The Letter Versus the Spirit of the Law - part 2

THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 13 Study 2: The Impact of Enforcement Norms One of the main goals of law enforcement typically remains constant: to locate an effective method that easily coerces people to abide by the law. According to Tom Tyler, “the purpose of creating laws and empowering legal authorities is to establish and maintain social order by regulation of public behavior” (Tyler 2006). As outlined by Tyler (2006), realization of the goal of a fully compliant society has always been elusive. Numerous varying strategies are used to elicit compliance, including deterrence, which relies heavily upon the importance of incentives and sanctions in determining behavior (Tyler 2006). With our proposed model, we present a case for where enforcement should properly occur in society, thus potentially aiding law enforcement in eliciting better compliance within the spirit of the law. With this study, we aimed to demonstrate how changes in enforcement norms affect individual’s perceptions of fairness. Because enforcement norms contribute to social norms, showing that enforcement norms can impact the onset of the spirit of the law adds additional credence to our social norm-based account of the spirit of the law. We hypothesized that in a 3-condition survey measuring individual reaction to ticketing in various speed limits, individual perception of fairness would vary depending on the treatment of others in comparatively similar situations. We also hypothesized that regardless of condition, fairness numbers would plateau where the spirit of the law exists, signifying that there is a certain threshold for speeding that may not be broken. Method Participants THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 14 A total of 100 undergraduates and alumni (58 females, 72 alumni) of the University of Michigan volunteered to participate in an online study. E-mail addresses were randomly selected from the University of Michigan directory. The response rate was approximately 13%. Procedure This study used a between-subjects model. Thus, each respondent answered five questions, all along the same 5-speed interval. There were three conditions in this study: a control, majority ticketed, and majority not ticketed. The introduction (in quotations), questions, and intervals were identical for each condition with the only difference bracketed below: “You are traveling in a 60 mph speed zone. The next several questions all relate to your feelings after receiving a ticket in this zone. [A majority of drivers were ticketed at each interval] [The overall ticketing rate at each interval for the population is unknown] [A majority of drivers WERE NOT ticketed at each interval]. For every question, you will have the choice of rating your feelings on a 1-10 scale: 1=unfair - - -10=fair.” After reading this introduction, respondents were presented with an identical set of 5 questions to which they were instructed to rate the fairness of receiving a ticket, dependent on each situation: “You receive a ticket for going [65], [70], [75], [80], [85] in a 60 mph speed zone.” At the end of the survey, all respondents were also instructed to answer the following two questions: “Knowing the speed limit is 60 mph but a majority of drivers drive at least 70 mph on average, would you feel inclined to drive over the speed limit?” and “Knowing the speed limit is 60 mph and a majority of drivers drive at or below 60 mph on average, would you feel inclined to drive over the speed limit?” THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 15 Results and Discussion Our study produced strong results that support our hypotheses. First, however, there was no significant difference between the control condition and majority ticketed condition, which we believe is due to the fact that the default control situation from a societal perspective is that the majority of drivers are ticketed for violations. Thus, we collapsed the control condition and majority ticketed condition and compared them to the majority not ticketed condition. Below is the data (m=fairness mean), for the control + majority ticketed condition: 65 mph (M=3.38, SD=2.64), 70 mph (M=6.53, SD=2.56), 75 mph (M=8.90, SD=1.64), 80 mph (M=9.55, SD=1.09), 85 mph (M=9.79, SD=0.81). In the majority not ticketed condition, we observe a similar pattern of responses. However, this pattern begins with appreciably lower fairness ratings: 65 mph (M=2.27, SD=1.81), 70 mph (M=5.86, SD=2.54), 75 mph (M=8.21, SD=1.70), 80 mph (M=9.52, SD=0.95), 85 mph (M=9.86, SD=.44). The interaction between speeding interval and condition was significant (F(4, 340) = 2.456, p<.05). This data suggests that the onset of the spirit of the law depends on the relevant enforcement norm, as between conditions there is a significant difference in terms of societal perception of fairness. As you can see in Figure 4 below – the two separate lines jump greatly as they enter the hypothesized proximity of the spirit and begin to plateau once they have passed this zone of the spirit. We believe this suggests that once a certain threshold is breached, punishment, in this case ticketing, becomes fair in a certain zone. THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 16 Figure 4: Fairness Rating 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 