Legal directives, whether laws, regulations, or contractual provisions, can be written along a sp... more Legal directives, whether laws, regulations, or contractual provisions, can be written along a spectrum of specificity, about which behavioral and legal scholarship present conflicting views. We hypothesized that the combination of specificity and monitoring promotes compliance but harms performance and trust, whereas the combination of specificity and good faith enhances both the informative goal-setting aspects of specificity and people’s sense of commitment. To test these hypotheses, we used a 2x2x2 experimental design in which participants were instructed to edit a document, either with general or detailed instructions, either with a reference to good faith or without it, and either with monitoring or without it. Participants could engage in various levels and kinds of editing, allowing us to measure distinctly both compliance and performance. When participants require information and guidance, as in the case of editing, we found that specificity increases performance relative to the vague standard condition. We discuss the characteristics of the regulatory frameworks in which our findings are especially relevant.
174 words) This paper offers a new approach to study the general duty to obey the law (GDOL) in c... more 174 words) This paper offers a new approach to study the general duty to obey the law (GDOL) in comparative perspective. GDOL is crucial for those studying the authority of law and rule of law, as well as those studying compliance and ethical decision making in relation to the law. It conceptualizes and tests a new scale to measure GDOL in a sample of 717 law students from China, the USA, the Netherlands and Israel. The new construct has good internal and convergent validity. The data reveal that variation in GDOL across the four countries is limited, and China is not the expected outlier in the sample. GDOL varies with legal education, with less formal legal education related to a higher GDOL in the first year and to a lower GDOL in senior years. Also students with a higher altruistic orientation to study law reported higher GDOL. In conclusion, GDOL and the related authority of law may be not just a matter of national and institutional differences but also one of personal preferences and personality. Introduction Legal systems can only function well if there is voluntary compliance, and when there is no need to implement each and every rule through the threat of sanctions (cf. Tyler 1997). While of course such voluntary compliance is most easily developed for rules that people agree with, modern legal systems include many rules where widespread moral support may not be optimal. It is here that Tyler (1997) has argued that the general duty to obey the law is crucial. If people perceive that they have a duty to obey the law, simply because it is the law, regardless of circumstances, neither enforcement nor moral agreement with the law are necessary. Modern legal systems that govern large and heterogeneous jurisdictions with challenges both in terms of enforcement and moral agreement, therefore hinge upon the people’s perceptions about the general duty to obey the law.
ABSTRACT Social norms play a central role in explaining why people obey the law. Models featuring... more ABSTRACT Social norms play a central role in explaining why people obey the law. Models featuring the expressive function of the law focus on the norm-mediated effect of law on behavior - that is, law influences existing social norms, which in turn influence behavior. In this Article, we focus on the question of how law influences social norms. We seek to understand the characteristics of law that influence people's opinions about the social acceptability of the behavior law seeks to regulate. To address these questions, we examined the practice of sharing digital files of copyrighted material ("file sharing"). We conducted an experiment to identify the characteristics of copyright law that influence perceptions of the consensus about unlawful file sharing. Results suggest that both formal and informal sanctions associated with copyright regulations influence perceptions of file sharing behavior. At the same time, law did not influence perceptions of file sharing behavior in the absence of any sanctions, and making salient the moral justifications for refraining from unlawful file sharing also did not influence perceptions. We discuss the implications of our study both for the theoretical debate about the expressive function of the law, and for the policy debate regarding curbing unlawful file sharing.
Rule Conditionality assesses whether people see acceptable conditions for breaking legal rules. I... more Rule Conditionality assesses whether people see acceptable conditions for breaking legal rules. In a first study amongst 808 law students from China, the Netherlands, the USA, and Israel, we examine whether variation in Rule Conditionality is determined by national context or by psychosocial differences. Findings suggest that moral firmness and moral disengagement, but not national contexts, explain differences in Rule Conditionality. In a second study amongst 216 students in the USA and in China, we examine whether Rule Conditionality has different effects on hypothetical compliance behavior. Findings suggest that Rule Conditionality has a different effect on behavior in each country. These studies suggest that although Rule Conditionality itself does not vary across national contexts, its effects on compliance behavior are contingent on the national context. Rule Conditionality is a key predictor of voluntary compliance in the USA, whereas social norms better predict voluntary compliance in China
Legal directives, whether laws, regulations, or contractual provisions, can be written along a sp... more Legal directives, whether laws, regulations, or contractual provisions, can be written along a spectrum of specificity, about which behavioral and legal scholarship present conflicting views. We hypothesized that the combination of specificity and monitoring promotes compliance but harms performance and trust, whereas the combination of specificity and good faith enhances both the informative goal-setting aspects of specificity and people’s sense of commitment. To test these hypotheses, we used a 2x2x2 experimental design in which participants were instructed to edit a document, either with general or detailed instructions, either with a reference to good faith or without it, and either with monitoring or without it. Participants could engage in various levels and kinds of editing, allowing us to measure distinctly both compliance and performance. When participants require information and guidance, as in the case of editing, we found that specificity increases performance relative to the vague standard condition. We discuss the characteristics of the regulatory frameworks in which our findings are especially relevant.
174 words) This paper offers a new approach to study the general duty to obey the law (GDOL) in c... more 174 words) This paper offers a new approach to study the general duty to obey the law (GDOL) in comparative perspective. GDOL is crucial for those studying the authority of law and rule of law, as well as those studying compliance and ethical decision making in relation to the law. It conceptualizes and tests a new scale to measure GDOL in a sample of 717 law students from China, the USA, the Netherlands and Israel. The new construct has good internal and convergent validity. The data reveal that variation in GDOL across the four countries is limited, and China is not the expected outlier in the sample. GDOL varies with legal education, with less formal legal education related to a higher GDOL in the first year and to a lower GDOL in senior years. Also students with a higher altruistic orientation to study law reported higher GDOL. In conclusion, GDOL and the related authority of law may be not just a matter of national and institutional differences but also one of personal preferences and personality. Introduction Legal systems can only function well if there is voluntary compliance, and when there is no need to implement each and every rule through the threat of sanctions (cf. Tyler 1997). While of course such voluntary compliance is most easily developed for rules that people agree with, modern legal systems include many rules where widespread moral support may not be optimal. It is here that Tyler (1997) has argued that the general duty to obey the law is crucial. If people perceive that they have a duty to obey the law, simply because it is the law, regardless of circumstances, neither enforcement nor moral agreement with the law are necessary. Modern legal systems that govern large and heterogeneous jurisdictions with challenges both in terms of enforcement and moral agreement, therefore hinge upon the people’s perceptions about the general duty to obey the law.
ABSTRACT Social norms play a central role in explaining why people obey the law. Models featuring... more ABSTRACT Social norms play a central role in explaining why people obey the law. Models featuring the expressive function of the law focus on the norm-mediated effect of law on behavior - that is, law influences existing social norms, which in turn influence behavior. In this Article, we focus on the question of how law influences social norms. We seek to understand the characteristics of law that influence people's opinions about the social acceptability of the behavior law seeks to regulate. To address these questions, we examined the practice of sharing digital files of copyrighted material ("file sharing"). We conducted an experiment to identify the characteristics of copyright law that influence perceptions of the consensus about unlawful file sharing. Results suggest that both formal and informal sanctions associated with copyright regulations influence perceptions of file sharing behavior. At the same time, law did not influence perceptions of file sharing behavior in the absence of any sanctions, and making salient the moral justifications for refraining from unlawful file sharing also did not influence perceptions. We discuss the implications of our study both for the theoretical debate about the expressive function of the law, and for the policy debate regarding curbing unlawful file sharing.
Rule Conditionality assesses whether people see acceptable conditions for breaking legal rules. I... more Rule Conditionality assesses whether people see acceptable conditions for breaking legal rules. In a first study amongst 808 law students from China, the Netherlands, the USA, and Israel, we examine whether variation in Rule Conditionality is determined by national context or by psychosocial differences. Findings suggest that moral firmness and moral disengagement, but not national contexts, explain differences in Rule Conditionality. In a second study amongst 216 students in the USA and in China, we examine whether Rule Conditionality has different effects on hypothetical compliance behavior. Findings suggest that Rule Conditionality has a different effect on behavior in each country. These studies suggest that although Rule Conditionality itself does not vary across national contexts, its effects on compliance behavior are contingent on the national context. Rule Conditionality is a key predictor of voluntary compliance in the USA, whereas social norms better predict voluntary compliance in China
Uploads
Papers by Y. Feldman