A SOCIAL RESISTANCE PERSPECTIVE FOR DELINQUENT BEHAVIOUR … · 2013-10-03 · A SOCIAL RESISTANCE...

© The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD). All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]

A SOCIAL RESISTANCE PERSPECTIVE FOR DELINQUENT BEHAVIOUR AMONG NON-DOMINANT MINORITY GROUPS

Roni Factor*, David Mahalel, Anat Rafaeli and David R. Williams

Non-dominant minorities, compared with majority groups, often have greater engagement in risky and delinquent behaviours. This study develops an innovative theoretical model for understand-ing risky/delinquent behaviour among non-dominant groups based on the social resistance frame-work, which suggests that power relations within society bring non-dominant minorities to actively engage in various forms of everyday resistance that can include delinquent behaviours. We tested this model on traffic violations, surveying 1,060 non-dominant and majority drivers in Israel. Structural equation models suggest that different mechanisms underlie delinquent behaviours in the two groups: social resistance plays a direct role in traffic violations among non-dominants, while, for the majority, procedural justice and non-commitment to the law have a stronger impact. Implications for understanding delinquent and risky behaviour and as an extension of the well-known procedural justice model are discussed.

Keywords: non-dominant groups, ethnic and racial minorities, socio-economic status, traffic violations, legal disobedience, procedural justice

Introduction

In many countries, certain non-dominant ethnic, racial and/or low socio-economic status minority groups are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and engage at higher rates in delinquent and risky behaviours (see, e.g. Booth et al. 2008; Braver 2003; Bui 2009; Marshall 1997; Stucky 2012; Veen et al. 2011; Williams and Mohammed 2009). The literature offers different and sometimes overlapping explanations for these well-known disparities, including economic deprivation, structural factors (e.g. relating to the physical environment, social isolation or family structure), cultural differences, acculturation problems, legal cynicism, the legacy of colonialism, and racism and dis-crimination in criminal justice processes (see, e.g. Bui 2009; Gabbidon 2010; Hawkins 1993; Hipp 2011; Kirk and Matsuda 2011; Marshall 1997; Phillips and Bowling 2003). However, most current theories suffer from an important shortcoming, in that, in differ-ent ways, they generally regard individuals as passive—that is, as passively influenced by the conditions under which they live, or as failing to make ‘good’ choices.

The current paper suggests a new approach based on the recently developed social resistance framework (Factor et al. 2011a; 2013b), which aims to shed light on high-risk behaviour among non-dominant minority groups. The framework is relevant here because delinquent and risky behaviours share common underlying causes and have been found to be correlated to each other (Begle et al. 2011; Booth et al. 2008; Cooper

* Correspondence to Roni Factor, School of Criminology, University of Haifa, Mt. Carmel, Haifa, 31905, Israel; [email protected]; David Mahalel, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Transportation Research Institute, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology; Anat Rafaeli, Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology; David R. Williams, Department of Society, Human Development, and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, and Department of African and African-American Studies, Harvard University.

doi:10.1093/bjc/azt035 BRIT. J. CRIMINOL. (2013) 53, 784–804Advance Access publication 14 June 2013

784

at Harvard U

niversity on October 3, 2013

http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

at H

arvard University on O

ctober 3, 2013http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

at Harvard U



ownloaded from

at H



Dow

nloaded from

at Harvard U



ownloaded from

at H



Dow

nloaded from

at Harvard U



ownloaded from

at H



Dow

nloaded from

at Harvard U



ownloaded from

at H



Dow

nloaded from

at Harvard U



ownloaded from

at H



Dow

nloaded from

at Harvard U



ownloaded from

at H



Dow

nloaded from

at Harvard U



ownloaded from

at H



Dow

nloaded from

at Harvard U



ownloaded from

at H



Dow

nloaded from

at Harvard U



ownloaded from

at H



Dow

nloaded from

at Harvard U



ownloaded from

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/





















et al. 2003; Frank and Bjornstrom 2011). The social resistance framework suggests that, because of historical and/or present discrimination, members of non-dominant minority groups may feel a lack of attachment to the country and alienation from the larger society. In response, members of these groups may actively engage, consciously or unconsciously, in a variety of everyday social resistance behaviours. These everyday social resistance acts might include risky and delinquent behaviours. By engaging in such behaviours, members of such groups express their willingness and ability to defy the country and the dominant group, in addition to signalling to the dominant group that their power is not without limits.

The social resistance framework offers an important addition to the well-known pro-cedural justice model, which attempts to explain why people willingly comply with the law (Jackson et al. 2012; Lind and Tyler 1988; Sunshine and Tyler 2003). That is, the notions of alienation and active social resistance that are central to the social resistance framework may play a pivotal role in the link between perceptions of procedural justice and non-compliance with the law, or engagement in risky and delinquent behaviours.

The present study develops a theoretical model for understanding risky and delinquent behaviour among members of non-dominant groups, and presents an empirical test of this innovative theoretical model in relation to traffic violations by members of non-dominant minority and majority groups in Israel. Traffic viola-tions generally appear to be understudied in the context of criminology, despite being a widespread phenomenon, and despite previous findings that traffic viola-tions are correlated with different delinquent behaviours (Booth et al. 2008; Junger et al. 2001). Moreover, traffic violations increase the risk of involvement in and injury from road traffic accidents (see, e.g. Blows et al. 2005; Sullman et al. 2002), which exact a huge toll in human, social and economic costs; indeed, globally, they are considered to be the ninth leading cause of death (Mathers et al. 2008; Peden et al. 2004). Israel was chosen as the setting for the study because, as a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society, Israel can be considered a ‘natural laboratory’ (Rattner et al. 2001) where one may explore relationships between membership in non-dominant minority versus dominant majority groups on the one hand, and various behaviours and outcomes on the other.

In the following, we use the terms ‘minority’ and ‘non-dominant minority’ inter-changeably, although we are aware that there are some differences between these terms. Likewise, we use ‘majority’ to mean ‘dominant majority’.

Non-Dominant Minorities and the Social Resistance Framework

Non-dominant minorities, attachment to the country and alienation

Members of non-dominant minority groups are viewed by others in the larger soci-ety as ‘different’ in biological, cultural, behavioural or organizational terms (Turner 1986), leading to formal or informal segregation of the minority group. This segrega-tion increases interactions among members of the minority group, and so intensifies their cultural, organizational and behavioural distinctiveness, which in turn enhances the prejudice and sense of threat felt by majority group members. The result is likely to be greater alienation of non-dominant minorities from society at large, and lower levels of attachment to the country (Huynh et al. 2011; Sidanius et al. 1997; Tsfati 2007).

