8/25Theories of ChoiceOverview of micro Foundations -small, micro structure behavior-individual or small group processes -why obey the law?A) Decision making -rational choice/deterrence-normative decision making and moral suasion -cognitive decision making B) Power -Relationship between power and legal authority -how power works C) Justice-Legitimacy-Why is something considered fair -What impact does people’s percecption of fairness have on obedienceD) Punishment -Why do groups punish or tolerate rule breakers II Instrumental/Consequential/Rational Choice Decision-making -Economy, social science, greater societyA. Basic Model- Four Steps1. Goals/preference-Consequence2. Alternatives -Different ways to meet goals 3. Mapping -Alternatives - Goals 4. Maximization -March; Consequential Action-Which alternative maximizes goal attainment B. Behavioral Consistency-Predictable behavior 1. Tastes -Food, clothing, shelter, etc. -Common metric - “utility” (sum of all of these good things we want)2. Stable incentives Rewarded behavior - increases Punished behavior  decreasesC. Implications for Soc. Of Law-People obey the law when obedience is in their self interest -Deterrence Theory:-“Sanctions deter crime.”-Methodological challenges - a. Sanctions?- b. Crime? - c. Deterrence?-Specific vs. GeneralSpecific someone is punished, general everyone witnesses behavior and consequence-Absolute vs. RelativeAbsolute- 1, bad behavior, 2 punishment, 3 its done Relative – 1, bad behavior, 2 punishment 3 less bad behavior 2. Empirical Research A. Characteristics of Sanctions i. Certainty and Severity Deterrence= Certainty x Severity D=C x Sii. Findings -not averages, but instances-certainty more important than severity 3. Autunnes & Hunt (1973) -in 4: certainty only- In 3 C+(SxC)aB. Characteristics of Criminal Acts-Chambliss (1967) 1. Expressive vs InstrumentalAct = goal itself vs Act=means to another end Chambliss’s Findings: -Sanctions deter instrumental acts more than expressive acts C. Characteristics of Criminal Actors 1. Low vs High Commitment Engage in crime sporadically crime is a way of life 2. Chambliss’s Findings -Sanction deter low-commitments criminals more than high commitment criminalsCombine Criminal acts and criminal actors into a 2 x 2 table Expressive InstrumentalHigh Commitment Serial Killers, drug addicts Contract Killers, Drug Dealers Low commitment most murders, rec drug users killing ones blackmailers, doing drugs to gain aacceptance8/30Obligatory Action -In contrast to rational choice -normative; cognitive/constitutive A Identity-what kind of person am I?B Context-what kind of situation is this?C Role-what does a person like me do in a situation like thisD Performance-Do itII Moral Decision Making “Normative” A. Basic Model–People do make conscious, systematic decisions, but not necesarrily self interested decisions–instead evaluate lines of action based on moral values B Behavioral Consistency 1 Social Normals-People’s values reflect socially established norms and rules 2. Socialization  InternalizationGroup passing on its norms into members own personal value system Everyone now shares similar sense of right and wrong C Implications for Soc Of LawDirect effects of morality: Own moral beliefs coincide with the substantive commands of the lawMoralityObedience Ex: Schwarts and Orleans Tax Compliance -Sent questionnaires on public policy to randomly selected tax payers 1) Placebo 2) Sanction Group 3) Moral Group Standard Survey Questions highlighted Questions highlighted moral Legal sanctions issuesDown $87 Up $187 Up $8042. Indirect Effects of Morality-Morality  It’s morally correct to obey the legal authorities legitimacy of Authority-- Obedience Milgram Experiment - Actor getting shocked people shocking them obey authority and shock them more and more 3. Mediating Effects of Morality:-Legal authority: instrument of moral socialization Morality--Obedience Berkowitz and Walker study -battery of questions to college students-some questions involve moral judgement(Borrowing for gambling, not stopping suicide etc)1 Control Group 2 Peer Group Law GroupNo new info info about peer Info relevant to lawsopinions-2.62 +6.46 +3.19 + = find more things morally questionableT1 T2 T3 T4Told: People Graded “Moral Appeal” “Surveillance “Sanction Threat”Themselves Threat”Truth: All tests graded No effect Big Drop Significant DropAnd compared to Reported grade1st Moral decision-making model-morality obedience People obey the law because their own moral beliefs agree with the substantive commands of the law 2nd moral decision-making model-morality legitimacy of authority  Obedience -You don’t always need to convince people that the law is morally right in order to win their compliance-All you may need to do is to convince them that it’s morally right to obey legal authorities, in general whatever their substantive commands3rd moral model -Legitimacy of auth.  morality  obedience -law is one of the ways that society conveys moral principles to its member s of legal authority is actually an instrument of moral socialization Cognitive Decision MakingI, Recap/Intro-Obligatory Action  Who? Context? Roles? Performance?II. Cognitive Decision-Making- “Culturally-necessary” decisionsA. Basic Model- Cultural categories  Structure behavior- Making choices without even perceiving the choices- How the world works, obvious, necessary; taken-for-grantedB. Behavioral Consistency 1. Social Construction -Because the models are social, each individual encounters them as something objective and external 2. Reification - Treating a social construct as though it were a natural object Example: deck of cards 2. Dramaturgical Metaphor - Social life is like a giant play. Society has developed specific ritual in order to set the scene and cast the parts= “framing” and “labeling” C. Implications for Soc of Law: - Law  framing and labeling 1. Law as political discourse - People mobilize various symbols in order to define or re-define various social situations2. Law as labeling rituals- In which various actors get assigned or “labeled” in appropriate role. - Conviction  Criminal- Commitment  Insane- Election  Senator, etc - Bar exam  Attorney 3. Law as ground rules - Operate as the taken for granted assumptions