IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v184y2023i2d10.1007_s10551-022-05128-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Network Approach to Compliance: A Complexity Science Understanding of How Rules Shape Behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Malouke Esra Kuiper

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Monique Chambon

    (University of Amsterdam
    National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM))

  • Anne Leonore Bruijn

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Chris Reinders Folmer

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Elke Hindina Olthuis

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Megan Brownlee

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Emmeke Barbara Kooistra

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Adam Fine

    (Arizona State University)

  • Frenk Harreveld

    (University of Amsterdam
    National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM))

  • Gabriela Lunansky

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Benjamin Rooij

    (University of Amsterdam
    University of California, Irvine)

Abstract

To understand how compliance develops both in everyday and corporate environments, it is crucial to understand how different mechanisms work together to shape individuals’ (non)compliant behavior. Existing compliance studies typically focus on a subset of theories (i.e., rational choice theories, social theories, legitimacy theories, capacity theories, and opportunity theories) to understand how key variables from one or several of these theories shape individual compliance. The present study provides a first integrated understanding of compliance, rooted in complexity science, in which key elements from these theories are considered simultaneously, and their relations to compliance and each other are explored using network analysis. This approach is developed by analyzing online survey data (N = 562) about compliance with COVID-19 mitigation measures. Traditional regression analysis shows that elements from nearly all major compliance theories (except for social theories) are associated with compliance. The network analysis revealed groupings and interconnections of variables that did not track the existing compliance theories and point to a complexity overlooked in existing compliance research. These findings demonstrate a fundamentally different perspective on compliance, which moves away from traditional narrow, non-network approaches. Instead, they showcase a complexity science understanding of compliance, in which compliance is understood as a network of interacting variables derived from different theories that interact with compliance. This points to a new research agenda that is oriented on mapping compliance networks, and testing and modelling how regulatory and management interventions interact with each other and compliance within such networks.