65 70 75 Speed Interval (mph) 80 85 Lastly, when a majority of drivers drive at least 70 mph in a 60 mph speed zone, 93% of respondents (N=101) indicated they too would drive above the speed limit. Meanwhile, when a majority of drivers drive at or below 60 mph in a 60 mph speed zone, only 26% of respondents (N=101) said they would drive above the speed limit. We believe this data further supports the view that social norms strongly impact individual decision- making, as respondents indicated their willingness to speed was largely based on the observable social norm. Study 3a: The Zone of the Spirit The purpose of this study was to more closely examine the spirit of the law in conjunction with tenet 3: a – people think it is unfair when enforcement occurs between the letter of the law and spirit of the law, b – people think it is fair when enforcement occurs within a certain proximity of the spirit of the law, and c – people think it is unfair THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 17 when enforcement begins too far beyond the spirit of the law. As discussed in the previous study, we believe that it is imperative to view the spirit of the law itself as a “zone”, so to speak, rather than a single line or point on the model, as there is no one set location where social norms occur. However, whereas in the previous study we examined the spirit of the law more broadly, we aim to gain a more specific understanding and representation of the spirit with this study. We used a simple decision-making scenario about speeding to triangulate the point (i) at which it becomes fair to ticket (the onset of the spirit) and the point (ii) at which it is absolutely necessary ticket (the end of the spirit). Thus, 3a can be deduced by the zone between the letter of the law and point (i), 3b the zone between points (i) and (ii), and 3c the zone beyond point (ii). Our predictions are that point (i) will be significantly higher than the letter of the law and that point (ii) will be significantly higher than point (i). As a result, the spirit of the law is defined by the linear distance between points (i) and (ii). Method Participants A total of 93 undergraduates and alumni (51 females, 40 alumni) of the University of Michigan volunteered to participate in an online study. E-mail addresses were randomly selected from the University of Michigan directory. The response rate was approximately 20%. Procedure Participants read about potentially speeding in a between-subjects design. In the fair-to-ticket condition, participants read, “You are traveling in a 60 mph speed zone. At THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 18 what speed (in the given 60 mph speed zone) do you believe it would be fair for you to receive a speeding ticket? (Enter a number 61 or above).” Participants in the must-ticket condition read the same scenario but answered a slightly different question, “At what speed (in the given 60 mph speed zone) do you believe it becomes absolutely necessary to receive a speeding ticket?” Thus, the dependent variable being measured was the speed at which the respondents believe enforcement should take place. Results and Discussion Because this study used an open value measure as the dependent variable, we removed outliers that were beyond the conventional 3-standard deviations from the mean. This resulted in one participant being dropped from the analyses; however, his inclusion did not change the significance or the direction of the effect. The results were consistent with our predictions. Participants in the fair-to-ticket condition felt that it was fair to ticket them for speeding at a mean of 69.7 miles per hour (SD=5.46), a value that is significantly greater than the letter of the law (60 mph, t(49)=12.4, p<.001). Moreover, as predicted, participants in the must-ticket condition felt that it was absolutely necessary to ticket at a mean of 74.3 miles per hour (SD= 8.65), significantly higher than the fair-to-ticket condition (F(1,90)=9.83, p<.01). Taken together, these results display the fact that from a societal perspective, there is an optimal zone for enforcement, which occurs between the fair to ticket condition and must-ticket condition (in this case, between 69.7 mph and 75.1 mph). This corroborates tenet 3a-c by implicating that it is unfair when enforcement occurs too close to the letter (3a), fair when enforcement happens at the point where the spirit is THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 19 being violated (3b), and absolutely necessary to ticket at some distance beyond the spirit, otherwise it becomes unfair (3c). Study 3b: The Zone of the Spirit To triangulate evidence of Tenet 3 in another way, we measured societal happiness with relation to either receiving or not receiving a speeding ticket within particular speeding intervals. We believed this study would assist in further examining the zone in which the spirit of the law exists. We hypothesized that individuals are unhappy if enforcement occurs between the letter and spirit of the law (tenet 3a), happy when enforcement occurs in the “spirit zone” (tenet 3b), and again unhappy if enforcement occurs too far from the letter of the law (tenet 3c). Method Participants The 79 participants (47 females, 42 alumni) were all current or former University of Michigan