A SOCIAL RESISTANCE PERSPECTIVE FOR DELINQUENT BEHAVIOUR

785

Procedural justice and non-commitment to the law

Studies suggest that alienation and social exclusion among non-dominant minority groups may, in turn, lead to reduced commitment to and compliance with the law, and increase engagement in delinquent and risky behaviours (Marczynski et al. 1999; Palosuo 2000; Rattner and Yagil 2004; Williams et al. 2010). That is, in societies marked by ethnic or other types of segregation, members of non-dominant minority groups will perceive greater levels of injustice than members of other groups. They may therefore tend to see the legal culture of the majority as less than legitimate, and regard compli-ance with the law as less of a social obligation (Rattner and Yagil 2004). Buckler and Unnever (2008), for example, suggested that perceived injustice is significantly more common among African Americans and Hispanics than among white Americans. This explanation chimes with Tyler and colleagues’ procedural justice theory, which attempts to explain why people willingly comply with the law (Lind and Tyler 1988; Sunshine and Tyler 2003; Tyler 1988). According to this theory, perceptions of fairness regarding the processes through which institutions of social control exercise their power influ-ence the perceived legitimacy of those institutions, which in turn affects the degree to which citizens are willing to comply with the laws and regulations they promulgate. That is, the ‘fairness (or unfairness) [of social control institutions] can play a role in altering or modulating the behaviour of the individuals involved’ (Jackson et al. 2012: 1062). Jackson et al. (2012) found that procedural justice explains significant variation in non-compliance involving everyday crimes such as buying stolen goods, vandalism and shoplifting.

Two extensions of the procedural justice model are of particular relevance to the social resistance framework—namely (1) the notion of social identity and (2) motiva-tional postures theory. The idea behind social identity theory is that people derive their self-concept in part from identification with a particular social group (Bradford 2012). When citizens perceive themselves as receiving fair treatment from law enforcement institutions, they are likely to identify with the social group these enforcement institu-tions represent—namely the dominant group. This identification with the dominant group should then encourage cooperative and pro-social behaviour, along with a per-ception of the dominant authority as legitimate. In contrast, perceptions of unfair treat-ment—namely perceptions that the processes employed by the enforcement institutions are not transparent and impartial—may heighten pre-existing feelings of difference and alienation from society at large, which in turn will discourage pro-social behaviours (Bradford 2012; Jackson et al. 2012). In his inspiring study, Bradford (2012) found that, among people with multiple national identities (i.e. immigrant minorities), a percep-tion of fairness in policing was associated with a social identity which in turn predicted cooperation with the police. Thus, these results suggest that non-dominant minorities who experience fair procedures by institutions of social control might increase their identification with the majority group and their sense of belonging to the larger society, which then may encourage cooperation with the police.

Motivational postures theory suggests that citizens ‘place social distance between themselves and authority, communicating the nature of that distance through a nar-rative that protects the self from negative appraisal’ (Braithwaite et al. 2007: 137). Motivational postures are the beliefs, attitudes and feelings that express the degree to which individuals accept the agenda of the authority; they include, among others,

Factor et al

786

capitulation to the authority, resistance and disengagement (Braithwaite et al. 2007). Braithwaite et al. further posit that these motivational postures are related to coping sen-sibilities by which individuals deal with the implicit threat of censure or punishment for non-compliance; these include ‘feeling oppressed’, ‘taking control’ and ‘thinking mor-ally’. Braithwaite et al. (2007) found that the coping sensibility of ‘feeling oppressed’ was positively related to the motivational posture of resistance—the degree to which respondents do not like, approve of or agree with the goals of the authority and how it does its job—and was behaviourally expressed through weakened cooperation. Further, lower perceptions of procedural justice among their sample (Australian taxpayers who were surveyed on their attitudes toward the Australian Taxation Office) were associated with greater resistance and reduced cooperation.

There is evidence, moreover, that alienation decreases compliance with the law through reduced commitment to the law. Rattner and Yagil (2004), for instance, sug-gested that alienation decreases commitment to state laws, which in turn increases the readiness to take the law into one’s own hands. Rattner et al. (2001) found non-Jewish (Arab) respondents—a non-dominant minority group in Israel—to have the lowest level of support for state laws, as well as greater readiness to take the law into their own hands, and less supportive attitudes towards the police, relative to other social groups in Israel. The authors concluded that ‘as a minority group, [the Arabs] are likely to feel the need to protect their group identity in various ways, among them, by “beating the Israeli–Jewish system”‘ (Rattner et al. 2001: 280).

Social resistance

While the theories described above offer a compelling explanation for risky and delin-quent behaviour among non-dominant minorities, we believe they are insufficient. Specifically, we argue that these theories neglect an important component in the link between alienation, low perceptions of procedural justice, non-commitment to the law, and risky and delinquent behaviours. This component is social resistance. The social resistance framework (Factor et al. 2013a; 2013b) adds an active dimension to the behav-iour of non-dominant groups in their response to high alienation and perceived injus-tice. That is, rather than passively reacting to events and circumstances around them, we argue that members of non-dominant minorities actively express their defiance of the dominant group, and signal to the dominant group that their power extends only so far.

According to Scott (1985; 1990), all dominance systems routinely produce affronts to human dignity. Moreover, as Chryssochoou and Volpato (2004) note, it is reasonable to assume that members of non-dominant minority groups typically lack the power to exert direct influence towards social change. Thus, because powerless groups only occa-sionally have the opportunity to publicly resist the dominant group, general and broad resistance is relatively rare. ‘Everyday resistance’, however, is much easier to carry out, since ‘everyday acts of resistance make no headlines’ (Scott 1985: xvii). Everyday resist-ance encompasses all means by which non-dominant minority groups can adapt to the ruling power while protecting their interests and identity (Ewick and Silbey 2003), rang-ing from humour, rumours, gestures, false compliance, pilfering, feigned ignorance and slander up through arson and sabotage. Many of these tactics allow members of the minority group to criticize the dominant group from the relative safety of anonymity,


787

but nonetheless involve some active behaviour, whether verbal, cognitive or physical (Hollander and Einwohner 2004; Scott 1990). According to the social resistance frame-work, these acts of everyday resistance may include risky and delinquent behaviours (Factor et al. 2013b).

By engaging in these everyday social resistance acts, non-dominants demonstrate their willingness and ability to defy the country and the dominant group, and express their dissatisfaction with their social status. This practice can be perceived as a ‘safety valve’ (Gluckman 1963) that helps to reduce stress. At the same time, everyday social resistance acts may serve to demarcate the limits of the dominant group’s power by signalling to the dominant group that their control over the individual has its limits. In this way, these behaviours may parallel the deliberate self-injury and self-mutilation sometimes performed by prisoners as a means of asserting their autonomy (Klonsky 2007; Suyemoto 1998).

Applying the social resistance framework through the lens of the theoretical models described above—procedural justice, social identity theory and motivational postures theory—we can say that perceptions of unjust treatment by the institutions of social con-trol may enhance social resistance to the authorities among members of non-dominant minorities. It is the urge to perform acts of social resistance that may eventually bring members of non-dominant groups to engage in risky and delinquent behaviours.

The context of the current study

The next two sections present background relevant to the social resistance framework in the Israeli context and in relation to traffic violations.

The non-Jewish minority in IsraelIsrael’s population comprises a Jewish majority, along with various non-Jewish minori-ties—Muslims, Christians, Druses, Bedouins and Circassians—which together make up about 20 per cent of the Israeli population. Most of the country’s non-Jewish citizens live in three main areas—the Galilee in the north, the ‘Triangle’ in central Israel and the Negev in the south—along with scattered villages and a few mixed cities (Ben-Porat and Yuval 2011; Yiftachel 1999). The non-Jewish minority groups have a great deal in common, including religious foundations, a common language (Arabic) and shared culinary traditions. For the purposes of this study, we consider all these groups to be a single non-dominant minority group.

