IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlstud/doi10.1086-720642.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does the Severity of Sanctions Influence Learning about Enforcement Policy? Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Tim Friehe
  • Pascal Langenbach
  • Murat C. Mungan

Abstract

The literature on law enforcement often assumes that the updating of beliefs regarding the probability of detection is a process that is independent from the severity of the sanction. We test this presumption experimentally, using a taking game in which the probability of detection may be either high or low with commonly known probabilities. Individuals gain information about their probability of detection from their experience in the taking game. Some offenders are punished by a severe sanction, while others are sanctioned only mildly, which causes the experience to differ across subjects. Our analysis reveals that the severity of the sanction influences how individuals update their beliefs about the probability of detection, casting doubt on the widely held presumption that the perceived probability of detection and the magnitude of the sanction are separable.

Suggested Citation

  • Tim Friehe & Pascal Langenbach & Murat C. Mungan, 2023. "Does the Severity of Sanctions Influence Learning about Enforcement Policy? Experimental Evidence," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(1), pages 83-106.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/720642
    DOI: 10.1086/720642
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/720642
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/720642
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/720642?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/720642. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.