Suggested Citation

  • Malouke Esra Kuiper & Monique Chambon & Anne Leonore Bruijn & Chris Reinders Folmer & Elke Hindina Olthuis & Megan Brownlee & Emmeke Barbara Kooistra & Adam Fine & Frenk Harreveld & Gabriela Lunansky , 2023. "A Network Approach to Compliance: A Complexity Science Understanding of How Rules Shape Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(2), pages 479-504, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:184:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10551-022-05128-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10551-022-05128-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-022-05128-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10551-022-05128-8?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Uri Gneezy & Stephan Meier & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2011. "When and Why Incentives (Don't) Work to Modify Behavior," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 191-210, Fall.
    2. Tom R. Tyler, 1997. "Procedural Fairness and Compliance with the Law," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 133(II), pages 219-240, June.
    3. Bar-Gill, Oren & Harel, Alon, 2001. "Crime Rates and Expected Sanctions: The Economics of Deterrence Revisited," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(2), pages 485-501, Part I Ju.
    4. Langton, Lynn & Piquero, Nicole Leeper, 2007. "Can general strain theory explain white-collar crime? A preliminary investigation of the relationship between strain and select white-collar offenses," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-15.
    5. Noah J. Goldstein & Robert B. Cialdini & Vladas Griskevicius, 2008. "A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 472-482, March.
    6. Treviño, Linda Klebe & Weaver, Gary R., 2001. "Organizational Justice and Ethics Program “Follow-Through†: Influences on Employees’ Harmful and Helpful Behavior," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 651-671, October.
    7. Shavell, Steven, 1991. "Specific versus General Enforcement of Law," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(5), pages 1088-1108, October.
    8. Ashkanasy, Neal M. & Windsor, Carolyn A. & Treviño, Linda K., 2006. "Bad Apples in Bad Barrels Revisited: Cognitive Moral Development, Just World Beliefs, Rewards, and Ethical Decision-Making," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 449-473, October.
    9. Sally S. Simpson & Melissa Rorie & Mariel Alper & Natalie Schell‐Busey & William S. Laufer & N. Craig Smith, 2014. "Corporate Crime Deterrence: A Systematic Review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 1-105.
    10. Michael O’Fallon & Kenneth Butterfield, 2012. "The Influence of Unethical Peer Behavior on Observers’ Unethical Behavior: A Social Cognitive Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(2), pages 117-131, August.
    11. Anthony A. Braga & David Weisburd & Brandon Turchan, 2019. "Focused deterrence strategies effects on crime: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), September.
    12. Shripad Pendse, 2012. "Ethical Hazards: A Motive, Means, and Opportunity Approach to Curbing Corporate Unethical Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 265-279, May.
    13. Spano, Richard & Freilich, Joshua D., 2009. "An assessment of the empirical validity and conceptualization of individual level multivariate studies of lifestyle/routine activities theory published from 1995 to 2005," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 305-314, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brian Whitaker & Lindsey Godwin, 2013. "The Antecedents of Moral Imagination in the Workplace: A Social Cognitive Theory Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 61-73, April.
    2. Benjamin Van Rooij & Adam Fine, 2018. "Toxic Corporate Culture: Assessing Organizational Processes of Deviancy," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-38, June.
    3. Loschelder, David D. & Siepelmeyer, Henrik & Fischer, Daniel & Rubel, Julian A., 2019. "Dynamic norms drive sustainable consumption: Norm-based nudging helps café customers to avoid disposable to-go-cups," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PA).
    4. Tianshu Sun & Guodong (Gordon) Gao & Ginger Zhe Jin, 2019. "Mobile Messaging for Offline Group Formation in Prosocial Activities: A Large Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 2717-2736, June.
    5. Polinsky, A. Mitchell & Shavell, Steven, 2007. "The Theory of Public Enforcement of Law," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 403-454, Elsevier.
    6. Gallus, Jana & Reiff, Joseph & Kamenica, Emir & Fiske, Alan Page, 2021. "Relational Incentives Theory," MPRA Paper 109898, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Dominik Schreyer & Sascha L. Schmidt & Benno Torgler, 2020. "Using reminders with different reward opportunities to reduce no-show behavior: Empirical evidence from a large-scale field experiment in professional sport," CREMA Working Paper Series 2020-19, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    8. Omar Isaac Asensio & Camila Z. Apablaza & M. Cade Lawson & Sarah Elizabeth Walsh, 2022. "A field experiment on workplace norms and electric vehicle charging etiquette," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(1), pages 183-196, February.
    9. Madelijne Gorsira & Adriaan Denkers & Wim Huisman, 2018. "Both Sides of the Coin: Motives for Corruption Among Public Officials and Business Employees," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 151(1), pages 179-194, August.
    10. Franziska Zuber & Muel Kaptein, 2014. "Painting with the Same Brush? Surveying Unethical Behavior in the Workplace Using Self-Reports and Observer-Reports," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 125(3), pages 401-432, December.
    11. Zehui, Zhao, 2023. "Pro-Environmental Behavior and Actions: A Review of the Literature," OSF Preprints cajup, Center for Open Science.
    12. Yunmei Wu & Benjamin Rooij, 2021. "Compliance Dynamism: Capturing the Polynormative and Situational Nature of Business Responses to Law," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 168(3), pages 579-591, January.
    13. Torgler, Benno & Schneider, Friedrich & Schaltegger, Christoph A., 2007. "With or Against the People? The Impact of a Bottom-Up Approach on Tax Morale and the Shadow Economy," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt6331x6vz, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    14. Antonio Acconcia & Marcello D'Amato & Riccardo Martina, 2003. "Corruption and Tax Evasion with Competitive Bribes," CSEF Working Papers 112, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    15. Nan Yang & Yong Long Lim, 2018. "Temporary Incentives Change Daily Routines: Evidence from a Field Experiment on Singapore’s Subways," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3365-3379, July.
    16. Todd D. Gerarden & Richard G. Newell & Robert N. Stavins, 2017. "Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1486-1525, December.
    17. Prokudina, Elena & Renneboog, Luc & Tobler, Philippe, 2015. "Does Confidence Predict Out-of-Domain Effort?," Discussion Paper 2015-055, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    18. Muel Kaptein, 2023. "A Paradox of Ethics: Why People in Good Organizations do Bad Things," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 297-316, April.
    19. Alpízar, Francisco & Martinsson, Peter, 2010. "Don’t Tell Me What to Do, Tell Me Who to Follow! - Field Experiment Evidence on Voluntary Donations," Working Papers in Economics 452, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    20. Asuamah Yeboah, Samuel, 2023. "Sustaining Change: Unravelling the Socio-cultural Threads of Sustainable Consumption," MPRA Paper 117981, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Jun 2023.

    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:kap:jbuset:v:184:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10551-022-05128-8. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.