IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/jrp/jrpwrp/2016-010.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Behavior Under Vague Standards: Evidence from the Laboratory

Author

Listed:
  • Sven Hoeppner

    () (Center for Advanced Studies in Law and Economics, Ghent University Law School, Ghent)

  • Laura Lyhs

    () (Friedrich Schiller University Jena)

Abstract

Doctrinal lawyers strive to reduce legal uncertainty based on the premise that difficult to predict legal consequences discourage socially desirable activities. Contributions from the economic theory of law suggest that increasing legal uncertainty can be socially beneficial. We test in an innovative laboratory experiment whether increasing the variability of an exogenous choice threshold (legal standard) increases or reduces socially desirable behavior. The results indicate a U-shaped relationship between increases in variability and activity choices: increases in variability first induce lower than optimal choices under an efficient standard (overcompliance), but eventually lead to greater than optimal choices under an efficient standard (undercompliance). We also find that overcompliance arises only under low degrees of standard variability. Moreover, increasing variability gradually crowds-out compliant choices. Finally, in the experiment minimal variability of the legal standard induces erratic individual behavior beyond socially satisfactory levels such that the standard loses its coordination function.

Suggested Citation

  • Sven Hoeppner & Laura Lyhs, 2016. "Behavior Under Vague Standards: Evidence from the Laboratory," Jena Economic Research Papers 2016-010, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
  • Handle: RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2016-010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://pubdb.wiwi.uni-jena.de/pdf/wp_2016_010.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Colin Camerer & Linda Babcock & George Loewenstein & Richard Thaler, 1997. "Labor Supply of New York City Cabdrivers: One Day at a Time," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 407-441.
    2. Hannah Schildberg-Hörisch & Christina Strassmair, 2012. "An Experimental Test of the Deterrence Hypothesis," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(3), pages 447-459, August.
    3. Uri Gneezy & Alex Imas & John List, 2015. "Estimating Individual Ambiguity Aversion: A Simple Approach," Artefactual Field Experiments 00588, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. Vincent P. Crawford & Juanjuan Meng, 2011. "New York City Cab Drivers' Labor Supply Revisited: Reference-Dependent Preferences with Rational-Expectations Targets for Hours and Income," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1912-1932, August.
    5. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’Haridon, 2008. "A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 245-266, June.
    6. Lang, Matthias, 2017. "Legal uncertainty as a welfare enhancing screen," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 274-289.
    7. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    8. Gregory DeAngelo & Gary Charness, 2012. "Deterrence, expected cost, uncertainty and voting: Experimental evidence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 73-100, February.
    9. Matteo Rizzolli & Luca Stanca, 2012. "Judicial Errors and Crime Deterrence: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(2), pages 311-338.
    10. Menusch Khadjavi, 2015. "On the Interaction of Deterrence and Emotions," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 287-319.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    legal uncertainty; vague legal standard; overcompliance and undercompliance; experimental law and economics; compliance crowding-out;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D02 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact
    • K10 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - General (Constitutional Law)

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:jrp:jrpwrp:2016-010. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Markus Pasche). General contact details of provider: http://www.jenecon.de .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.