Refining Braithwaites motivational postures approach Explaining non compliance

Refining Braithwaite’s ‘motivational postures’ approach: Explaining (non-) compliance with the smoking ban by Dutch bar owners Willem Bantema Ph. D – University of Groningen (w. bantema@rug. nl)

Starting point • Why is enforcement (procedural justice) more effective to enhance compliance for high scorers on resistance, then for high scorers on disengagement?

Outline 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Central argument: motivational postures Study design Refining Braithwaite Results (3 arguments) Conclusion and discussion

Motivational postures - Valerie Braithwaite (1994; 1995; 2003; 2009; 2011) - What are postures? - Social distance

Commitment

Capitulation

Resistance

Disengagement

Case – smoking ban

Study design • Surveys (completed: N=620) - Self-reported compliance (scale) - Resistance and disengagement (scales) - Support for a smoking ban - Support for legislation/law in general (Tyler)

Refining Braithwaite • Search for stable elements in postures (Braithwaite, 2009): human and political values. • What is the role of the perceived obligation to obey the law (Legitimacy) in the relationship between these postures and compliance with the smoking ban?

Results (1) Postures and compliance • Predicting (non-)compliance with postures (N=582) Model Predictor β Adj. R² Model 1 Resistance -. 36 ** 13 Model 2 Resistance + controls -. 19 ** 25 Model 3 Resistance + controls+ disengagement -. 04 31 Model Predictor β Adj. R² Model 1 Disengagement -. 43 ** . 18 ** Model 2 Disengagement + controls -. 32 ** . 31 ** Model 3 Disengagement + controls + resistance -. 31 ** . 31

Results-2 • Predicting resistance and disengagement (N=582) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Predictors β Adj. R² Controls+ Support for smoking ban Perceived obligation to obey the law Controls & disengagement Support for smoking ban Perceived obligation to obey the law -. 33 ** -. 30 ** -. 09 * -. 18 ** . 04 . 28 ** . 28 . 40 ** Predictors β Adj. R² Controls+ Support for smoking ban Perceived obligation to obey the law Controls & resistance Support for smoking ban Perceived obligation to obey the law -. 40 ** -. 30 ** -. 31 ** -. 18 ** -. 28 ** . 20 ** . 28 ** . 39 **

Results - 3 • Mediation (partly) of the relationship between disengagement and compliance Indirect effect - Support for the smoking ban: -. 05 ** (Sobel= -2. 45) Indirect effect - Perceived obligation to obey the law: -. 08 ** (Sobel= -3. 11) N = 356.

Conclusion • Non-compliance is more persistance for disengagement, compared to resistance. • Important role of perceived obligation. Disengagement is not only about dissatisfaction with specific rules, but is also aimed at law in general. • The perceived obligation to obey the law mediates and explains (partly) the relation between disengagement and (non-)compliance.

Thank you! w. bantema@rug. nl

Items - Resistance (α=. 64) • Once the NVWA branded you as a non-compliant, they will never change their mind • The NVWA is more interested in catching you for doing the wrong thing, than helping you do the right thing • It’s important not to let the NVWA push you around • Bars have to take a stand against the NVWA • I’m dissatisfied with the practice of the NVWA

Items - Disengagement (α=. 73) • I don’t care if I am not doing the right thing by the NVWA • I personally don’t think that there is much the NVWA can do to make me comply with the smoking ban, if I don’t want to • I don’t really know what the NVWA expects of me and I’m not about to ask • I don’t care what the NVWA thinks of me

Items compliance (α=. 93) • This establishment complies with the smoking ban • If the weather is bad, I permit smoking in my establishment • Smoking inside this establishment is permitted after midnight

Items - perceived obligation to obey the law (α=. 82) • People should obey the law even if it goes against what they think is right. • Disobeying the law is seldom justified. • I always try to follow the law even if I think that it is wrong. • Disobeying the law is seldom justified.

Items - support for the smoking ban (α=. 90) • The smoking ban is a form of patronizing legislation. • Smoking and bars belongs to each other. • Workers in the hospitaly industry have to work in a smokefree environment.