students, selected at random from the University of Michigan directory. All participants were e-mailed a link to one of the two surveys, and there was a collective observed response rate of approximately 15%. Procedure Two separate between subject surveys were conducted producing two conditions – everybody ticketed and nobody ticketed. Each survey contained a set of four questions which participants were asked to answer. In the everybody ticketed condition, participants were asked the following: “Overall, how happy would society be if in a 60 mph speed zone, [everybody] that drives (61-70 mph, 71-80 mph, 81-90 mph, 91-100 mph) is ticketed? THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 20 Answer on a 0-100 scale (0=completely unhappy, 100 = completely happy).” The questions for the nobody ticketed condition were nearly identical; with the only difference being the insertion of [nobody] where [everyone] is bracketed. Within each survey, the only variance between questions was the speed interval in question. Both surveys had intervals of 61-70 mph, 71-80 mph, 81-90 mph, and 91-100 mph. Thus, the dependent variable being measured was happiness relative to the interval in question. Results and Discussion The results to both surveys were consistent with the hypothesis of a “spirit zone.” In the everybody ticketed condition, the observed means of happiness ratings increased as the speed interval increased: 61-70 mph (M=29.33, SD=24.72), 71-80 mph (M=50.23, SD=26.56, 31), 81-90 mph (M=62.56, SD=26.29), 91-100 mph (M=75.84, SD=22.22). For the nobody ticketed condition, the observed means of happiness ratings decreased as the speed interval increased and were significantly different from the everybody ticketed condition: 61-70 mph (M=78.63, SD=18.84, p<.0001), 71-80 mph (M=54, SD=24.57, p=.51), 81-90 mph (M=38.79, SD=24.92, p<.0001), 91-100 mph (M=29.26, SD=22.60, p<.0001). Seen below in Figure 5, the two lines, which connect the responses from the separate conditions (black line = everybody ticketed condition, blue dotted line = nobody ticketed condition), intersect in the hypothesized spirit zone. Together, the two lines create both a normal U-shaped curve (in the section above the intersection of the two lines) and an upside-down U-shaped curve (in the section below the intersection of the two lines). THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 21 Figure 5: 100 Fairness Rating 90 80 70 60 50 Nobody Ticketed 40 Everybody Ticketed 30 20 10 0 61-70 71-80 81-90 Speed Interval (mph) 91-100 One interesting implication of this finding is that it again suggests an optimal zone for enforcement. Essentially, because happiness converges within the proximity of our proposed spirit of the law, this is where enforcement should occur for society to be optimally happy. Where the lines converge is the point at which people are insensitive to whether everyone or no one gets a ticket. Study 4: Breaking the Spirit, But Not the Letter The purpose of this study is to probe several latter tenets of our model. First, while we have shown that it can be considered fair to violate the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law, we also hypothesize that people think it can be unfair to violate the spirit THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 22 but not the letter (tenet 4). Second, we hypothesize that the spirit is violated whenever the offense breaks social and moral acceptability norms (tenet 5). Method Participants A total of 173 undergraduates and alumni (110 females, 90 alumni) of the University of Michigan volunteered to participate in an online study. E-mail addresses were randomly selected from the University of Michigan directory. The response rate was approximately 20%. Procedure In this two-condition, between-subjects design study, participants were instructed to answer a series of questions. Participants were randomly and evenly assigned to one of the two conditions – the breaking spirit, not letter condition or the breaking letter, not spirit condition - and were presented only those questions related to their condition. Those participants in the breaking spirit, not letter condition were presented the following information: “At Toby University, a self-governing jurisdiction, the law for handicapped parking is the following: ‘If the car you are driving has a handicapped license plate – you are permitted to park in a handicapped spot.’ You are handicapped. You are visiting your friend at Toby University. During this visit, you drove your friend’s car, which does not possess a handicapped license plate and parked it in a handicapped parking spot. This area is regularly patrolled by traffic officers. Please answer the following questions by taking into account the information provided above along with your personal views.” The participants in the breaking letter, not spirit condition were presented with nearly identical THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 23 information – the only difference being that they are not handicapped and their friend’s car possessed a handicapped license plate. Next, subjects in both conditions were asked an identical set of five yes or no questions: 1. Do you think you should receive a ticket in this situation? 2. Do you think your action was legal? 3. Do you think your action was socially acceptable? 