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
51 - Validity Concerns about Self-Reported Surveys on Rule Compliance
from Part VIII - Measuring and Evaluating Compliance
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2021
By
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: Many studies into rule compliance use the method of self-reports about compliance or non-compliance among people or organizations that have to comply with given rules. This chapter discusses a number of validity threats associated with this method. Three major sources of distortion are discussed: misinformation, misunderstanding, and misleading. In a number of examples, it is shown that self-reports may indeed fail to mirror the behaviour of a rule addressee. Some notes on the use of multiple questions and on randomized response methods are added.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Compliance , pp. 761 - 772Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Averdijk, M., and Elffers, H.. 2012. ‘The Discrepancy between Survey-Based Victim Accounts and Police Reports Data Revisited’. International Review of Victimology, 18(2), 91–107.Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F. 1982. ‘A Self-Presentational View of Social Phenomena’. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bem, C. G., and McConnell, H. K.. 1970. ‘Testing the Self-Perception Explanation of Dissonance Phenomena: On the Salience of Premanipulation Attitudes’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Billiet, J., and McClendon, J.. 2000. ‘Modelling Acquiescence in Measurement Models for Two Balanced Sets of Items’. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(4), 608–28.Google Scholar
Calahan, D. 1968. ‘Correlates of Respondent Accuracy in the Denver Reliability Survey’. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32, 608–21.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. 1959. Essentials of Psychological Testing, 2nd ed. London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Crowne, D. P., and Marlowe, D.. 1960. ‘A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology’. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cruyff, M. J., van den Hout, A., van der Heijden, P. G., and Böckenholt, U.. 2007. ‘Log-Linear Randomized-Response Models Taking Self-Protective Response Behavior into Account’. Sociological Methods and Research, 36(2), 266–82.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. L. 1990. ‘Construct Validity and Social Desirability’. American Psychologist, 45, 287–9.Google Scholar
Elffers, H. 1980. ‘On Interpreting the Product Moment Correlation Coefficient’. Statistica Neerlandica, 34, 3–11.Google Scholar
Elffers, H. 2010. ‘Misinformation, Misunderstanding and Misleading S Validity Threats to Offenders’ Accounts of Offending’. In Bernasco, W. (ed.), Offenders on Offending. Learning about Crime from Criminals, 13–22. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
Farrington, D. P. 1973. ‘Self-Reports of Deviant Behaviour: Predictive and Stable?’ Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 64, 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetchenhauer, D. 1998. Versicherungsbetrug: Eine theoretische und empirische Analyse betrügerischen Verhaltens gegenüber einem anonymen Geschädigten. Nomos-Verlag-Ges.Google Scholar
Hessing, D. J., Elffers, H., and Weigel, R. H.. 1988. ‘Exploring the Limits of Self-Reports and Reasoned Action: An Investigation of the Psychology of Tax Evasion Behavior’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 405–13.Google Scholar
Hessing, D. J., Elffers, H., Robben, H. S. J., and Webley, P.. 1993. ‘Needy or Greedy? The Social Psychology of Individuals Who Fraudulently Claim Unemployment Benefits’. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(3), 226–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medanik, L. 1982. ‘The Validity of Self-Reported Alcohol Consumption and Alcohol Problems: A Literature Review’. British Journal of Addiction 77, 357–82.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., and Wilson, T. D.. 1977. ‘Telling More than We Can Know: Verbal Reports of Mental Processes’. Psychological Bulletin 84, 231–57.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L. 1984. ‘Two-Component Models of Socially Desirable Responding’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598–609.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L. 1991. ‘Measurement and Control of Response Bias’. In Robinson, J., Shaver, P., and Wrightman, L. (eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, 17–60. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobell, L. C. 1976. ‘The Validity of Self-Reports. Towards a Predictive Model’. Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Stein, N. L., Ornstein, P. A., Tversky, B., and Brainerd, C.. (eds.) 1997. Memory for Everyday and Emotional Events. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., and Smith, T. W.. 1996. ‘Asking Sensitive Questions: The Impact of Data Collection Mode, Question Format, and Question Context’. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 275–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Hout, A., van der Heijden, P. G., and Gilchrist, R.. 2007. ‘The Logistic Regression Model with Response Variables Subject to Randomized Response’. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 51(12), 6060–9.Google Scholar
Van Gelder, J. L., Nee, C., Otte, M., Demetriou, A., Van Sintemaartensdijk, I., and Van Prooijen, J. W.. 2017. ‘Virtual Burglary: Exploring the Potential of Virtual Reality to Study Burglary in Action’. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(1), 29–62.Google Scholar
Van Giels, B., Hessing, D. J., and Elffers, H.. 1991a. Rood Rijden: Determinanten van het Rijden door Rood onder Automobilisten [Determinants of Red Light Jumping]. Rotterdam: ECSTR.Google Scholar
Van Giels, B., Hessing, D. J., and Elffers, H.. 1991b. Dubbel Parkeren: Determinanten van het Dubbel Parkeren onder Automobilisten [Determinants of Illegal Parking]. Rotterdam: ECSTR.Google Scholar
Van Onna, J. H., Van Der Geest, V. R., Huisman, W., and Denkers, A. J.. 2014. ‘Criminal Trajectories of White-Collar Offenders’. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51(6), 759–84.Google Scholar
Vrij, A. 2008. Detecting Lies and Deceit: Pitfalls and Opportunities. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Webley, P., Adams, C., and Elffers, H.. 2006. ‘Value Added Tax Compliance’. In McCaffery, E. J. and Slemrod, J. (eds.), Behavioral Public Finance. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 175–205.Google Scholar
Webley, P., and Siviter, C.. 2000. ‘Why Do Some Dog Owners Allow Their Dogs to Foul the Pavement? The Social Psychology of Minor Rule Transgression’. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30, 1371–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigel, R. H., Hessing, D. J., and Elffers, H.. 1987. ‘Tax Evasion Research: A Critical Appraisal and Theoretical Model’. Journal of Economic Psychology, 8, 215–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wentland, E. J., and Smith, K. W. (1993. Survey Responses: An Evaluation of Their Validity. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wolters, G. 2002. ‘Herinneren door getuigen [Eyewitness Memory]’. In van Koppen, P. J., Hessing, D. J., Merckelbach, H. L. G. J. and Crombag, H. F. M. (eds.), Het Recht van Binnen. Psychologie van het Recht [Handbook of Psychology of Law]. Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar