Legal socialization is the process of developing attitudes toward rules, laws, and the legal system. Legal socialization research studies this process and also examines why individuals choose to obey or disobey the law. In fact, the first approaches to studies of attitudes toward the law appear in the legal socialization literature. Factors that affect how these attitudes develop include cognitive developmental variables, such as legal reasoning, and social learning variables, such as salient features of the environment. Other factors that need to be considered are resiliency, psychosocial maturity, individual difference variables (e.g., belief in a just world, authoritarianism), culture, and attitudes. Contemporary work on legal socialization has focused on the effect of legal socialization on rule-violating behavior and compliance with the rules.
社会化本身将个人与社会联系起来,因为社会化通过家庭,学校和其他机构运作。社会化的研究试图阐明个人如何参与文化以及如何保留文化及其附属机构。法律社会化是对法律制度的标准,态度和行为的发展。法律社会化文献还强调了法律背景如何影响和受公民行为的影响。
法律社会化的两种理论方法
法律社会化文献中存在两种方法。以个人为导向的认知发展观点认为,认知差异在法律社会化中的重要性。基于环境的社会学习观点调查了环境对法律社会化的影响。
认知发展理论
关于法律社会化的最早工作是六月塔普(June Tapp)和费利斯·莱文(Felice Levine)。在1970年代,他们根据劳伦斯·科尔伯格(Lawrence Kohlberg)的道德推理工作从认知发展框架中了解了法律社会化的理解。他们认为,一个人的法律推理水平取决于一个人的年龄,认知结构支持从I级到III到III的成熟:I级I级,定期推理,重点是基于对权威的遵守和对当局受到惩罚的遵守规则。第二级,常规推理强调法律维护或遵守符合社会规范的规则。最后,第三级,常规推理,侧重于制定法律或基于独立的公平判决来遵守规则。
社会学习理论
Other researchers expanded the original cognitive developmental notion of legal socialization to include factors in the environment that affect social learning. This view suggests that it is through an individual’s interaction with the environment that legal socialization occurs. With age, individuals are exposed to increasingly expansive legal contexts. In environmental contexts (neighborhood, school, etc.), reward and punishment are doled out both formally (based on written law) and informally (peers, family, school). When punishment is fair and even, legal legitimacy is strengthened; whereas when punishment is capricious or inequitable, it contributes to legal cynicism. Legitimacy is the degree to which people feel obligated to follow the laws or rules established by legal authorities. Legal cynicism measures whether people act in ways that are outside the law and social norms.
Legal socialization researchers also have varied in their conceptualizations of environment. For example, in a study of rule following on college campuses, Ellen Cohn and Susan White manipulated the rule-following environment by including a peer community wherein residents established rules and decided on enforcement and an external authority community wherein residents had no say over rules or enforcement and instead authorities had absolute power. In an international study of legal socialization, other researchers defined environment in terms of country, focusing on seven countries that varied in the extent of time they had been democratized: Russia, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, Spain, France, and the United States. Similarly, James Finckenauer also used country as the environment in his comparison of Russian versus American culture for teenagers.
Research on Legal Socialization
Current research has embodied both the individualistic cognitive development and the social learning viewpoints. This work has examined the developmental aspects of legal socialization; gender, environmental, and cultural differences in legal socialization; as well as the relation between legal reasoning and delinquency.