Non-Jewish Israelis are a non-assimilating working-class minority that, effectively, is segregated in all senses—culturally, linguistically, geographically and economically (Moore 2000). The historical origins of this segregation date to the military rule that limited the movements of Israel’s Arab-speaking minority following the country’s war of independence in 1948. Though formal restrictions on the movements of Israeli Arabs were lifted in 1966, informal segregation continues today (Ben-Porat and Yuval 2011). Perhaps due to the ongoing Middle East conflict (Yiftachel 1997), a large pro-portion of the Jewish majority perceive Israel’s non-Jewish citizens as a ‘hostile minor-ity’: they regard them with suspicion and treat them as second-class citizens (Moore 2000; Yiftachel 1997). The main tensions between the Jewish majority and non-Jewish minority involve conflicts over land and budget allocations, in addition to an underly-ing struggle over identity due to the status of non-Jews as minority residents in a Jewish

Factor et al

788

state whose main symbols mirror the culture of the Jewish majority (Ben-Porat and Yuval 2011). Moreover, over the years, the Jewish majority has, to some degree, blocked access by the non-Jewish minority to positions of power and authority, thus reducing their ability to participate in shaping policy (Mehozay 2012).

Consequently, non-Jews find themselves on the margins of Israeli society. Discriminated against and relatively powerless, they suffer from higher rates of poverty and low quality of public services, and are separated from the Jewish majority by a socio-economic gap. Thus, the Jewish–Arab divide might be considered the deepest schism in Israeli society (Ben-Porat and Yuval 2011).

Two factors might, then, contribute to social resistance among Israel’s non-Jewish minority. First, the Jewish–Palestinian and Arab–Israeli conflicts have helped to cre-ate a social exclusion of Israel’s non-Jewish minority and might evoke a desire among them to resist the social order. Second, political and socio-economic barriers prevent members of this non-dominant minority group from acquiring significant political influence. Their relative powerlessness might lead to expressions of frustration through non-organized activity.

Non-dominant minorities and traffic violationsNon-dominant minority groups are often over-involved in road traffic accidents (Department for Transport 2001; Hilton 2006; Traffic Safety Center 2003), and they have higher rates of traffic violations. In the United States, for instance, rates of seat-belt use are lower among African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans than among non-Hispanic whites (Briggs et al. 2005; Romano et al. 2005b). Other studies have shown that Hispanics also drive faster, are less likely to wear motorcycle helmets and drive more often under the influence of alcohol (Harper et al. 2000; Romano et al. 2005a). African Americans have been shown to be more likely than whites to run red lights (Porter and England 2000).

Similar ethnic-religious differences exist in Israel, where non-Jewish drivers are more involved than Jewish drivers in road traffic accidents and traffic violations. For example, the likelihood that a non-Jewish driver will be involved in a fatal or severe accident over nine years is up to 1.6 times greater than the probability for Jewish drivers (Factor et al. 2008). Similarly, non-Jews have lower rates of seat-belt use (National Road Safety Authority 2010), and they receive on average more traffic tickets than Jews (Factor and Mahalel 2012).

Research Model

In sum, the innovative social resistance framework (Factor et al. 2011a) suggests that power relations in society can lead members of non-dominant minority groups to develop a hidden transcript (Scott 1990) that includes anonymous everyday acts of resistance against the majority group. These acts of everyday resistance may include risky and delinquent behaviours, such as speeding and not using seat belts. Moreover, the social resistance factor may play an important role, which is yet to be explored, in linking procedural justice with commitment to and compliance with the law. In order to capture the importance of social resistance independent of procedural justice and commitment to the law, perceptions of procedural justice and non-commitment to the law were included in the following analysis.


789

The current study empirically tests the following innovative theoretical model in order to better understand risky and delinquent behaviours. The model, presented in Figure 1, proposes that demographic and socio-economic variables are related to peo-ple’s perceptions of procedural justice, and their attachment to and alienation from the larger society and country. When attachment to the country and perceptions of procedural justice are low and alienation high, general social resistance and non-com-mitment to the law are likely to result. General social resistance relates to the willing-ness to express resistance in different ways (resistance-action), which in turn correlates directly and indirectly—through non-commitment to the law—with engaging in more traffic violations.

Methodology

Sample and procedure

We conducted a national random-digit telephone survey among 530 Jewish (dominant majority) and 530 non-Jewish (non-dominant minority) Israeli drivers who had driven at least once in the past three months. The first person in each household who met the criterion was interviewed. The survey was conducted by trained interviewers from a

Fig. 1 The social resistance framework for risky and delinquent behaviours

Factor et al

790

university survey institute. Interviews were conducted in Hebrew or Arabic according to the mother tongue of the respondent (Jewish or non-Jewish). To ensure adequate repre-sentation of the sub-samples and a high response rate, up to ten contacts were attempted for each sampled household on different days and at different hours, and, in cases where a refusal was encountered, the household was contacted repeatedly by experienced interviewers.

The distribution of the final sub-samples by gender, age and years of schooling was similar to the distribution for the two populations in the national data from the census and the driver licensing authority (data available upon request). The response rate was 55 per cent and the cooperation rate was 74 per cent (for a description of the rate calculations, see American Association for Public Opinion Research 2009). It should be noted that these rates are comparable to those found in other large telephone surveys (see, e.g. Lee et al. 2009; Schneider et al. 2010).

The Driving Resistance Questionnaire

The Driving Resistance Questionnaire (DRQ) was developed by the authors for the cur-rent study to measure the concepts central to the research model. An initial version of the questionnaire was developed following in-depth interviews with non-Jewish drivers and reviewed by a panel of three judges. Only items approved by all three judges were included in a pilot DRQ that was tested with 15 Jewish and 15 non-Jewish drivers fol-lowing translation and back-translation into Hebrew and Arabic to ensure comparable versions in both languages.

Variables

The main survey items appear in Appendix 1. The factor ‘Attachment to the country’ included three items of Bollen and Medrano’s (1998) ‘Belonging’ sub-scale. Perceptions of procedural justice were measured by a short three-item version of Rattner and Yagil’s (2004) scale. The alienation scale was adapted from the Harris Poll Survey (Weakliem and Borch 2006) and included three items. Non-commitment to the law was measured by a short (five-item) scale adopted from Rattner et al. (2001) and Rattner and Yagil (2004). This measure can also be seen as a measure of legitimacy, since obligation to obey the law is traditionally one of the main components of legitimacy, although some recent studies have sought to reconceptualize this central concept of the procedural justice model (see, e.g. Bottoms and Tankebe 2012; Tankebe 2013; Tyler and Jackson 2012).

The measure of social resistance included two constructs. (1) Resistance-general was measured with a three-item scale designed to capture drivers’ general resistance to the country (typical item: ‘I object to the values that the state of Israel represents’). (2) Resistance-action included five items assessing respondents’ willingness to express resistance in different ways (e.g. ‘My situation sometimes makes me want to damage public property’).

Exploratory factor analysis for the six main independent variables, using factor analysis with Varimax rotation, revealed six different factors, which were consistent with our research model and stable over the two sub-samples. A further confirmatory


791

factor analysis, based on the factors obtained in the exploratory factor analysis, indi-cated a good fit to the data for the non-Jewish and Jewish groups (Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.97, Root Mean Square of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.03; CFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.04, respectively). Moreover, to test whether the models were invariant between the groups, we compared the models of both groups by fixing and freeing certain parameters, using the procedure suggested by Byrne (2009). Since chi-square is sensitive to sample size, it is preferable to compare the CFIs of different models. A dif-ference between CFIs that is equal to or smaller than 0.01 indicates that there are no meaningful differences between the groups (Byrne 2009; Cheung and Rensvold 2002). A comparison between the two groups found no meaningful differences in the fac-tor loadings between the two samples (∆CFI = 0.01), suggesting the model is invariant across the research groups.

