated procedurally just by prison staff.
Methods
Using an experimental vignette scenario design (N = 313 detainees and ex-detainees) we manipulated sanction severity and procedural justice across conditions testing the main and interaction effects of sanction severity and procedural justice on misconduct intentions (outcome measure 1) and compliance intentions (outcome measure 2). Also, we tested potential mediation pathways from sanction severity on these outcomes and the role of procedural justice therein.
Results
Individuals reported lower intentions to comply in the severe as opposed to the mild sanction condition (η2 = .03). There was no significant main effect of procedural justice on misconduct and compliance intentions. The effect of sanction severity did not depend on procedural justice. Additionally, the effect of sanction severity on misconduct and compliance intentions was mediated by the moral devaluation of authorities.
Conclusion
The present findings underscore the potential disadvantages of severely sanctioning in prison settings. Severe sanctions may backfire and decrease compliance intentions with institutional rules and staff.
Due to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly, so supporting data is not available.
Notes
In two forensic care facilities, the purpose of the research and questionnaire was explained to all potential participants simultaneously. Next, all individuals willing to participate filled in the questionnaire in the same room. Similarly, in the prisons/pretrial facilities some individuals filled in the questionnaire in the presence of, or simultaneously with other participants. The researcher supervised the situation and answered questions. Researchers did not get the impression that participants discussed the scenarios with each other while filling in the questionnaire. Therefore, for most individuals blinding of the experimental condition remained intact.
If a participant had more than 30% missing on the items that were used to compute the mean score we did not compute a mean score for that participant.
If a participant had more than 30% missing on the items that were used to compute the mean score we did not compute a mean score for that participant.
Interestingly, individuals in the severe sanction condition also reported feeling treated less procedurally just compared to individuals in the mild condition (Ms = 2.91 versus 3.22, respectively for the severe versus mild condition); F(1, 305) = 7.35, p = .007, η2 = .02.
Unexpectedly, individuals that were treated fairly in the vignette scenario also indicated to experience their sanction as less severe (Ms = 2.71 versus 3, respectively) compared to individuals that were treated unfairly; F(1, 305) = 4.95, p = . 027, η2 = .01.
Because the normality assumption was violated, we repeated the analysis using the Kruskal–Wallis chi-squared test (9.65, df = 1, p = 0.002).
Test statistics of the mediation effects of sanction severity via moral evaluation of authorities on overall compliance intentions (b = -.11, p < .001, CI95% bootstrap [-0.19; -0.05]); and compliance intentions with guard Mark (b = -.13, p < .001, CI95% bootstrap [- 0.22;—0.04]).
Test statistics of the mediation effects of sanction severity via moral evaluation of authorities on overall misconduct intentions (b = 0.08, p = .002, CI95% bootstrap [0.02; 0.14]); misconduct intentions toward fellow detainees (b = 0.06, p = .027, CI95% bootstrap [0.007; 0.14]); and misconduct intentions toward guards (b = 0.08, p = .004, CI95% bootstrap [0.02; 0.15]).
Test statistics of the mediation effects of sanction severity via perceived group membership of the Dutch society on overall compliance intentions (b = 0.03, p = .047, CI95% bootstrap [0.0; 0.09]).
Our questionnaire contained a measure of perceived group membership of the Dutch society. On average participants disagreed slightly (M = 2.37; SD = 1.13) with the statement “I am a member of the Dutch society”, rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (5).
This analysis was the only exploratory analysis that was not preregistered.
F(1, 300) = 8.13, p = .005, η2 = .02.
F(1, 300) = 23.34, p < .001, η2 = .07.
F(1, 303) = 12.89, p < . 001, η2 = .04.
F(1, 303) = 11.52, p < .001, η2 = .04.
F(1, 303) = 10.78, p < .001, η2 = .03.
F(1, 303) = 3.97, p = . 047, η2 = .01.
References
Abbiati, M., Palix, J., Gasser, J., & Moulin, V. (2019). Predicting physically violent misconduct in prison: A comparison of four risk assessment instruments. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,37(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2364
Ansems, L. F. M., van den Bos, K., & Mak, E. (2020). Speaking of justice: A qualitative interview study on perceived procedural justice among defendants in Dutch criminal cases. Law & Society Review,54(3), 643–678. https://doi.org/10.16309/j.cnki.issn.1007-1776.2003.03.004
Ansems, L. F. M. (2021). Procedural justice on trial: A critical test of perceived procedural justice from the perspective of criminal defendants [Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht].
