Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction: Compliance as the Interaction between Rules and Behavior
- Part I Compliance Concepts and Approaches
- Part II Deterrence and Incapacitation
- Part III Incentives
- Part IV Legitimacy and Social Norms
- Part V Capacity and Opportunity
- Part VI Compliance and Cognition
- Part VII Management and Organizational Processes
- Part VIII Measuring and Evaluating Compliance
- 48 Laboratory Experiments
- 49 Compliance Experiments in the Field: Features, Limitations, and Examples
- 50 Naming and Shaming: Evidence from Event Studies
- 51 Validity Concerns about Self-Reported Surveys on Rule Compliance
- 52 Factorial Surveys and Crime Vignettes
- 53 Qualitative Methods and the Compliance Imagination
- 54 Policy Evaluation
- Part IX Analysis of Particular Fields
- References
52 - Factorial Surveys and Crime Vignettes
from Part VIII - Measuring and Evaluating Compliance
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction: Compliance as the Interaction between Rules and Behavior
- Part I Compliance Concepts and Approaches
- Part II Deterrence and Incapacitation
- Part III Incentives
- Part IV Legitimacy and Social Norms
- Part V Capacity and Opportunity
- Part VI Compliance and Cognition
- Part VII Management and Organizational Processes
- Part VIII Measuring and Evaluating Compliance
- 48 Laboratory Experiments
- 49 Compliance Experiments in the Field: Features, Limitations, and Examples
- 50 Naming and Shaming: Evidence from Event Studies
- 51 Validity Concerns about Self-Reported Surveys on Rule Compliance
- 52 Factorial Surveys and Crime Vignettes
- 53 Qualitative Methods and the Compliance Imagination
- 54 Policy Evaluation
- Part IX Analysis of Particular Fields
- References
Summary
Abstract: Factorial surveys or vignettes have become a popular research methodology for social scientists to use when studying issues surrounding compliance, crime, and justice. This chapter provides an overview of this specially designed self-report survey methodology, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses while also providing current examples within the field of criminology.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance , pp. 773 - 779Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Alexander, C. S., and Becker, H. J. (1978). “The Use of Vignettes in Survey Research.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 42: 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aviram, H. (2012). “What Would You Do? Conducting Web-Based Factorial Vignette Surveys.” In Gideon, L. (ed.), Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences, 463–73. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Elis, L. A., and Simpson, S. S. (1995). “Informal Sanction Threats and Corporate Crime: Additive versus Multiplicative Models.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32: 399–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Green, D. E. (1989). “Measures of Illegal Behavior in Individual-Level Deterrence Research.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26(3): 253–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickman, M., Piquero, A., Lawton, B., and Greene, J. (2001). “Applying Tittle’s Control-Balance Theory to Police Deviance.” Policing, 24: 497–520.Google Scholar
Kim, M., and Hunter, J. E. (1993). “Attitude-Behavior Relations: A Meta-analysis of Attitudinal Relevance and Topic.” Journal of Communications, 43(1): 101–42.Google Scholar
Klepper, S., and Nagin, D. S. (1989). “Tax Compliance and Perceptions of the Risks of Detection and Criminal Prosecution.” Law & Society Review, 23: 209–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagin, D. S., and Paternoster, R. (1993). “Enduring Individual Differences and Rational Choice Theories of Crime.” Law & Society Review, 27(3): 467–96.Google Scholar
Nagin, D. S., Piquero, A. R., Scott, E. S., and Steinberg, L. (2006). “Public Preferences for Rehabilitation versus Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Survey.” Criminology & Public Policy, 5: 627–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paternoster, R., and Simpson, S. (1996). “Sanction Threats and Appeals to Morality: Testing a Rational Choice Model of Corporate Crime.” Law & Society Review, 30: 549–83.Google Scholar
Piquero, A. R., and Hickman, M. (1999). “An Empirical Test of Tittle’s Control Balance Theory.” Criminology, 37: 319–42.Google Scholar
Piquero, A., and Tibbetts, S. (1996). “Specifying the Direct and Indirect Effects of Low Self-Control and Situational Factors in Offending Decision Making: Toward a More Complete Model of Rational Offending.” Justice Quarterly, 13: 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piquero, N. L., Exum, M. L., and Simpson, S. S. (2005). “Integrating the Desire for Control and Rational Choice in a Corporate Crime Context.” Justice Quarterly, 22(2): 253–80.Google Scholar
Piquero, N. L., Tibbetts, S. G., and Blankenship, M. (2005). “Examining the Role of Differential Association and Techniques of Neutralization in Explaining Corporate Crime.” Deviant Behavior, 26(2): 159–88.Google Scholar
Piquero, N. L., Schoepfer, A., and Langton, L. (2010). “Completely Out of Control or the Desire to Be in Complete Control? An Examination of How Low Self-Control and the Desire for Control Relate to Corporate Offending.” Crime & Delinquency, 56(4): 627–47.Google Scholar
Piquero, N. L., Cohen, M., and Piquero, A. R. (2011). “How Much Is the Public Willing to Pay to Be Protected from Identity Theft?” Justice Quarterly, 28(3): 437–59.Google Scholar
Pogarsky, G. (2004). “Projected Offending and Contemporaneous Rule-Violation: Implications for Heterotypic Continuity.” Criminology, 42: 111–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, P. H., and Nock, S. L. (eds.) (1982) Measuring Social Judgments: The Factorial Survey Approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Schoepfer, A., Piquero, N. L., Langton, L. (2014). “Low Self-Control versus the Desire-for-Control: An Empirical Test of White-Collar Crime and Conventional Offending.” Deviant Behavior, 35: 197–214.Google Scholar
Simpson, S. (2002). Corporate Crime, Law, and Social Control. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, S. S., and Piquero, N. L. (2002). “Low Self-Control, Organizational Theory, and Corporate Crime.” Law & Society Review, 36(3): 509–47.Google Scholar
Vieraitis, L. M., Piquero, N. L., Piquero, A. R., Tibbetts, S. G., and Blankenship, M. (2012). “Do Women and Men Differ in Their Neutralizations of Corporate Crime?” Criminal Justice Review, 37(4): 480–94.Google Scholar
Wallander, L. (2009). “25 Years of Factorial Surveys in Sociology: A Review.” Social Science Research, 38: 505–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar