Fear, Punishment, and the Law: Deterrence Theory and Legal Obedience

UPI Study › Courses › Advanced Social Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 9.10 Free with a free account

Fear, Punishment, and the Law: Deterrence Theory and Legal Obedience

Advanced Social Psychology · Chapter 9: Group Dynamics, Conformity, and ObedienceSection 9.10 · lesson 63 of 8510 min · free with a free account

← Classic Experiments Revisited: Robbers Cave, the Autokinetic Effect, and MilgramNext lesson: The Roots of Kindness: Where Altruism Comes From and How Society Shapes It →

Earn 3 college credits for Advanced Social PsychologyRecommended for credit by NCCRS · Psychology 310 · self-paced · one payment, lifetime access
Enroll in Advanced Social Psychology · $250 →Download the syllabus (PDF)

In this lesson

Two accounts of why people obey, and the synthesis the evidence forces.

  • Trace deterrence theory to Beccaria and Bentham
  • Distinguish certainty, severity, and celerity
  • Explain Tyler's procedural-justice account of legitimacy
  • Apply Kelman's 3 forms of social influence

Free study notes

Get this lesson's notes by email

The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.

One email. Unsubscribe in one click.

Transcript

Everything said in the video, section by section (1,265 words). Read along, or search it.

Group Dynamics, Conformity, and Obedience

Fear, Punishment, and the Law

This is the last section of the unit, and it changes register. From laboratory obedience to obedience at the scale of a legal system. Most people, most of the time, do not break the law. Why not? Two answers, from two different intellectual traditions. One says people calculate, and punishment is the cost side of the calculation. The other says people accept the legal order as entitled to obedience. Both have evidence, and they predict different policies. We will build each, then look at the synthesis the data forces. And end by taking that synthesis back to Milgram.

The Question

Two Broadly Opposed Answers

Take the two answers in turn. The first traces to the Enlightenment jurists. Obedience is essentially a calculation. People refrain because the anticipated costs of punishment exceed the benefits. On this account, the law's principal lever is credible threat. The second answer developed in social and political psychology over the past half-century. It says obedience is, for most people most of the time, about legitimacy. People obey because they regard the legal order as entitled to compliance. Its officials, and its procedures, along with its laws. This section ends with a synthesis recognizing both as partial.

1764 And 1789

Beccaria, Bentham, and the Calculating Offender

The calculation account has two founding texts. Cesare Beccaria's On Crimes and Punishments, from seventeen sixty-four. And Jeremy Bentham's Principles of Morals and Legislation, from seventeen eighty-nine. Together they supply what is now called classical deterrence theory. Both authors assumed an essentially rational offender. Who weighs anticipated benefits against anticipated costs, before offending. The state's task, then, is to calibrate the costs. Through credible criminal sanctions. So that for any person and any offense, compliance is the better bet. Notice that the offender's rationality is an assumption, not a finding. What these authors really specify is what a legal system must do.

Three Pillars

What Effective Punishment Requires

Beccaria argued that this requires three properties of punishment. Certainty, severity, and celerity. Certainty is the probability that an offense is detected and punished. Severity is the harshness of the sanction itself. And celerity is the swiftness with which punishment follows the act. Crucially, they are not equal. Beccaria ranked them, and put certainty first. That ranking is the most consequential thing in the theory. It is also the part that policy most often gets backwards. So it is worth understanding exactly why he ranked them that way.

Certainty First

Why the Probability Beats the Size

Certainty is the probability of detection, prosecution, and punishment. For Beccaria it was the most important of the three. And the argument is quantitative, not moral. A small but reliable punishment deters better than a large but rare one. The reasoning: expected disutility tracks probability multiplied by magnitude. Both terms sit in the product, so either could in principle move it. But probability moves more reliably with policy than magnitude does. A state can genuinely raise detection rates. Raising the sentence on paper does not raise the perceived cost equally. And notice why this ordering keeps being ignored in practice. Severity is cheap to legislate, and highly visible. Certainty needs investigation and administration, which is expensive and invisible.

The Other Two

Severity, and Celerity

Severity was important to Beccaria, but secondary. He argued for proportionate rather than maximally harsh punishments. Partly on humanitarian grounds. And partly for a reason that is more interesting. Because excessive severity discredits the legal order. So a punishment can be so harsh it undermines the system imposing it. Which means severity can reduce deterrence, by destroying legitimacy. Celerity is the third property, and it is about timing. The swiftness with which punishment follows the act. It matters to maintain the cognitive linkage between offense and consequence. Long delays attenuate the deterrent effect, by weakening that association.

