Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:16:56.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Sequential Analysis of Transgressors' Accounts of Breaking Environmental Laws

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2014

Ana M. Martín ,
María Esther Salazar-Laplace  and
Cristina Ruiz
Ana M. Martín
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna
María Esther Salazar-Laplace*
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna
Cristina Ruiz
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ana M. Martín, Departamento de Psicología Social, Facultad de Psicología., Universidad de La Laguna. Campus de Guajara. 38205- La Laguna (Spain). Phone: 922317518. Fax: 922317461. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three-hundred and twenty written accounts of environmental transgressors were assessed by sequential analysis to reveal their argument streams. The accounts were obtained from the written statements that transgressors are allowed to give during the Spanish administrative process and which were included in files handled by four environmental law enforcement agencies. These agencies are distributed across national, regional, island and municipality jurisdictions. The setting for the study is a highly protected environment in which environmental laws have high salience. Results reveal that transgressors use simple argument streams, consistently more defensive than conciliatory, and questioning the perceived legitimacy of environmental law. It was seen also that the empirical functioning of the explanations related to pursuing emotional/prosocial objectives differs from what was expected from the traditional conceptual definition. Results are discussed in terms of how the assessment of the internal dynamic of the accounts would provide valuable information on transgressors' reasoning in relation to environmental laws.

Se examinaron 320 explicaciones exculpatorias dadas por transgresores medioambientales para evaluar, mediante análisis secuencial, sus líneas argumentales. Las explicaciones se obtuvieron a partir de alegaciones que los transgresores pueden presentar por escrito a lo largo del proceso español de sanción administrativa y que estaban incluidas en expedientes tramitados por cuatro administraciones encargadas de aplicar las leyes medioambientales a nivel nacional, autonómico, insular y municipal. El contexto del estudio es un entorno protegido en el que las leyes medioambientales tienen una alta relevancia. Los resultados muestran que los transgresores usan secuencias argumentales simples, consistentemente más defensivas que conciliadoras, y que cuestionan la legitimidad de la ley medioambiental. Se observó también que, empíricamente, las explicaciones relacionadas con la consecución de objetivos emocionales/prosociales funcionan de manera diferente a la esperada según la definición conceptual clásica. Los resultados se discuten enfatizando cómo el análisis de la dinámica interna de las explicaciones proporciona información valiosa acerca del razonamiento de los transgresores respecto a las leyes medioambientales.

Keywords

transgressors' accountssequential analysisenvironmental lawsexplicaciones de los transgresoresanálisis secuencialleyes medioambientales
Type
Articles
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , May 2008 , pp. 115 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bakeman, R. (2000). Behavioral observation and coding. In Reis, H.T. & Judd, C.K. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology (pp. 138–159). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bakeman, R., & Casey, R.L. (1995). Analyzing family interaction: Taking time into account. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakeman, R., Deckner, D., & Quera, V. (2005). Analysis of behavioral streams. In Teti, D.M. (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in developmental science (pp. 494–420). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J.M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1995). Analyzing interaction: Sequential analysis with SDIS and GSEQ. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Batista, L.M., & Rodrigo, M.J. (2002). ¿Es el conflicto cognitivo el único beneficio de la interacción entre iguales? Infancia y Aprendizaje, 25, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J.A. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Rées, E. (2001). Can criminal law protect the environment? Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime prevention, 2, 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eide, H., Quera, V., & Finset, A. (2003). Exploring rare patient behaviour with sequential analysis: An illustration. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale, 12, 109–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eide, H., Quera, V., Graugaard, P., & Finset, A. (2004). Physician-patient dialogue surrounding patients' expression of concern: Applying sequence analysis to RIAS. Social Science & Medicine, 59, 145–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eliason, S.L., & Dodder, R.A. (1999). Techniques of neutralization used by deer poachers in the western United States: A research note. Deviant Behavior, 20, 233–252.Google Scholar
Fritsche, I. (2002). Account strategies for the violation of social norms: Integration and extension of sociological and social psychological typologies. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 32, 21–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itoi, R., Ohbuchi, K.I., & Fukuno, M. (1996). A cross-cultural study of preference of account: Relationship closeness, harm severity, and motives of account making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 913–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justice, L.M., Weber, S.E., Ezell, H.K., & Bakeman, R. (2002). A sequential analysis of children's responsiveness to parental print reference during shared book-reading interactions. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 30–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsell, L.E. (2001): Big stick, little stick: Strategies for controlling and combating environmental crime. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 2, 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logan, K.R., Bakeman, R., & Keefe, E.B. (1997). Effects of instructional variables on the engaged behavior of students with moderate, severe, and profound disabilities in general education elementary classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63, 481–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mårald, E. (2001): The BT Kemi scandal and the establishment of the environmental crime concept. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 2, 149–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martín, A.M. (2005). Aportaciones de la psicología jurídica al control y prevención de los delitos ecológicos. In Arce, R. F., Fariña, , & Novo, M.M.(Comps.), Psicología jurídica (pp. 61–71). Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Xunta de Galicia.Google Scholar
Martín, A.M., Salazar-Laplace, M.E., Hess, S., Ruiz, C., Kaplan, M.F., Hernández, B., & Suárez, E. (in press). Individual breaches of environmental laws in cases from Public Administration files. Deviant Behavior.Google Scholar
Maruna, S., & Copes, J. (2005). What have we learned from five decades of neutralization research? Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, 32, 221–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, M.L, Cody, M.J., Dickson, R., & Manusov, V. (1992). Accounting for failure to follow advice: Real reasons versus good explanations. In McLaughlin, M.L., Cody, M.J., & Read, S.J. (Eds.), Explaining one's self to others: Reason giving in a social context. (pp. 281–294). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Parejo-Alfonso, L. (2005). Código de Medio Ambiente. Cizur Menor (Spain): Aranzadi.Google Scholar
Quera, V., & Bakeman, R. (2000). Quantification strategies in behavioral observation research. In Thomson, T., Felce, D., & Symons, F. (Eds.), Behavioral observation: Technology and applications in developmental disabilities (pp. 297–315). Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
Schönbach, P. (1990). Account episodes. The management of escalation of conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, M.B., & Lyman, S.M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Situ, Y. (1998). Public transgression of environmental law: a preliminary study. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Situ, Y., & Emmons, D (2000): Environmental crime. The criminal justice system's role in protecting the environment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, G.M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 43, 643–656.Google Scholar
Tyler, T.R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T.R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walters, G.D. (2002). Criminal belief systems: An integrated-interactive theory of lifestyles. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
Walton, M.D. (1985). Negotiation of responsibility: Judgments of blameworthiness in a natural setting. Developmental Psychology, 21, 725–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, M. (2005). Environmental offences: The reality of environmental crime. Environmental Law Review, 7, 190–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J.D. (1986). Re-thinking penalties for corporate environmental offenders: A view of the law reform commission of Canada's sentencing in environmental cases. McGill Law Journal, 30, 315–332.Google Scholar