Our dependent variables, traffic violations while driving, were measured through four items which are among the prevalent traffic violations in the Israeli context (Factor and Mahalel 2012): speeding in a residential area; speeding on an inter-urban road; non-use of seat belts; and driving under the influence of alcohol. The respondents were asked to indicate how often they had engaged in each of these violations in the past 12 months while driving, on a six-point scale (‘never’ to ‘nearly all the time’).

Socio-economic status of the participant’s city or municipality was measured by the SES index produced by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics (2006) and calculated from 14 variables (such as percentage of motor vehicle purchases involving new vehicles; average income per capita; percent of the population identified as work-seekers; and percentage of the population identified as earning less than the minimum wage). The SES index of the city was included to capture ‘institutional discrimination’, which may be manifested in different levels of SES and may influence involvement traffic viola-tions. Information on control variables known to be related to road accidents and traf-fic violations was also collected (see, e.g. Factor et al. 2011b). Socio-economic status of the respondent was measured through a nine-item asset index that assesses ownership of various assets as suggested by Filmer and Pritchett (2001) (presented in standard scores). Additional controls included two variables assessing driving exposure: one question (distance travelled) asked respondents to estimate the distance in kilome-tres they had travelled during the past year (up to 5,000, 5,001–10,000, 10,001–15,000, 15,001–20,000 or more than 20,001) and one variable that represented the estimated time travelled in hours in the past five years. In addition, we collected the following demographic variables: gender, age, years of schooling and religiosity. Descriptive sta-tistics of the research variables are presented in Table 1, and the bivariate correlations among the seven research factors are shown in Table 2.

Data analysis

We analysed the data using structural equation modelling (SEM), which may be seen as a bridge between the way social scientists think and the way they analyse their data (Bollen 1989). Several aspects of SEM are particularly attractive for the current study. For instance, SEM allows the analysis of both latent and observed variables, and pro-vides explicit estimates of measurement errors, thus helping reduce inaccuracies (Byrne

Factor et al

792

2009; Sunshine and Tyler 2003). Some of the variables in our model included a small proportion of observations with missing data (0.2–4.7 per cent). In order not to lose these observations, we employed maximum likelihood estimation, which is a direct and theoretically based estimation (Arbuckle 1996; Bradford 2012; Byrne 2009).

Results

Non-Jewish drivers had significantly higher rates of traffic violations per distance trav-elled than Jewish drivers (see Table 1). Consistently with the social resistance frame-work predictions, attachment to the country was significantly stronger among Jewish drivers, while feelings of alienation, non-commitment to the law and resistance (gen-eral and action) were stronger among the non-Jewish drivers. The bivariate correlation matrix (Table 2) indicates that, among the non-Jewish respondents, traffic violations

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the research variables and t-tests, by population group

No. of items

Range Jews Non-Jews t p

α N Mean SD α N Mean SD

Observed variablesAge 1 17–83 530 42.21 15.33 530 36.92 13.40 5.98 0.00Gender (1 = female) 1 0, 1 530 0.44 0.50 530 0.33 0.47 3.62 0.00Years of schooling 1 0–28 530 13.58 3.20 530 11.55 3.16 10.41 0.00Asset index 1 (–2.92)–

1.11521 0.29 0.88 530 –0.29 1.02 9.82 0.00

Religiosity 1 0–10 528 4.41 3.21 528 6.06 3.01 –8.59 0.00SES index 1 1–10 530 5.86 1.62 530 3.10 1.17 31.90 0.00Latent variablesAttachment to the country 3 0–10 0.82 527 9.36 1.40 0.86 518 6.61 3.20 18.05 0.00Procedural justice 3 1–5 0.79 486 2.99 1.19 0.81 526 3.11 1.32 –1.50 0.13Alienation 3 1–5 0.71 520 3.35 1.09 0.60 526 3.65 1.13 –4.32 0.00Non-commitment to law 5 1–5 0.71 517 1.61 0.78 0.67 527 2.04 1.07 –7.46 0.00Resistance-general 3 1–5 0.72 523 1.42 0.76 0.72 493 2.24 1.22 –12.94 0.00Resistance-action 5 1–5 0.57 511 1.63 0.71 0.65 519 1.99 0.94 –6.98 0.00Traffic violations per distance travelled (log)

4 (–0.51)–1.35

0.62 504 0.22 0.44 0.63 512 0.29 0.45 –2.45 0.01

Table 2 Bivariate correlation matrix for the research factorsa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Attachment to the country

0.28** 0.01 –0.11* –0.43** –0.16** –0.22**

2 Procedural justice 0.14** 0.00 0.00 –0.15** –0.12** –0.19**

3 Alienation –0.12** –0.07 0.00 0.03 0.09* 0.004 Non-commitment

to general law–0.09* –0.16** 0.14** 0.19** 0.32** 0.17**

5 Resistance-general –0.34** –0.12** 0.21** 0.19** 0.33** 0.14**

6 Resistance-action –0.11* –0.12** 0.34** 0.31** 0.31** 0.23**

7 Traffic violations –0.10* –0.17** –0.08 0.23** 0.05 0.15**

a The correlations for the non-Jewish sample are presented above the diagonal and those for the Jewish sample below; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.


793

were most strongly correlated with resistance-action and lack of attachment to the country, while, among the Jewish respondents, they were most strongly correlated with non-commitment to the law and low perceptions of procedural justice.

The fit indices of the SEM analysis for the non-Jewish sample (χ2(469) = 780.94,

CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.04) indicate a better fit than the indices for the Jewish sample (χ2

(469) = 964.52, CFI = 0.87, RMSEA = 0.04). Figure 2 presents the models for the non-Jewish (a) and Jewish drivers (b). To simplify, the figure shows only the key research variables and the standardized regression coefficients; significant structural paths at p ≤ 0.05 are presented with black arrows (the insignificant paths are presented in grey). The models are structurally identical and include all the indicators (observed varia-bles), hypothesized correlations and control variables (see Appendix 2 for the regres-sion weights of the significant (p ≤ 0.05) control variables). The figure clearly indicates meaningful differences between the social groups.

Figure 2a suggests the following model for traffic violations among non-Jewish driv-ers: drivers who have low attachment to the country have a higher level of general resistance to the country, and this general resistance is correlated with a willingness to express resistance in different ways (resistance-action, e.g. damaging public property or not paying taxes). Resistance-action is related to non-commitment to the law, and is associated directly with traffic violations (drinking and driving, speeding, not using seat belts). Procedural justice, however, appears not to be related to social resistance and/or traffic violations.

A different mechanism for Jewish drivers is presented in Figure 2b. Drivers who have low attachment to the country and high alienation from society have a higher level of resistance to the country, which is related to willingness to express resistance in differ-ent ways. Resistance-action is associated with non-commitment to the law (but not with traffic violations), which in turn is related to traffic violations. Regarding procedural justice, it is negatively associated with social resistance to the country and non-commit-ment to the law, which, as aforesaid, is associated with traffic violations.

Thus, among the non-Jewish drivers, social resistance appears to be directly related to traffic violations, while non-commitment to the law is not related to traffic violations. In contrast, among the Jewish drivers, social resistance is not directly associated with traffic violations, while non-commitment to the law is. It is interesting to note here that these differences can be observed in the estimations of the standardized total effects (direct and indirect) of resistance-action and non-commitment to the law on traffic vio-lations. Among non-Jews, the total effect of resistance-action on traffic violations (0.36) is higher than the total effect of non-commitment to the law (0.11), while, among Jews, the total effect of non-commitment to the law on traffic violations (0.28) is a bit higher than the total effect of resistance-action (0.23). Moreover, among Jewish drivers, pro-cedural justice appears to have a significant association with traffic violations through social resistance and non-commitment to the law, while, among non-Jewish drivers, pro-cedural justice is not associated with social resistance, non-commitment to the law or traffic violations.

It is plausible that the relationships among the variables might be better captured by a modified model which specifies alternative paths between attachment to the country and alienation, on the one hand, and procedural injustice on the other. Under this modified model, which follows the group-value model of procedural justice and the social identity rationale (see, e.g. Bradford 2012; Jackson and Bradford 2010; Lind and

Factor et al

794

Fig. 2 Structural equation models for (a) non-Jewish and (b) Jewish drivers* Note: standardized regression coefficients; significant structural paths at p ≤ 0.05 are presented

with black arrows.


795

Tyler 1988), perceived procedural injustice may reduce people’s identification with and attachment to the group, rather than attachment to the country and alienation being antecedents of procedural justice perceptions, as in our original SEM model. To exam-ine this possibility, we ran a modified model with direct paths from procedural justice to alienation and attachment to the country. This model produced similar results to the original model, with the model fit indices and the structural paths for both groups remaining almost the same. However, among the Jewish drivers, the path between proce-dural justice and alienation became significant and, among the non-Jewish drivers, the indirect effect of procedural justice on traffic violations became significant, although with a weak standardized effect (–0.041). Therefore, it appears that both models pro-duce roughly the same results.

Discussion and Conclusions

The current paper developed and tested a new approach to understanding risky and delinquent behaviours among non-dominant minority groups, through the social resist-ance framework. According to this framework, individual behaviour is not only passively influenced by the social structure or representative of ‘bad’ choices, but also includes active, conscious or unconscious, behaviours that express protest against the social order and the individual’s social position. In addition, in the context of the well-known proce-dural justice model, the social resistance component by itself may serve as a mediating factor in the association between perceptions of procedural justice and risky and delin-quent behaviours. We used this innovative theoretical model to explore the involve-ment of drivers in traffic violations, comparing non-dominant minority (non-Jewish) and majority (Jewish) drivers in Israel, with structural equation models using a repre-sentative sample of 1,060 drivers.

Indeed, the non-Jewish drivers in our sample had higher levels of traffic violations (drinking and driving, speeding in residential and inter-urban areas, and not using seat belts) per distance travelled than Jewish drivers. Consistently with the premises of the social resistance framework, the non-dominant minority group in the present research also had weaker attachment to the country and stronger feelings of alienation, non-commitment to the law and social resistance compared to the majority group tested.

Our empirical analyses suggest that the social mechanisms underlying traffic viola-tions differ significantly between non-dominant minority and majority drivers. As we hypothesized, the social resistance framework appears more suitable for non-dominant minority groups than for the dominant majority group. In the non-dominant minority group, we found a direct path between a lack of attachment to the country and traffic violations—lack of attachment to the country is correlated with social resistance, which in turn is associated with a willingness to express this resistance in different ways, which eventually is correlated with traffic violations. However, contrary to the framework premises and the procedural justice model, procedural justice and alienation are not associated with social resistance, and non-commitment to the law is not correlated with traffic violations. On the other hand, among the majority group, social resistance does not have a direct correlation with traffic violations, while non-commitment to the law is associated directly with traffic violations. Nevertheless, perceptions of procedural justice were found to be linked to social resistance and non-commitment to the law, which is

Factor et al

796

then associated with traffic violations. All in all, it appears that social resistance plays a more direct and important role in traffic violations among the non-dominant minority group than the majority group, and that procedural justice and non-commitment to the law have a stronger impact on traffic violations among the majority group, compared to the non-dominant minority group.

It is interesting to note here that an alternative model which follows the group-value model of procedural justice and social identity theory, and which specifies direct paths from procedural justice to attachment to the country and alienation (instead of the other way around) produced results similar to those of the original model. Thus, the precise mechanisms of causation in the relationship between procedural justice and attachment to the country and alienation remain an empirical question. Further longitudinal studies are required in order to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the associations between these variables and their relationship to social resistance and compliance with the law.

To the extent that the results of the current research are ultimately replicated by other studies, our theoretical social resistance model for understanding risky and delinquent behaviours among non-dominant minorities has several important implications. Most notably, our model implies that efforts to reduce unwanted behaviours need to address fundamental social causes (Friedman et al. 2009; Link and Phelan 1995; Marshall 1997). This might be accomplished at several levels. First, it is important to increase the attach-ment to the country felt by members of non-dominant minority groups, thus decreasing their social resistance. In this context, citizen participation strategies could be useful (Healy 2009; Lu and Liang 2011; van Steden et al. 2011). Second, it may be possible to channel non-dominant minority groups’ frustration and resistance elsewhere, to avert their expression to risky and delinquent behaviour. Programmes tailored to the com-munity’s culture and attitudes and with the cooperation of the local leadership may offer effective means to do this. Third, it might be found effective to shift the target of the resistance. A good example here is the Florida ‘truth campaign’, which successfully reduced youth smoking. The programme was designed around telling young people the ‘truth’ about efforts by tobacco firms to manipulate them into smoking. It thus shifted young people’s resistance from their parents to the firms and, by doing so, changed their patterns of behaviour, reducing smoking rates (Hersey et al. 2005; Niederdeppe et al. 2004).

Finally, perceptions of procedural justice play different roles among non-dominant minority and majority groups. As might be predicted from the original procedural jus-tice model, we found that, among the majority group, procedural justice is linked with non-compliance with the law and risky and delinquent behaviour (through social resist-ance and non-commitment to the law). However, among the non-dominant group, per-ceptions of procedural justice are not related to non-compliance with the law and risky and delinquent behaviour, either directly or indirectly. One reason that procedural jus-tice is not significant in the social resistance model among the non-dominant group is that the police and other enforcement institutions, as representatives of the state, may increase social resistance feelings simply because they represent the state, and not because their acts are perceived as fair or unfair. These interesting findings, however, call for further investigation of the effect of social resistance on the procedural justice model among different societies and power groups, and the interplay between social identity (Bradford 2012), motivational postures (Braithwaite et al. 2007), and social resistance in the context of the procedural justice model.


797

Of course, the results of the current study should be considered in light of its limi-tations. First, the study is based on cross-sectional data that may raise questions of temporal order and causation, which are common issues in many studies. Our data, therefore, do not allow us to draw conclusions about causation and can only indicate associations between our dependent and independent variables. Nevertheless, it is difficult to posit a reverse causation, whereby traffic violations per se increase resist-ance and other perceptions estimated in our model. Most obviously, this is because we measured traffic violations through self-reports of behaviours—speeding, non-use of seat belts and driving under the influence of alcohol—and not reports of stops by the police or tickets issued. Future research efforts, however, should address this issue by using, for instance, an experimental research design, panel data and longi-tudinal analyses.