The Evidence

General and Specific Deterrence

Modern research adds a distinction Beccaria did not draw. Specific deterrence is the effect of an actual punishment on the person punished. General deterrence is the effect of the threat on potential offenders in the population. And the empirical record is more nuanced than the classical picture. Certainty is broadly supported. Increases in perceived probability of detection reduce offending. Across a wide range of contexts, as Nagin summarized in twenty thirteen. Severity is supported much more weakly. Doubling sentence lengths produces measurable but small reductions. And celerity is the least well-supported pillar of the three. Partly because systems rarely vary swiftness independently of the others. So Beccaria's ranking has broadly survived two and a half centuries.

Tyler, 1990

What Actually Predicted Compliance

Now the finding that broke the pure deterrence account. A deterrence model predicts something specific and testable. Compliance should track perceived probability of punishment closely. Tom Tyler's research program tested that directly. Beginning with Why People Obey the Law, in nineteen ninety. In a large-scale study of Chicago residents. The strongest predictor of self-reported compliance was not sanction risk. It was perceived legitimacy of legal authorities. The belief that police, courts, and laws are entitled to be obeyed. That is a falsification, not a footnote. Both variables were measured, and the other one won. Which is why legitimacy could not simply be added as a modifier.

Procedural Justice

What Builds Legitimacy

So what builds legitimacy? Not satisfaction with outcomes, and not whether you won or lost your case. Legitimacy was best predicted by perceived procedural justice. Whether legal officials treated the person with respect. Whether they listened to their account. Whether they applied rules consistently. And whether they explained their decisions. Which produces the result that matters most for policy. People who experienced procedurally fair treatment were more law-abiding. And more cooperative with legal authorities afterward. Even when the outcome had gone against them. The finding has been replicated across countries and institutional contexts.

Kelman, 1958

Three Forms, Three Stabilities

Herbert Kelman's nineteen fifty-eight taxonomy connects the two traditions. He distinguished three forms of social influence, by the motive sustaining each. Which also tells you what would make each one collapse. Compliance is obedience motivated by reward, or avoiding punishment. It is stable only while surveillance is present. Identification is obedience motivated by a valued relationship. With a respected officer, or a community leader. It is stable as long as that relationship endures. Internalization is obedience motivated by your own values. By congruence between the demanded behavior and what you already believe. It is stable regardless of surveillance, or relationship. Deterrence operates principally through compliance. Legitimacy-based obedience approaches identification, and sometimes internalization.

Side By Side

Two Engines of Obedience

Put the two engines side by side, dimension by dimension. The deterrence lever is the threat of sanction. The legitimacy lever is perceived fairness of authorities and procedures. The deterrence mechanism is cost-benefit calculation. The legitimacy mechanism is an internalized obligation to obey. Now the crucial row. Deterrence-based obedience is conditional on surveillance. Legitimacy-based obedience persists without it. In Kelman's terms, that is compliance versus identification and internalization. The policy implications diverge accordingly. Increase certainty of detection, or build fair, respectful institutions. And each has its own failure mode. Deterrence is discredited by excessive severity; legitimacy is eroded by perceived bias.

Consolidate

The Synthesis, and a Look Back at Milgram

The contemporary consensus is that the two are complementary. Developed in the work of Nagin, Tyler, and Bottoms, among others. Deterrence does work, with two qualifications. Most reliably through certainty rather than severity. And for offenses whose benefits invite calculation rather than impulse. Legitimacy works too, also with qualifications. Only if institutions actually deliver fair treatment over time. And it is fragile in the face of high-profile failures of fairness. So the defensible policy combines both pillars. Certain enforcement of a narrow range of well-justified rules, fairly administered. Regimes combining severe sanctions with arbitrary procedure get neither, and lose both. Which brings the unit back to where it started, with Milgram. Authority commands not merely because it threatens, but because it is accepted. Next time you stop at an empty intersection at three in the morning, ask which.

About Advanced Social Psychology at UPI Study

Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) is a self-paced online course of 85 video lessons in 12 chapters, from attitudes, persuasion and the self to prejudice, attraction and relationships, conformity and obedience, helping, aggression and social life online. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.

Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →

Compare: Social Psychology vs Sociology

Why take it here

Why students take Advanced Social Psychology with UPI Study

How other people shape what we think and doAdvanced Social Psychology explains how people think about, influence and relate to one another: attitudes and persuasion, the self, prejudice and intergroup conflict, attraction and close relationships, conformity and obedience, helping and aggression. It is a common upper-level course in psychology and sociology degrees.
Credit at a fraction of the priceThe same 3 credits can cost $750 or more at a US college. Here it is one payment, self-paced, with lifetime access.
Finish your degree soonerTransfer credits reduce the courses you still owe, so you can graduate earlier or lighten a heavy semester.
Strengthen an applicationA completed college-level course on an official transcript shows admissions and scholarship committees you can do the work.
Study on your own scheduleNo start dates, no deadlines. Watch the lessons, practice, and take the final when you are ready.
130,000+students helped with college creditsACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Where the credit goes

Universities that work with NCCRS

Advanced Social Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Thomas Edison State UniversityThomas Edison State UniversitySigned partnerUniversity of the PeopleUniversity of the PeopleSigned partnerCharter Oak State CollegeCharter Oak State CollegeSigned partnerStrayer UniversityStrayer UniversitySigned partnerColumbia Southern UniversityColumbia Southern UniversitySigned partnerIndiana TechIndiana TechSigned partnerPenn StatePenn StateWorks with NCCRSSouthern New Hampshire UniversitySouthern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRSSUNYSUNYWorks with NCCRS +many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →

Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.

FAQ

Questions students ask us

About Fear, Punishment, and the Law: Deterrence Theory and Legal Obedience

What are the three elements of deterrence theory?
Classical deterrence theory says punishment deters crime through certainty, severity, and celerity. Certainty is the probability of being caught and punished, severity is how harsh the penalty is, and celerity is how quickly it follows the offense. Cesare Beccaria laid out the idea in On Crimes and Punishments in 1764, and Jeremy Bentham developed it in 1789. Beccaria ranked certainty as the most important of the three.
Does harsher punishment reduce crime?
Harsher punishment deters crime much less than most people assume. Research summarized by Daniel Nagin in 2013 finds that raising the perceived chance of being caught reliably reduces offending, while longer sentences produce at most small reductions. Beccaria also warned that excessive severity can discredit the legal system itself. Swiftness of punishment is the least tested element, partly because it rarely varies independently of the others.
Why do people obey the law?
Many people obey the law mainly because they see legal authorities as legitimate, not only because they fear punishment. In Why People Obey the Law (1990), Tom Tyler's study of Chicago residents found perceived legitimacy predicted compliance more strongly than perceived risk of sanctions. Legitimacy rested on procedural justice: being treated with respect, being heard, consistent rules, and explained decisions. Fair treatment built cooperation even when the outcome went against people.
What is the difference between compliance, identification, and internalization?
Herbert Kelman's 1958 model separates three forms of influence by motive. Compliance is going along to gain rewards or avoid punishment, and it lasts only while someone is watching. Identification is going along because of a valued relationship with the source, and it lasts as long as that relationship does. Internalization is accepting a behavior because it fits your own values, so it persists without surveillance.

About the Advanced Social Psychology course

How many college credits is Advanced Social Psychology?
Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
How much does Advanced Social Psychology cost and what is included?
$250, paid once, with lifetime access: all 85 video lessons, a practice quiz after each, the graded work and final exam, and an official transcript when you finish. Students who want several courses choose UPI Study PRO instead.
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
UPI Study has signed partner agreements with universities such as Thomas Edison State University, University of the People and Charter Oak State College, and works with universities such as Penn State, SNHU and SUNY. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities. Use "Find my college" on this page to check yours.
How long does Advanced Social Psychology take?
It is self-paced with no deadlines. The 85 lessons total about 15 hours of video; most students add reading and practice time and finish in a few weeks to a few months, on their own schedule.
How are the exams done?
Quizzes and assignments are online in the course. The final exam is taken online with proctoring; a person on the UPI Study team checks assignments, usually within two days.
How do my credits reach my college?
When the course shows 100% complete, request the official transcript from your dashboard. It is sent to the college you name, and you can send it to more than one. Check your college first with "Find my college" on this page, or ask Athena.

Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Advanced Social Psychology.

85 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.

Enroll in Advanced Social Psychology →Download the syllabusEvery course with PRO →
Advanced Social Psychology
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →