The Effect of Perceived Deterrence on Compliance with Authorities: The Moderating Influence of Procedural Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to stimulate compliance, authorities often use deterrence instruments. However, scientific literature from the fields of criminology, sociology and psychology has not been consistent in when or why deterrence is effective in shaping compliance. In the present study we investigated the role of procedural justice in relation to deterrence. Procedural justice has strong effects on people’s attitudes and behaviour regarding the social collective, including compliance with authorities. We argued that particularly authorities who are considered procedurally fair are successful in stimulating compliance with the use of deterrence instruments. In support of these ideas, a field survey in which we focused on sanction severity as the first element of deterrence and an experiment in which we focused on detection probability as the second element of deterrence revealed that procedural justice and deterrence instruments interactively strengthen each other’s effect in promoting compliance. These finding may partly explain the sometimes-contradictory results from prior work about the effectiveness of deterrence by supporting a justice perspective on the effectiveness of deterrence in increasing compliance with authorities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".