Apel, R. (2022). Sanctions, perceptions, and crime. Annual Review of Criminology,5(15), 1–23.
Apel, R., & Nagin, D. S. (2017). Perceptual deterrence. In W. Bernasco, J.-L. Van Gelder, & H. Elffers (Eds.), The Oxford handbooks in criminology and criminal justice. The Oxford handbook of offender decision making (pp. 121–140). Oxford University Press.
Augustyn, M. B., & Ward, J. T. (2015). Exploring the sanction-crime relationship through a lens of procedural justice. Journal of Criminal Justice,43(6), 470–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.10.001
Baidawi, S., Trotter, C., & Flynn, C. (2016). Prison experiences and psychological distress among older inmates. Journal of Gerontological Social Work,59(3), 252–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2016.1197353
Barkworth, J. M., & Murphy, K. (2021). Procedural Justice, posturing and defiant action: Exploring prisoner reactions to prison authority. Justice Quarterly,38(3), 537–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1666905
Beijersbergen, K. A., Dirkzwager, A. J. E. E., Eichelsheim, V. I., Van der Laan, P. H., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2015). Procedural justice, anger, and prisoners’ misconduct: A longitudinal study. Criminal Justice and Behavior,42(2), 196–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814550710
Beijersbergen, K. A., Dirkzwager, A. J. E. E., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2016). Reoffending after release: Does procedural justice during imprisonment matter? Criminal Justice and Behavior,43(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815609643
Bierie, D. M. (2012). Procedural justice and prison violence: Examining complaints among federal inmates (2000–2007). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,19(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028427
Bouffard, L. A., & Piquero, N. L. (2010). Defiance theory and life course explanations of persistent offending. Crime & Delinquency,56(2), 227–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707311642
Browne, A., Cambier, A., & Agha, S. (2011). Prisons within prisons: The use of segregation in the United States. Federal Sentencing Reporter,24(1), 46–49. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2011.24.1.46
Butler, H. D., & Steiner, B. (2017). Examining the use of disciplinary segregation within and across prisons. Justice Quarterly,34(2), 248–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2016.1162319
Casper, J. D., Tyler, T., & Fisher, B. (1988). Procedural justice in felony cases. Law & Society Review,22(3), 483–508. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053626
Chalfin, A., & McCrary, J. (2017). Criminal deterrence: A review of the literature. Journal of Economic Literature,55(1), 5–48. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20141147
Cheeseman, K. A., Kim, B., Lambert, E. G., & Hogan, N. L. (2011). Correctional officer perceptions of inmates and overall job satisfaction. Journal of Crime and Justice,34(2), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2011.580515
Dafoe, A., Zhang, B., & Caughey, D. (2018). Information equivalence in survey experiments. Political Analysis,26(4), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.9
Dölling, D., Entorf, H., Hermann, D., & Rupp, T. (2009). Is deterrence effective? Results of a meta-analysis of punishment. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research,15, 201–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-008-9097-0
Farrar, J., Kaplan, S. E., & Thorne, L. (2019). The effect of interactional fairness and detection on taxpayers’ compliance intentions. Journal of Business Ethics,154, 167–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3458-x
Fisman, R., & Miguel, E. (2007). Corruption, norms, and legal enforcement: Evidence from diplomatic parking tickets. Journal of Political Economy,115(6), 1020–1048. https://doi.org/10.1086/527495
Gau, J. M. (2011). The convergent and discriminant validity of procedural justice and police legitimacy: An empirical test of core theoretical propositions. Journal of Criminal Justice,39(6), 489–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.09.004
Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2010). Four ingredients: New recipes for procedural justice in Australian policing. Policing,4(4), 403–410. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paq041
Huizinga, D., & Henry, K. L. (2008). The effect of arrest and justice system sanctions on subsequent behavior: Findings from longitudinal and other studies. In A. M. Liberman (Ed.), The long view of crime: A synthesis of longitudinal research (pp. 220–254). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71165-2_7
Jackson, J., Tyler, T. R., Bradford, B., Taylor, D., & Shiner, M. (2010). Legitimacy and procedural justice in prisons. Prison Service Journal,191, 4–10.
