Paying Restitution: Experimental Analysis of the Effects of Information and Rationale

Ruback, R. Barry; Gladfelter, Andrew S.; Lantz, Brendan

doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12094

Cited by 10 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to the Information Only Condition, results from the Ruback et al. () experiment indicated that the Rationale Only, the Rationale and Information, and Control Conditions failed to increase either the amount or the number of payments. Thus, there was, presumably, no change in self‐perception.…”

Section: Prior Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The data for this study came from three sources: (1) the prior experiment, in which 775 individuals were randomly assigned to different conditions designed to motivate payment of restitution (Ruback et al., ); (2) a survey completed by 128 of these individuals 1.5 years after the experiment ended (Gladfelter, Lantz, and Ruback, ); and (3) data from the Pennsylvania State Police regarding arrests after the experiment. All three data collection efforts had been approved by the university institutional review board.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the original Ruback et al. () experiment, the researchers excluded three cases because statistical tests indicated that they were outliers, in that the amount of restitution imposed was greater than $500,000. To be consistent with the earlier article, we excluded those cases here as well, although the results we report in this article are completely consistent with those in the analyses, including the three excluded cases .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Results from the Ruback et al. () experiment indicated that, compared with participants in the other three conditions, participants in the Information Only Condition paid significantly more restitution and made significantly more payments during the 6 months of the experiment and for 6 months afterward. The researchers interpreted the results for the Information Only Condition in terms of internalized change.…”

Section: Prior Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, in the Information Only Condition, in the Ruback et al. () study, individuals who made payments might have experienced a change in self‐image to that of the kind of person who recognizes the harm caused to crime victims. This change might have resulted because there was no explicit mention of rewards/punishments in the letters and thus no extrinsic motivation for making payments.…”

Section: Prior Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Restitution Payment and Recidivism

Ruback

Knoth

Gladfelter

et al. 2018

Criminology & Public Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research Summary Restitution is court‐ordered payment by an offender to compensate a crime victim for direct tangible losses resulting from the crime. Making regular restitution payments, it has been argued, may serve as a continual reminder to offenders of the harm they caused and their need to restore justice. In this study, we examined the recidivism of offenders who were delinquent in paying restitution and who had participated in a prior experiment aimed at testing whether receiving monthly letters would increase their payment of restitution. Findings from that experiment revealed that offenders who had received letters containing information about the economic sanctions they had paid and what they still owed paid a significantly larger proportion of the restitution owed and made significantly more monthly payments than did offenders in the other three experimental conditions. Results of the present follow‐up study revealed that even though recidivists (as measured by a new arrest) and nonrecidivists did not differ significantly in the amount of restitution they owed, nonrecidivists were more likely to have paid something toward the restitution they owed and more likely to have made more monthly payments. Statistical tests indicated that payment mediated the relationship between the experimental manipulation of information and observed recidivism, suggesting that the experimental manipulation of information led to more payments that, in turn, led to less recidivism. Policy Implications The findings from the prior experiment indicated that offenders who had received information about the economic sanctions they had paid and what they still owed were more likely to make payments. In that study, scholars concluded that giving offenders this information was cost‐effective, in that for every dollar spent, more than $6 in restitution was received. The results of this follow‐up analysis of recidivism demonstrate that the cost‐effectiveness of providing information is greater than previously indicated. At a cost of $64.19 per day for jail in Pennsylvania, the difference of 46.4 days between offenders who received information and those in the other experimental conditions could be as much as $2,978.42 per offender, less the costs of monitoring payments.

show abstract

Section: Prior Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Prior Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Prior Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Restitution Payment and Recidivism

Ruback

Knoth

Gladfelter

et al. 2018

Criminology & Public Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Role of Information in Changing Offender Behavior, Criminal Justice System Actions, and Policy Maker Decisions

Mears

2014

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

F l o r i d a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t yI n Ruback, Gladfelter, and Lantz's (2014, this issue) study, we learn something simple and profound-that providing probationers with basic information about their restitution payment obligations, such as how much they owe, increases the likelihood that they will make payments. The benefits (i.e., increased payments) seem to exceed greatly the labor time and postage costs of providing restitution information to probationers.There is, of course, the question of why. Perhaps the letters reminded probationers of their obligation and led them to view restitution as the morally right thing to do. Perhaps, more simply, the letters reminded them of what they were supposed to do and provided pragmatic information on which they could act (e.g., the amount due and where to send payments). The latter explanation seems the most plausible. For example, as part of the experimental design, the researchers provided one group with the information along with a rationale for why the probationers should pay. Including the rationale did not seem to lead to more payments and, indeed, could have reduced them. (Probationers might have resented being told what to do or the idea that they were being judged.)Many interesting implications flow from this study. For example, what if providing information can change probationer behavior more so than can threats? What if sanctions were structured in ways that did not rest solely on the notion of fear (i.e., deterrence), moral change, or rehabilitation, but rather the sanctions included a focus on providing information about obligations associated with probation? Even a small improvement might provide benefits that have ripple effects throughout the correctional system. For example, a considerable number of individuals in prison today are there because they previously had a "shot" at probation and failed in some way (e.g., through new crimes or violations of the

show abstract

Restitution: Exploring Disparities and Potentials

Sarnoff

2014

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Paying Restitution: Experimental Analysis of the Effects of Information and Rationale

Cited by 10 publications

References 51 publications

Restitution Payment and Recidivism

Restitution Payment and Recidivism

The Role of Information in Changing Offender Behavior, Criminal Justice System Actions, and Policy Maker Decisions

Restitution: Exploring Disparities and Potentials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About