Second, the self-reported measures we used are subject to different biases. We made a considerable effort to reduce the effects of bias due to cultural differences between the Jewish and non-Jewish respondents, but it is still possible that there were differences in how the two samples understood some of the items in the DRQ. Additional research that validates the DRQ with different samples and social groups, as well as over time, is essential.

Third, some of the items of our procedural justice measure may not perfectly repre-sent the original concept. Nevertheless, we used this scale since it was widely tested in the Israeli context in a series of studies (see, e.g. Rattner and Yagil 2004). It thus was validated in the languages of our respondents and appears to be culturally appropri-ate. In addition, empirically, the measurement’s Cronbach’s alpha was high in both groups. This seems to indicate that the items measure the same concept, albeit with some distinctions among them. Future studies, nevertheless, should explore whether different measures that include other items produce results that are similar to the cur-rent findings.

Future research should explore the extent to which this framework and the con-tribution of an active everyday resistance approach can be applied to other types of delinquent behaviours and to behaviours at differing levels of severity, as well as in dif-ferent social and historical contexts. Future studies may also collect data from larger samples, which would make it possible to systematically compare different social groups, both within non-dominant minority groups and within the entire popula-tion, according to age, socio-economic status, ethnicity and so forth. In addition, they may also use multilevel models to explore hierarchical aspects of the social resistance framework.

In conclusion, the social resistance framework—as a social framework that highlights agents’ active participation—may play an important role in explaining delinquent behaviours, including but not limited to traffic violations. Moreover, this innovative framework, and particularly the notions of alienation and social resistance, provides an important addition to the well-known procedural justice model. We hope that this framework will help to close disparities in risky and delinquent behaviours among dif-ferent segments of the population.

Funding

Israel National Road Safety Authority.

Factor et al

798

References

American Association for Public Opinion Research (2009), Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 6th edn. Deerfield, IL: AAPOR.

Arbuckle, J. L. (1996), ‘Full Information Estimation in the Presence of Incomplete Data’, in G. A. Marcoulides and R. E. Schumacker, eds, Advanced Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Techniques, 243–77. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Begle, A. M., Hanson, R. F., Danielson, C. K., McCart, M. R., Ruggiero, K. J., Amstadter, A. B., Resnick, H. S., Saunders, B. E. and Kilpatrick, D. G. (2011), ‘Longitudinal Pathways of Victimization, Substance Use, and Delinquency: Findings from the National Survey of Adolescents’, Addictive Behaviors, 36: 682–9.

Ben-Porat, G. and Yuval, F. (2011), ‘Minorities in Democracy and Policing Policy: From Alienation to Cooperation’, Policing and Society, 22: 235–52.

Blows, S., Ameratunga, S., Ivers, R. Q., Lo, S. K. and Norton, R. (2005), ‘Risky Driving Habits and Motor Vehicle Driver Injury’, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37: 619–24.

Bollen, K. and Medrano, J. D. (1998), ‘Who Are the Spaniards? Nationalism and Identification in Spain’, Social Forces, 77: 587–621.

Bollen, K. A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.Booth, J. A., Farrell, A. and Varano, S. P. (2008), ‘Social Control, Serious Delinquency,

and Risky Behavior’, Crime and Delinquency, 54: 423–56.Bottoms, A. and Tankebe, J. (2012), ‘Beyond Procedural Justice: A Dialogic Approach to

Legitimacy in Criminal Justice’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102: 119–70.Bradford, B. (2012), ‘Policing and Social Identity: Procedural Justice, Inclusion and

Cooperation between Police and Public’, Policing and Society, doi: 10.1080/10439463. 2012.724068.

Braithwaite, V., Murphy, K. and Reinhart, M. (2007), ‘Taxation Threat, Motivational Postures, and Responsive Regulation’, Law and Policy, 29: 137–58.

Braver, E. R. (2003), ‘Race, Hispanic Origin, and Socioeconomic Status in Relation to Motor Vehicles Occupant Death Rates and Risk Factors among Adults’, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35: 295–309.

Briggs, N. C., Levine, R. S., Haliburton, W. P., Schlundt, D. G., Goldzweig, I. and Warren, R. C. (2005), ‘The Fatality and Analysis Reporting System as a Tool for Investigating Racial Ethnic Determinants of Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities’, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37: 641–49.

Buckler, K. and Unnever, J. D. (2008), ‘Racial and Ethnic Perceptions of Injustice: Testing the Core Hypotheses of Comparative Conflict Theory’, Journal of Criminal Justice, 36: 270–8.

Bui, H. N. (2009), ‘Parent–Child Conflicts, School Troubles, and Differences in Delinquency across Immigration Generations’, Crime and Delinquency, 55: 412–41.

Byrne, B. M. (2009), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. New York: Routledge.

Central Bureau of Statistics (2006), Characterization and Classification of Local Authorities by the Socio-Economic Level of the Population. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics.

Cheung, G. W. and Rensvold, R. B. (2002), ‘Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance’, Structural Equation Modeling, 9: 233–55.

Chryssochoou, X. and Volpato, C. (2004), ‘Social Influence and the Power of Minorities: An Analysis of the Communist Manifesto’, Social Justice Research, 17: 357–88.


799

Cooper, M. L., Wood, P. K. and Orcutt, H. K. (2003), ‘Personality and the Predisposition to Engage in Risky or Problem Behaviors During Adolescence’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84: 390–410.

Department for Transport (2001), Road Accident Involvement of Children from Ethnic Minorities. London: Department for Transport.

Ewick, P. and Silbey, S. (2003), ‘Narrating Social Structure: Stories of Resistance to Legal Authority’, American Journal of Sociology, 108: 1328–72.

Factor, R. and Mahalel, D. (2012), The Relationship between Recidivist Road Offenders and Involvement in Traffic Accidents. Haifa: Transportation Research Institute, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology.

Factor, R., Kawachi, I. and Williams, D. R. (2011a), ‘Understanding High Risk Behavior among Non-Dominant Minorities: A Social Resistance Framework’, Social Science and Medicine, 73: 1292–301.

——(2013a), ‘Evaluation of the UNREST Questionnaire for Testing the Social Resistance Framework’, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. doi: 10.1136/jech-2012-201465.

Factor, R., Mahalel, D. and Yair, G. (2008), ‘Inter-Group Differences in Road-Traffic Crash Involvement’, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40: 2000–7.

Factor, R., Williams, D. R. and Kawachi, I. (2013b), ‘Social Resistance Framework for Understanding High-Risk Behavior among Nondominant Minorities: Preliminary Evidence’, American Journal of Public Health. doi: 10.2105/ajph.2013.301212

Factor, R., Yair, G. and Mahalel, D. (2011b), ‘Acciphilia on the Road: An Analysis of Severe Collisions’, Journal of Safety Research, 42: 367–74.

Filmer, D. and Pritchett, L. H. (2001), ‘Estimating Wealth Effects without Expenditure Data—or Tears: An Application to Educational Enrollments in States of India’, Demography, 38: 115–32.

Frank, R. and Bjornstrom, E. (2011), ‘A Tale of Two Cities: Residential Context and Risky Behavior among Adolescents in Los Angeles and Chicago’, Health and Place, 17: 67–77.