Labrecque, R. M., & Smith, P. (2019). Assessing the impact of time spent in restrictive housing confinement on subsequent measures of institutional adjustment among men in prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior,46(10), 1445–1455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818824371
Lucas, J. W., & Jones, M. A. (2019). An analysis of the deterrent effects of disciplinary segregation on institutional rule violation rates. Criminal Justice Policy Review,30(5), 765–787. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417699930
Maguire, E. R., Atkin-Plunk, C. A., & Wells, W. (2021). The effects of procedural justice on cooperation and compliance among inmates in a work release program. Justice Quarterly,38, 1128–1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1634753
Morris, R. G. (2016). Exploring the effect of exposure to short-term solitary confinement among violent prison inmates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,32(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-015-9250-0
Mulder, L. B., Verboon, P., & De Cremer, D. (2009). Sanctions and moral judgments: The moderating effect of sanction severity and trust in authorities. European Journal of Social Psychology,39, 255–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.506
National Institute of Justice. (2016). Restrictive housing in the U.S. (Ncj 250315). U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.
Nivette, A., Nägel, C., & Stan, A. (2022). The use of experimental vignettes in studying police procedural justice: A systematic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-022-09529-7
Novak, A., Boutwell, B. B., & Smith, T. B. (2023). Taking the problem of colliders seriously in the study of crime: A research note. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09565-x
Nuño, L. E., & Morrow, W. J. (2020). Assessing the process-based model of regulation within a jail setting: Arrestees’ perceptions of procedural justice, trust and obligation to obey. Journal of Crime and Justice,43(5), 676–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2020.1722727
O’rourke, H. P., & Ackinnon, D. P. M. (2018). Reasons for testing mediation in the absence of an intervention effect: A research imperative in prevention and intervention research. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs,79(2), 171–181.
Piquero, A. R., Paternoster, R., Pogarsky, G., & Loughran, T. (2011). Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory. Annual Review of Law and Social Science,7, 335–360. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105404
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,235(1), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.28952
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research,42(1), 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316
Reisig, M. D., & Mesko, G. (2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and prisoner misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law,15(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802089768
Ryan, C., & Bergin, M. (2022). Procedural justice and legitimacy in prisons: A review of extant empirical literature. Criminal Justice and Behavior,49(2), 143–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211053367
Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,30(4), 445–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030004006
Skitka, L. J., Winquist, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2003). Are outcome justice and outcome favorability distinguishable constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social Justice Research,16(4), 309–341.
Steiner, B., & Cain, C. M. (2019). The effect of removing sentencing credits on inmate misbehavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,35, 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9372-7
Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2015). Individual and environmental sources of work stress among prison officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior,42(8), 800–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814564463
Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2019). Understanding and reducing prison violence: An integrated social control-opportunity perspective. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315148243
Steiner, B., Butler, H. D., & Ellison, J. M. (2014). Causes and correlates of prison inmate misconduct: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice,42, 462–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.08.001
Toman, E. L. (2021). Disciplinary confinement and misconduct patterns: An examination of gendered effects. Crime and Delinquency,68(6–7), 945–974. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287211010484
Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice?: Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law & Society Review,22(1), 103–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053563
Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review,1(4), 323–345. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0104_4
Tyler, T. R. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions? Behavioral Sciences & the Law,19, 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.438
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review,7(4), 349–361.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. The Russell Sage Foundation.
Van Prooijen, J. W., Gallucci, M., & Toeset, G. (2008). Procedural justice in punishment systems: Inconsistent punishment procedures have detrimental effects on cooperation. British Journal of Social Psychology,47(2), 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X218212
Verboon, P., & van Dijke, M. (2011). When do severe sanctions enhance compliance? The role of procedural fairness. Journal of Economic Psychology,32(1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.09.007
Verboon, P., & van Dijke, M. (2012). The effect of perceived deterrence on compliance with authorities: The moderating influence of procedural justice. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology,1, 151–161. https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4409.2012.01.15
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin,132(2), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249
Western, B. (2021). Inside the box: Safety, health, and isolation in prison. Journal of Economic Perspectives,35(4), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.35.4.97
Wildeman, C., & Andersen, L. H. (2019). Long-term consequences of being placed in disciplinary segregation. Criminology,58(3), 423–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12241
Yasrebi-De Kom, F. M., Dirkzwager, A. J. E. E., Van Der Laan, P. H., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2022). The effect of sanction severity and its interaction with procedural justice. Criminal Justice and Behavior,49(2), 200–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211038358
We thank Prof. Dr. Henk Elffers (NSCR) and Khalil Chait (experience expert) for their advice when designing this study. We thank Prof. Jan-Willem van Prooijen (NSCR) for comments on our preregistration and on our manuscript. We thank Stitching Exodus and DJI (and in particular PI Arnhem and PI Almelo) for giving us access to their institutions to approach potential participants and all colleagues and interns that helped to collect the data.
Funding
This project was funded by an Open Competition grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), P.O. Box 71304, 1008 BH, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Franziska M. Yasrebi-de Kom, Anja J. E. Dirkzwager & Peter H. van der Laan
Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Preregistered exploratory analyses
Detection probability
We included a measure of detection probability in our questionnaire to test whether detection probability affects reported compliance and misconduct intentions.Footnote 11 Detection probability, or the perceived probability to be apprehended when breaking the institutional rules, is one of the elements of deterrence theory (Apel, 2022; Chalfin & McCrary, 2017; Nagin, 2013). Based on past studies, perception of higher detection probability is expected to reduce misconduct intentions and increase compliance intentions (Nagin, 2013). However, in our study there was no significant main effect of detection probability on misconduct or compliance intentions. Additionally, regimes that impose severer sanctions may be perceived as more stringent, which in turn may affect the perceived detection probability. Hence, we tested whether sanction severity affects detection probability. We did not find such a main effect.
Legitimacy
We also included a measure of legitimacy in our study because perceived legitimacy of authorities has frequently been linked to higher compliance rates and lower misconduct rates; and has sometimes been mentioned as the mechanism that explains the relationship of procedural justice and compliance/misconduct (Ryan & Bergin, 2022). Because of the potential benefits of legitimately perceived authorities we also considered it of relevance to test whether severely sanctioning affects legitimacy. In our study, sanction severity decreased legitimacy and procedural justice increased legitimacy. Participants in the severe sanction condition indicated having significantly less trust and confidence (i.e., legitimacy) in the guard in the vignette scenario compared to participants in the mild sanction condition (Ms = 2.81 versus 3.12, respectively).Footnote 12 Similarly, participants in the fair condition reported significantly higher legitimacy (M = 3.20) compared to participants in the unfair condition (M = 2.71).Footnote 13
Outcome satisfaction and outcome fairness
We also measured whether individuals judged the hypothetically received sanction as a fair outcome sanction (i.e., “I think it is fair that Mark brings me to my cell.”) and whether they were satisfied with their sanction (i.e., “That Mark brings me to my cell is good for me.”). Procedural justice and sanction severity were frequently found to be linked to both outcome satisfaction and outcome fairness (Skitka et al., 2003). These in turn, may be relevant for peoples’ behavioral intentions. In our study, participants in the severe sanction condition reported lower outcome fairness compared to participants in the mild sanction condition (Ms = 2.73 versus 3.18, respectively)Footnote 14 and lower outcome satisfaction (Ms = 2.56 versus 2.99, respectively).Footnote 15 Similarly, participants in the fair condition reported higher outcome fairness (M = 3.15) compared to participants in the unfair condition (M = 2.76)Footnote 16 and higher outcome satisfaction (Ms = 2.90 versus 2.65, respectively).Footnote 17
Mediations
Lastly, we tested whether detection probability, legitimacy, outcome fairness and outcome satisfaction are potential mechanisms on the pathway from sanction severity or fair treatment to misconduct and compliance intentions. Table 6 shows all significant mediation models. The general pattern is that people in the severe sanction condition report lower legitimacy, outcome fairness and outcome satisfaction, and we observe a reversed effect from the procedural justice condition on these exploratory mediators. In turn, we observed that legitimacy, outcome fairness and outcome satisfaction decrease misconduct intentions and increase compliance intentions.
Table 6 Overview of significant exploratory mediations for each independent/dependent variable combination per mediator
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Yasrebi-de Kom, F.M., Dirkzwager, A.J.E., van der Laan, P.H. et al. Deterrent effects of sanction severity and the role of procedural justice in prison: a preregistered randomized vignette experiment.
J Exp Criminol (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09585-7