4. Do you think your action was morally acceptable? 5. Do you think your action was fair? Results and Discussion The results were consistent with our prediction that people believe it is unfair to violate the spirit of the law, even if the letter of the law is not violated. A total of 21% of the respondents (N=82) in the breaking spirit, not letter condition thought they should receive a ticket, while in the breaking letter, not spirit condition, 73% of respondents (N=86) said they should receive a ticket (χ2=17.162, p<.0001). Moreover, from the perspective of the law, 0% should have received tickets in the breaking spirit, not letter condition, yet marginally significantly more (21%) recommended ticketing (χ2 =3.5, p=.06). This finding underscores how violations of the spirit, and not the letter per se, are paramount. On the other hand, 100% of participants should have been issued tickets in the breaking letter, not spirit condition, whereas significantly fewer participants (73%) recommended ticketing (χ2=6.15, p<.05). Again, this signifies the importance of breaking the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law when penalizing individuals. We observe a parallel finding with respect to the legality of the action. A total of 22% of the respondents (N=86) in the breaking letter, not spirit condition thought their action was legal, when according to the letter of the law, this number should have been 0% THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 24 because their action was clearly illegal. Meanwhile, in the breaking spirit, not letter condition, 76% of the respondents (N=82) correctly answered that their action was legal, when according to the letter of the law, their action should be considered legal 100% of the time (significance between legal c2=17.237, p<.0001). This last question additionally underscores the fact that a significant majority of respondents understood what was and was not legal. With regard to the perceived fairness of their actions, 19% of the breaking spirit, not letter condition respondents (N=81) viewed their action as fair, while 80% of the breaking letter, not spirit condition respondents (N=86) thought they acted fairly in illegally parking in a handicapped spot (c2=22.223, p<.0001). Thus, these findings support tenet 4, as respondents demonstrated both their situational approval of violating the letter, but not the spirit of the law, along with the potential unfairness of violating the spirit, but not the letter of the law. In response to our exploration of support for tenet 5, the results for the social and moral acceptability and fairness questions were striking: in the breaking spirit, not letter condition, 21% of respondents (N=82) believed their action was socially acceptable while 76% of respondents in the breaking letter, not spirit condition (N=85) viewed their action as socially acceptable (c2=18.481, p<.0001). Similarly, a mere 10% of those in breaking spirit, not letter (N=81) thought their action was morally acceptable while in the breaking letter, not spirit condition, 86% of respondents (N=86) believed their action was morally acceptable (c2=35.95, p=0). The results for both conditions were essentially mirror images of each other. Respondents felt it was socially and morally acceptable to break the letter of the law, creating a scenario that is consistent with tenet 4. Thus, with this study we aimed THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 25 to prove that our model is bidirectional – it is a “societal violation” to break the spirit, even if one’s action are within lawful boundaries. “Societal violations” do not only occur when the law is breached. General Discussion All members of society are entrusted with the duty of following the law, but the present analysis illuminates an important distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law. According to our The Letter Versus The Spirit of the Law Model, the letter and the spirit of the law are discrete entities with the letter being what the law actually states while the spirit is a social and moral consensus of the interpretation of the law. Hence, the spirit is set by social norms, which govern the distance between the letter and the spirit. When the spirit is breached, people feel that it is fair to be penalized for violating the law. Our empirical analysis supports the tenets of the model. Study 1 shows that the letter and the spirit are distinct entities, whose distance from each other varies according the social norms that set the spirit. Study 2 shows that, because the spirit is based on social norms, enforcement norms can likewise impact the distance between the letter and the spirit. Studies 3a and 3b show that according to the spirit of the law, there is an optimal zone for enforcement, which guides individuals’ perceptions of happiness. Finally, Study 4 shows that people may be more concerned with violations of the spirit rather than the letter of the law. Many people feel that others who violate the spirit of the law, even when not technically violating the letter, should be penalized. Moreover, additional results corroborate that violating the spirit of the law may be associated with violating the social THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 26 and moral consensus, whereas violations of only the letter do not necessarily have this association. Limitations As with all empirical approaches, there are limitations. One limitation in this particular analysis is the fact that we rely exclusively on people’s evaluations of hypothetical situations. This limitation is inevitable given the fact that we cannot actually penalize participants for violating the letter or the spirit of the law. However, this decisionmaking methodology nevertheless provides us insight into people’s perceptions of fairness and the law. Perhaps Daniel Kahneman (2000) best responds to questions about using such “artificial” scenarios: “The answer is that choice . . . is the fruit fly of decision theory. It is a very simple case, which contains many essential elements of much larger problems. As with the fruit fly, we . . . hope that the principles that govern the simple case will extend in recognizable form to complex situations. (p. xi, Kahneman, 2000)” Another limitation is that our available data pool restricted our studies – all of our participants were current students or alumni of the University of Michigan. While this sample comprises student and working employee samples, they arguably subscribe and follow a different set of norms compared to people from other parts of the country or the world. However, in the present analysis, we are not suggesting that all people will share the same opinions and follow the same social norms as those in our sample but rather that the distinction and distance between the letter and spirit of the law will similarly be impacted by social norms, whatever these norms might be. Implications and Future Directions THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 27 One of the contributions of this paper is it gives us the language to talk about fairness. The concept of fairness in society is relatively ambiguous, thus, if we can better grasp what it means to be treated “fairly” by a boss or even by law enforcement officials – especially when one is beyond the bounds of the letter of the law – our own actions may become more effective and efficient. In reality, it would appear that anytime one is punished for breaking the letter of the law, that punishment would be fair. The law is in place for a reason and in most situations one would expect that following the law would be unquestionably fair, while breaking the law would be clearly unfair. However, we believe these studies have proven that the letter of the law is not a universal determinant of fairness; rather, people desire a certain margin of error in their behaviors. As explained by Amir, Ariely, and Mazar (2008), we look for ways to take advantage of any system in the most “fair” way possible. There is a tacit understanding in society that laws need to set limits – they must occur somewhere but cannot always be enforced to the letter. Thus, we, as a society, determine what we deem to be “fair,” the place that we think enforcement should occur. We believe this concept of a “fair” location for enforcement is demonstrated by tenet 3. We also believe this research provides a helpful framework for understanding prejudice in society. In different situations, some social groups may be penalized for breaking the letter of the law while others for breaking the spirit of the law. For example, United States customs workers may treat people from Canada differently, giving them the benefit of the spirit of their policies (i.e. less invasive security checks), than individuals from Africa, who may be treated based on the letter of the law. Our research opens a new THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 28 vista for understanding this potential discrimination and prejudice. Another example of this discrimination may be found in a sample of those that get pulled over while driving. Similar to our customs example, those in the in-group may be held to the spirit of the law, given a break if they have violated the letter of the law in an inconsequential manner. On the other hand, outsiders may be pulled over for looking different and thus suspicious – they may be held to the letter of the law, penalized for “unimportant” violations. The language throughout our present analysis allows us to evaluate this prejudice. Moreover, also feel that our model can predict law-abiding behavior. The model not only helps explain and diagnose a wide range of laws and situations, but it can help predict future developments in people’s actions. For example, with this model, if law enforcement were planning on changing enforcement norms or the location (graphically) of their enforcement, our model can help predict the subsequent societal action and reaction. Hypothetically, if for a less serious offense (i.e. jaywalking), law enforcement decided to begin enforcing the crime right on the letter of the law, we predict that the spirit of the law would not necessarily move immediately as society would “disagree” with this action and deem it unfair. As displayed in Study 2, enforcement norms can shift the spirit of the law, however, because the spirit is a moral and social consensus and driven by social norms, it may take more time to evolve into a new spirit after a change in enforcement norms. The only way, in this situation, that the spirit of the law will move closer to or farther away from the letter of the law would be if the social norms