Rule orientation and behavior: Development and validation of a scale measuring individual acceptance of rule violation

Adam Fine, Benjamin van Rooij, Yuval Feldman, Shaul Shalvi, Eline Scheper, Margarita Leib, Elizabeth Cauffman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

There is individual variation in the extent to which individuals believe it is acceptable to violate legal rules. However, we lack a specific measure that assesses this key internal element of legal decision-making and offending. This article describes the development, validation, and testing of the Rule Orientation scale. At its core, the construct captures the extent to which one thinks about rules in a rigid, rule-oriented manner or in a manner that recognizes exceptions. In the first study, we develop the Rule Orientation scale, demonstrate its convergent and divergent validity with key legal and moral reasoning scales, and find that Rule Orientation relates to hypothetical offending behavior across a variety of low-level crimes. In the second study, we examine whether Rule Orientation predicts the propensity to engage in digital piracy both with and without the explicit threat of punishment. The results indicate that Rule Orientation plays a crucial role in predicting offending behavior and, importantly, does so across enforcement contexts. The findings suggest that an individual with low Rule Orientation may be able to justify offending regardless of whether a system explicitly declares an enforcement campaign, regardless of how the individual perceives the severity of the threatened sanction, and regardless of whether the individual believes social norms support law violation. In understanding ethical decision-making, criminal decision-making, and other strands of legal decision-making, identifying such individual variation is crucial.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)314-329
Number of pages16
JournalPsychology, Public Policy, and Law
Volume22
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Decision Making
acceptance
decision making
Punishment
Crime
piracy
Social Norms
sanction
penalty
campaign
offense
threat
Law
lack

Keywords

  • Compliance
  • Deterrence
  • Enforcement
  • Rule orientation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Cite this

Rule orientation and behavior : Development and validation of a scale measuring individual acceptance of rule violation. / Fine, Adam; van Rooij, Benjamin; Feldman, Yuval; Shalvi, Shaul; Scheper, Eline; Leib, Margarita; Cauffman, Elizabeth.

In: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 22, No. 3, 01.08.2016, p. 314-329.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fine, Adam ; van Rooij, Benjamin ; Feldman, Yuval ; Shalvi, Shaul ; Scheper, Eline ; Leib, Margarita ; Cauffman, Elizabeth. / Rule orientation and behavior : Development and validation of a scale measuring individual acceptance of rule violation. In: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2016 ; Vol. 22, No. 3. pp. 314-329.
@article{613c6f8bc04f46d4811a4261c36e14e3,
title = "Rule orientation and behavior: Development and validation of a scale measuring individual acceptance of rule violation",
abstract = "There is individual variation in the extent to which individuals believe it is acceptable to violate legal rules. However, we lack a specific measure that assesses this key internal element of legal decision-making and offending. This article describes the development, validation, and testing of the Rule Orientation scale. At its core, the construct captures the extent to which one thinks about rules in a rigid, rule-oriented manner or in a manner that recognizes exceptions. In the first study, we develop the Rule Orientation scale, demonstrate its convergent and divergent validity with key legal and moral reasoning scales, and find that Rule Orientation relates to hypothetical offending behavior across a variety of low-level crimes. In the second study, we examine whether Rule Orientation predicts the propensity to engage in digital piracy both with and without the explicit threat of punishment. The results indicate that Rule Orientation plays a crucial role in predicting offending behavior and, importantly, does so across enforcement contexts. The findings suggest that an individual with low Rule Orientation may be able to justify offending regardless of whether a system explicitly declares an enforcement campaign, regardless of how the individual perceives the severity of the threatened sanction, and regardless of whether the individual believes social norms support law violation. In understanding ethical decision-making, criminal decision-making, and other strands of legal decision-making, identifying such individual variation is crucial.",
keywords = "Compliance, Deterrence, Enforcement, Rule orientation",
author = "Adam Fine and {van Rooij}, Benjamin and Yuval Feldman and Shaul Shalvi and Eline Scheper and Margarita Leib and Elizabeth Cauffman",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/law0000096",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "314--329",
journal = "Psychology, Public Policy, and Law",
issn = "1076-8971",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rule orientation and behavior

T2 - Development and validation of a scale measuring individual acceptance of rule violation

AU - Fine, Adam

AU - van Rooij, Benjamin

AU - Feldman, Yuval

AU - Shalvi, Shaul

AU - Scheper, Eline

AU - Leib, Margarita

AU - Cauffman, Elizabeth

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

N2 - There is individual variation in the extent to which individuals believe it is acceptable to violate legal rules. However, we lack a specific measure that assesses this key internal element of legal decision-making and offending. This article describes the development, validation, and testing of the Rule Orientation scale. At its core, the construct captures the extent to which one thinks about rules in a rigid, rule-oriented manner or in a manner that recognizes exceptions. In the first study, we develop the Rule Orientation scale, demonstrate its convergent and divergent validity with key legal and moral reasoning scales, and find that Rule Orientation relates to hypothetical offending behavior across a variety of low-level crimes. In the second study, we examine whether Rule Orientation predicts the propensity to engage in digital piracy both with and without the explicit threat of punishment. The results indicate that Rule Orientation plays a crucial role in predicting offending behavior and, importantly, does so across enforcement contexts. The findings suggest that an individual with low Rule Orientation may be able to justify offending regardless of whether a system explicitly declares an enforcement campaign, regardless of how the individual perceives the severity of the threatened sanction, and regardless of whether the individual believes social norms support law violation. In understanding ethical decision-making, criminal decision-making, and other strands of legal decision-making, identifying such individual variation is crucial.

AB - There is individual variation in the extent to which individuals believe it is acceptable to violate legal rules. However, we lack a specific measure that assesses this key internal element of legal decision-making and offending. This article describes the development, validation, and testing of the Rule Orientation scale. At its core, the construct captures the extent to which one thinks about rules in a rigid, rule-oriented manner or in a manner that recognizes exceptions. In the first study, we develop the Rule Orientation scale, demonstrate its convergent and divergent validity with key legal and moral reasoning scales, and find that Rule Orientation relates to hypothetical offending behavior across a variety of low-level crimes. In the second study, we examine whether Rule Orientation predicts the propensity to engage in digital piracy both with and without the explicit threat of punishment. The results indicate that Rule Orientation plays a crucial role in predicting offending behavior and, importantly, does so across enforcement contexts. The findings suggest that an individual with low Rule Orientation may be able to justify offending regardless of whether a system explicitly declares an enforcement campaign, regardless of how the individual perceives the severity of the threatened sanction, and regardless of whether the individual believes social norms support law violation. In understanding ethical decision-making, criminal decision-making, and other strands of legal decision-making, identifying such individual variation is crucial.

KW - Compliance

KW - Deterrence

KW - Enforcement

KW - Rule orientation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84989339194&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84989339194&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/law0000096

DO - 10.1037/law0000096

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84989339194

VL - 22

SP - 314

EP - 329

JO - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

JF - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

SN - 1076-8971

IS - 3

ER -