Friedman, S. R., Cooper, H. L. F. and Osborne, A. H. (2009), ‘Structural and Social Contexts of HIV Risk among African Americans’, American Journal of Public Health, 99: 1002–8.

Gabbidon, S. L. (2010), Race, Ethnicity, Crime, and Justice: An International Dilemma. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Gluckman, M. (1963), Order and Rebellion in Tribal Africa. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Harper, J. S., Marine, W. M., Garrett, C. J., Lezotte, D. and Lowenstein, S. R. (2000),

‘Motor Vehicle Crash Fatalities: A Comparison of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Motorists in Colorado’, Annals of Emergency Medicine, 36: 589–96.

Hawkins, D. F. (1993), ‘Crime and Ethnicity’, in B. Forst, ed., The Socioeconomics of Crime and Justice, 89–120. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Healy, S. (2009), ‘Toward an Epistemology of Public Participation’, Journal of Environmental Management, 90: 1644–54.

Hersey, J. C., Niederdeppe, J., Evans, W. D., Nonnemaker, J., Blahut, S., Holden, D., Messeri, P. and Haviland, M. L. (2005), ‘The Theory of “Truth”: How Counterindustry Campaigns Affect Smoking Behavior among Teens’, Health Psychology, 24: 22–31.

Hilton, J. (2006), Race and Ethnicity Factors in Fatal Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes 1999–2004. Washington: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Hipp, J. R. (2011), ‘Violent Crime, Mobility Decisions, and Neighborhood Racial/Ethnic Transition’, Social Problems, 58: 410–32.

Factor et al

800

Hollander, J. A. and Einwohner, R. L. (2004), ‘Conceptualizing Resistance’, Sociological Forum, 19: 533–54.

Huynh, Q. L., Devos, T. and Smalarz, L. (2011), ‘Perpetual Foreigner in One’s Own Land: Potential Implications for Identity and Psychological Adjustment’, Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 30: 133–62.

Jackson, J. and Bradford, B. (2010), ‘What Is Trust and Confidence in the Police?’, Policing, 4: 241–8.

Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P. and Tyler, T. R. (2012), ‘Why Do People Comply with the Law? Legitimacy and the Influence of Legal Institutions’, British Journal of Criminology, 52: 1051–71.

Junger, M., West, R. and Timman, R. (2001), ‘Crime and Risky Behavior in Traffic: An Example of Cross-Situational Consistency’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38: 439–59.

Kirk, D. S. and Matsuda, M. (2011), ‘Legal Cynicism, Collective Efficacy, and the Ecology of Arrest’, Criminology, 49: 443–72.

Klonsky, E. D. (2007), ‘The Functions of Deliberate Self-Injury: A Review of the Evidence’, Clinical Psychology Review, 27: 226–39.

Lee, S., Brown, E. R., Grant, D., Belin, T. R. and Brick, J. M. (2009), ‘Exploring Nonresponse Bias in a Health Survey Using Neighborhood Characteristics’, American Journal of Public Health, 99: 1811–17.

Lind, E. A. and Tyler, R. R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.

Link, B. G. and Phelan, J. (1995), ‘Social Conditions as Fundamental Causes of Disease’, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Extra Issue: 80–94.

Lu, H. and Liang, B. (2011), ‘Introduction: Public Participation and Involvement in the Criminal Justice System in Asia’, Asian Criminology, 6: 125–30.

Marczynski, K. S., Welte, J. W., Marshall, J. R. and Ferby, E. N. (1999), ‘Prevalence and Determinants of Alcohol-Related Problems’, American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 25: 715–30.

Marshall, I. (1997), Minorities, Migrants, and Crime: Diversity and Similarity across Europe and the United States. Thousand Oaks, CA, and London: Sage.

Mathers, C., Fat, D. M. and Boerma, J. T. (2008), The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

Mehozay, Y. (2012), ‘The Rule of Difference: How Emergency Powers Prevent Palestinian Assimilation in Israel’, Israel Studies Review, 27: 18–40.

Moore, D. (2000), ‘Intolerance of “Others” among Palestinian and Jewish Students in Israel’, Sociological Inquiry, 70: 280–312.

National Road Safety Authority (2010), Observational Survey of Seat Belt Use in Israel. Jerusalem: National Road Safety Authority.

Niederdeppe, J., Farrelly, M. C. and Haviland, M. L. (2004), ‘Confirming “Truth”: More Evidence of a Successful Tobacco Countermarketing Campaign in Florida’, American Journal of Public Health, 94: 255–7.

Palosuo, H. (2000), ‘Health-Related Lifestyles and Alienation in Moscow and Helsinki’, Social Science and Medicine, 51: 1325–41.

Peden, M., Scurfield, R., Sleet, D., Mohan, D., Hyder, A. A., Jarawan, E. and Mathers, C. (2004), World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Phillips, C. and Bowling, B. (2003), ‘Racism, Ethnicity and Criminology: Developing Minority Perspectives’, British Journal of Criminology, 43: 269–90.


801

Porter, B. E. and England, K. J. (2000), ‘Predicting Red-Light Running Behavior: A Traffic Safety Study in Three Urban Settings’, Journal of Safety Research, 31: 1–8.

Rattner, A. and Yagil, D. (2004), ‘Taking the Law into One’s Own Hands on Ideological Grounds’, International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 32: 85–102.

Rattner, A., Yagil, D. and Pedahzur, A. (2001), ‘Not Bound by the Law: Legal Disobedience in Israeli Society’, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19: 265–83.

Romano, E., Tippetts, S. and Voas, R. (2005a), ‘Fatal Red Light Crashes: The Role of Race and Ethnicity’, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37: 453–60.

Romano, E., Tippetts, S., Blackman, K. and Voas, R. (2005b), ‘Acculturation, Income, Education, Safety Belt Use, and Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes in California’, Prevention Science, 6: 139–48.

Schneider, K. L., Clark, M. A., Rakowski, W. and Lapane, K. L. (2010), ‘Evaluating the Impact of Non-Response Bias in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)’, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 66: 290–5.

Scott, J. C. (1985), Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.

—— (1990), Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sidanius, J., Feshbach, S., Levin, S. and Pratto, F. (1997), ‘The Interface between Ethnic and National Attachment: Ethnic Pluralism or Ethnic Dominance?’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 61: 102–33.

Stucky, T. D. (2012), ‘The Conditional Effects of Race and Politics on Social Control: Black Violent Crime Arrests in Large Cities, 1970 to 1990’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49: 3–30.

Sullman, M. J. M., Meadows, M. L. and Pajo, K. B. (2002), ‘Aberrant Driving Behaviours amongst New Zealand Truck Drivers’, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 5: 217–32.

Sunshine, J. and Tyler, T. R. (2003), ‘The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing’, Law and Society Review, 37: 513–47.

Suyemoto, K. L. (1998), ‘The Functions of Self-Mutilation’, Clinical Psychology Review, 18: 531–54.Tankebe, J. (2013), ‘Viewing Things Differently: The Dimensions of Public Perceptions of

Police Legitimacy’, Criminology, 51: 103–35.Traffic Safety Center (2003), Lives Still at Risk. Berkeley: UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center

Newsletter.Tsfati, Y. (2007), ‘Hostile Media Perceptions, Presumed Media Influence, and Minority

Alienation: The Case of Arabs in Israel’, Journal of Communication, 57: 632–51.Turner, J. H. (1986), ‘Toward a Unified Theory of Ethnic Antagonism: A Preliminary

Synthesis of Three Macro Models’, Sociological Forum, 1: 403–27.Tyler, T. and Jackson, J. (2012), ‘Future Challenges in the Study of Legitimacy and Criminal

Justice’, Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper, New Haven, Yale University.Tyler, T. R. (1988), ‘What Is Procedural Justice: Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the

Fairness of Legal Procedures’, Law and Society Review, 22: 103–35.van Steden, R., Van Caem, B. and Boutellier, H. (2011), ‘The “Hidden Strength” of Active

Citizenship: The Involvement of Local Residents in Public Safety Projects’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 11: 433–50.

Factor et al

802

Veen, V. C., Stevens, G., Doreleijers, T. and Vollebergh, W. (2011), ‘Moroccan Adolescent Suspect Offenders in the Netherlands: Ethnic Differences in Offender Profiles’, Psychology Crime and Law, 17: 545–61.

Weakliem, D. L. and Borch, C. (2006), ‘Alienation in the United States: Uniform or Group-Specific Change?’, Sociological Forum, 21: 415–38.

Williams, D. R. and Mohammed, S. A. (2009), ‘Discrimination and Racial Disparities in Health: Evidence and Needed Research’, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 32: 20–47.

Williams, D. R., Mohammed, S. A., Leavell, J. and Collins, C. (2010), ‘Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Health: Complexities, Ongoing Challenges, and Research Opportunities’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1186: 69–101.

Yiftachel, O. (1997), ‘The Political Geography of Ethnic Protest: Nationalism, Deprivation and Regionalism among Arabs in Israel’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22: 91–110.

——(1999), ‘Between Nation and State: “Fractured” Regionalism among Palestinian-Arabs in Israel’, Political Geography, 18: 285–307.

Appendix 1: DRQ Items

Attachment to the country (0 = completely disagree, 10 = completely agree)Israel is my nationI feel IsraeliIsrael is a country to which I belongProcedural justice (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree)The Israeli police fulfill their functions equally towards one and allPeople like you are treated fairly and equally by the policeThe severity of reactions imposed by the police is proportional to the severity of the offenseAlienation (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree)The people running the country don’t really care what happens to youWhat you think doesn’t count much anymoreMost people with power try to take advantage of people like yourselfNon-commitment to the law (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree)If a law is unjust, you don’t have to obey itYou can disobey a law on condition that you don’t harm anyoneIt is not necessary to obey traffic laws that seem unreasonable to meIt is okay to disobey a traffic law if I do not cause any harm to anybodySometimes it is okay to disobey unimportant traffic lawsResistance-general (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree)Often I find myself objecting to the symbols of the state (e.g., the flag, the national anthem, the state emblem)People like me object to the stateI object to the values that the state of Israel representsResistance-action (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree)People that are in a difficult situation may sometimes disobey the lawMy situation sometimes makes me want to damage public propertyDue to my situation, sometimes I don’t want to pay my local taxesSometimes my situation makes me want to show the state that I am angry at itThe situation of people like me makes them drive in an aggressive wayTraffic violations (1 = never, 6 = almost always)Drive even though you realize that you may be over the legal blood-alcohol limitDisregard the speed limit on a residential roadDrive without using a seat beltDisregard the speed limit on a highway


803

App

endi

x 2:

SE

M re

gres

sion

wei

ghts

for

the

sign

ifica

nt (

p ≤

0.0

5) c

ontr

ol v

aria

bles

Jew

sN

on-Je

ws

bS.

E.

Stan

d. b

Pb

S.E

.St

and.

bP

Gen

der

(fem

ale

= 1)

→D

ista

nce

trav

elle

d–0

.74

0.13

–0.2

40.

00–0

.97

0.13

–0.3

00.

00Ye

ars

of s

choo

ling

→D

ista

nce

trav

elle

d0.

070.

020.

150.

00A

sset

inde

x→

Dis

tan

ce tr

avel

led

0.14

0.06

0.10

0.03

Gen

der

(fem

ale

= 1)

→T

ime

trav

elle

d–1

,354

.61

202.

97–0

.28

0.00

–1,8

52.5

424

3.50

–0.3

10.

00A

ge→

Tim

e tr

avel

led

–21.

778.

54–0

.10

0.01

Ass

et in

dex

→T

ime

trav

elle

d22

4.73

115.

980.

080.

0522

6.52

117.

070.

080.

05G

ende

r (f

emal

e =

1)→

Att

ach

men

t to

th

e co

untr

y0.

280.

120.

110.

02

Age

→A

ttac

hm

ent t

o

the

coun

try

0.02

0.00

0.18

0.00

0.03

0.01

0.13

0.00

Rel

igio

sity

→A

ttac

hm

ent t

o

the

coun

try

0.07

0.02

0.18

0.00

Year

s of

sch

oolin

g→

Att

ach

men

t to

th

e co

untr

y–0

.04

0.02

–0.0

90.

05–0

.16

0.05

–0.1

60.

00

Ass

et in

dex

→A

ttac

hm

ent t

o

the

coun

try

0.26

0.07

0.18

0.00

–0.3

00.

15–0

.10

0.04

Age

→Pr

oced

ural

just

ice

–0.0

10.

01–0

.10

0.02

Rel

igio

sity

→Pr

oced

ural

just

ice

0.08

0.02

0.17

0.00

Age

→A

lien

atio

n0.

010.

000.

140.

010.

010.

000.

140.

01Ye

ars

of s

choo

ling

→A

lien

atio

n–0

.08

0.02

–0.2

20.

00R

elig

iosi

ty→

Res

ista

nce

-gen

eral

0.05

0.01

0.26

0.00

Ass

et in

dex

→R

esis

tan

ce-g

ener

al–0

.11

0.03

–0.1

60.

00R

elig

iosi

ty→

Res

ista

nce

-act

ion

–0.0

40.

02–0

.12

0.02

Year

s of

sch

oolin

g→

Res

ista

nce

-act

ion

–0.0

30.

01–0

.11

0.05

–0.0

50.

02–0

.16

0.00

Year

s of

sch

oolin

g→

Non

-com

mit

men

t law

–0.0

30.

01–0

.14

0.01

–0.0

60.

02–0

.19

0.00

Gen

der

(fem

ale

= 1)

→Tr

affi

c vi

olat

ion

s–0

.33

0.09

–0.1

60.

00A

ge→

Traf

fic

viol

atio

ns

–0.0

20.

00–0

.35

0.00

–0.0

20.

00–0

.25

0.00

Year

s of

sch

oolin

g→

Traf

fic

viol

atio

ns

0.08

0.01

0.24

0.00

Ass

et in

dex

→Tr

affi

c vi

olat

ion

s0.

120.

050.

100.

03SE

S in

dex

→Tr

affi

c vi

olat

ion

s0.

060.

030.

100.

02T

ime

trav

elle

d→

Traf

fic

viol

atio

ns

0.00

0.00

0.11

0.04

Factor et al

804

A SOCIAL RESISTANCE PERSPECTIVE FOR DELINQUENT BEHAVIOUR … · 2013-10-03 · A SOCIAL RESISTANCE...

Documents

Transcript of A SOCIAL RESISTANCE PERSPECTIVE FOR DELINQUENT BEHAVIOUR … · 2013-10-03 · A SOCIAL RESISTANCE...