surrounding jaywalking changes -- if, for instance, there was a national tragedy related to jaywalking or something of that nature, or if the penalty for jaywalking was increased to the point where it is no longer beneficial to jaywalk due to the potential punishment. THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 29 Finally, our analysis gives us a new language to understand other complex situations, those that are not technically illegal but seem wrong (i.e. violating the spirit of the law but not the letter). For example, an angry spouse may break the “spirit” of domestic violence laws by destroying items in their home during an argument, creating an unsafe and dangerous environment, without violating the letter of the law. Thus, even if the angry spouse does not personally threaten or touch the victim, committing technically “legal” violence, society may view the angry spouse as deserving of punishment. Again, The Letter Versus The Spirit of the Law Model provides a useful framework for understanding this type of undefined situation, on both a societal and organizational level. Conclusion Building on the literature on social norms, fairness, and the law, The Letter Versus The Spirit of the Law Model offers great insight into the world of law and behavioral economics. This model not only demonstrates that breaking the spirit of the law is more important than breaking the letter of the law, but that breaking the spirit of the law may be worthy of penalization, even in cases where the letter is not violated. Through the five tenets of the model, we also established that there may be an optimal zone for enforcement to occur and that it is unfair to violate the spirit of the law, as this action breaks social norms. And, at the most basic level, we hope that the language and conceptual distinction this model provides will set the stage for future studies as well as offer a framework for describing those complex situations in which the spirit of the law but not necessarily the letter of the law is violated. THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 31 Works Cited Bazerman, M., Loewenstein, G., & White, S. (1992). Reversals of preference in allocation decisions: Judging an alternative versus choosing among alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(2), 220-240. Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bicchieri, C., & Chavez, A. (2010). Behaving as expected: Public information and fairness norms. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(2), 161-178. Blount, S. (1995). When social outcomes aren’t fair: The effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, 2, 131-144. Bolton, G., Brandts, J., & Ockenfels, A. (2005). Fair procedure: Evidence from games involving lotteries. The Economic Journal, 115(506), 1054-1076. Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. (1985). The reason of rules: Constitutional political economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Charny, D. (1990). Nonlegal sanctions in commercial relationships. Harvard Law Review, 104, 373. Charny, D. (1996). Illusions of a spontaneous order: Norms in contractual relationships. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 144, 1841-1858. Cialdini, R. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105-109. Coglianese, C. (1997). Assessing consensus: The promise and performance of negotiated rulemaking. Duke Law Journal, 46(6), 1255-1349. Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Ellickson, R. (1998). Law and economics discovers social norms. Journal of Legal Studies, 27, 537-552. Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Social norms and human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 185-190. Garcia, S., & Miller, D. (2007). Social categories and group preference disputes: The aversion to winner-take-all solutions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 581-593. Garcia, S., & Ybarra, O. (2007). People accounting: Social category-based choice. Journal of THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 32 Experimential Social Psychology, 43(5), 802-809. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., & McElreath, R. (2001). In search of homo economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. The American Economic Review, 73-78. Horne, C. (2009). A social norms approach to legitimacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 400-415. Jolls, C., Sunstein, C., & Thaler, R. (2000). A behavioral approach to law and economics. In C. Sunstein (Ed.), Behavioral law & economics (13-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kahneman, D. (2000). Preface. In D. Kahneman & A. Tversky (Eds.), Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of selfconcept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 633-644. Posner, E. (2002). Law and social norms. Harvard University Press. Thacher, D. (2004). Order maintenance reconsidered: Moving beyond strong causal reasoning. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 94(2), 381-414. Tor, A., Gazal-Ayal, O., & Garcia, S. (2010). Fairness and the willingness to accept plea bargain offers. Journal of Empirical Studies, 7(1), 97-116. Tyler, T. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Wilson, J., & Kelling, G. (1982, March). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly, 29-38.