Developmental Differences
在Felice Levine的法律社会化研究中,小学和高中生回答了有关法律推理,道德推理,法律态度和法律行为的问题。受试者的年龄与他们的法律和道德推理水平之间存在显着关系;高中的学生的道德推理得分明显高于小学生。此外,法律和道德推理对角色和权利的态度有直接影响,并介导了年龄的影响,但并没有影响对合规性态度独立于年龄的态度。
Gender Differences
确实发现在规则侵犯行为的预测中发现性别差异的一项研究是使用对犯罪法律制度的态度的合法性衡量的工作。这项研究的参与者是高中生。他们回答了有关对犯罪法律制度的态度,对公正世界和威权主义的态度的问题。已经发现,对于男孩来说,对法律制度的负面态度是犯罪行为的唯一重要预测指标。相反,对于女孩来说,对法律体系的负面态度介导了对公正世界与犯罪的信念之间的负面关系,并部分介导了威权主义与犯罪之间的负面关系。
环境差异
一些研究人员专注于环境或行为环境。在一项研究中,研究人员操纵了两个不同大学宿舍内的法律背景。外部权威条件不允许对规则执行的投入或影响,而在同伴社区条件下,宿舍居民参与制定规则和随后的纪律处分。结果表明,外部权威条件中的个人违反了比同行社区条件下的个人少的规则。然而,随着时间的流逝,在同伴社区条件下,规则侵略行为减少,在外部权威条件下增加。此外,在同伴社区条件下,法律推理增加了,在外部权威条件下有所下降。
一些研究人员发现,陪审团的审议对法律推理水平不同的人有影响。在一项对高度政治化和公开的案件的研究中,称为受伤的膝盖审判,June Tapp和她的同事调查了陪审团充当社交代理的假设。研究人员测试了参与者在审判中担任陪审团成员之前和之后的法律推理水平。结果表明,陪审团参与者的法律推理水平有所提高。
在另一项研究中,在法律推理水平上有所不同的人审议了三个法律案件之一,这些案件在规范与规则之间关系的行为背景下有所不同。在一种身体攻击的情况下,与规则一致的规范;人们不赞成这种行为,并同意反对行为的规则。在另一种情况下,是一款啤酒瓶游戏的情况,规范和规则不同意。人们批准了行为,不同意反对行为的规则。最后,在最后一次性骚扰案件中,人们分裂了。对于某些人来说,规范和规则同意;对于其他人来说,规范和规则不同意。调查结果表明,陪审团的审议最大程度地利用了性攻击案,最大程度地影响了性骚扰案件。在任何案件中,常规推理者都不受陪审团审议的影响。
Cultural Differences
Researchers have studied legal socialization in a number of different countries. In one study, legal socialization was studied as a mediator of rule-violating behavior. In this study, Heath Grant examined legal reasoning as a form of resilience in Mexican youth and found that legal reasoning mediated the relation between risk factors (such as negative peer influence) and delinquency. In another study, juveniles in Russia were compared with juveniles in the United States to understand different legal contexts. Overall, there were no differences between Russian and American youth in legal reasoning.
此外,在七个国家,三个年长的民主国家(美国,法国和西班牙)以及最近将四个国家民主化(俄罗斯,保加利亚,波兰和匈牙利),在七个国家(美国,法国和西班牙)中衡量了法律社会化的差异。这些国家的法律推理水平没有差异。他们确实在其他法律措施(例如程序和分配正义)方面确实有所不同,而程序正义在较老的民主国家和分配正义在新民主国家中更为重要。
Legal Reasoning and Delinquency
一些研究调查了法律推理与犯罪之间的关系。在比较俄罗斯和美国青年时,犯罪报告的法律推理水平较低,而不是非罚款。这一发现在美国对大学生的研究中得到了复制。
In a study of serious juvenile offenders, Alex Piquero and colleagues investigated the developmental course of two aspects of legal socialization: legitimacy and legal cynicism. They found that both factors remained relatively stable for more than 18 months. The researchers also found that older adolescents viewed the law as less legitimate than younger adolescents and that a greater number of prior arrests was associated with greater legal cynicism. Conversely, Tom Tyler and Jeffrey Fagan’s cross-sectional research on children aged 10 to 16 years did find age differences, with legal cynicism increasing with age and legitimacy dissipating with age.
法律社会化措施
研究人员对法律社会化的衡量方式有所不同。早期的研究人员提出了有关法律推理的开放性问题,这些问题已编码为三个层次。最近,调查人员开发了法律推理措施的封闭式版本。此外,一些研究人员还包括合法性和法律犬儒主义的衡量标准,作为法律社会化的措施,或者询问了对法律制度的特定态度。
参考:
- Cohn, E. S., & Modecki, K. L. (2007). Gender differences in predictors of delinquent behavior: The role of personality and attitudes. Social Behavior and Personality: International Journal, 35, 359-374.
- Cohn,E。S.和White,S。O.(1990)。法律社会化:对规则和规范的研究。纽约:Springer-Verlag。
- Cohn,E。S.和White,S。O.(1997)。法律社会化对民主化的影响。国际社会科学杂志:民主化特刊,152,151-171。
- Fagan,J。和Tyler,T。(2005)。儿童和青少年的法律社会化。社会正义研究,18,217-242。
- Piquero,A.,Fagan,J.,Mulvey,E。P.,Steinberg,L。,&Odgers,C。(2005)。严重的青少年罪犯的法律社会化发展轨迹。刑法与犯罪学杂志,第96页,第267-298页。