commitment, resistance, disengagement and game-playing: understanding (non-) compliance with the...

8/11/2019 Commitment, Resistance, Disengagement and Game-playing: Understanding (non-) compliance with the smoking

1/26

1

Law & Society Association, Annual Meeting, Minneapolis 1 June 2014

Commitment, Resistance, Disengagement and Game-playing:

Understanding (non-) compliance with the smoking ban in Dutch bars.

(Draft articleplease do not cite)

Willem Bantema

University of Groningen

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

In recent years, all countries in Europe have introduced a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. While

most countries show a high level of compliance, the picture in the Netherlands is quite different.

Especially the level of compliance in Dutch bars is lower than in most other countries. In this paper I

will argue that these differences in regulatory compliance may be explained by the motivational

postures of bar owners, focusing on their level of commitment, capitulation, resistance,

disengagement and game-playing (Braithwaite, 2003, 2009).

To this end, a mixed methods approach was used, including a survey among Dutch bars and in depth

interviews with bar owners (N=23). This paper demonstrates that four motivational postures are

relevant for bars owners in the Netherlands. Finally, this paper shows that motivational postures

have a high explanatory value in the analysis on self-reported compliance, even when controlled for

instrumental explanations.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/26

2

Commitment, Resistance, Disengagement and Game-playing:

Understanding (non-) compliance with the smoking ban in Dutch bars.

(Draft articleplease do not cite)

Willem Bantema

University of Groningen

[email protected]

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, all EU countries have introduced a smoking ban in bars. In the Netherlands,

it was introduced at July 2008. Only bar owners can be legally sanctioned by for violating the

smoking ban. The Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit (NVWA) enforces this

legislation.1However, how effective is this new legislation in terms of compliance? While

most countries show a high level of compliance with the new regulation, the picture in the

Netherlands is quite different. For instance, two years after introducing the smoking ban,

around 90 percent of the bars in Ireland (Howell, 2005), Norway (Lund, 2006) and Italy

(Gorini et al. 2007) complied with the smoking ban. In the Netherlands, 76 percent of the bar

owners complied with the smoking ban, one year after introducing the smoking ban

(Intraval, 2009). However, this compliance appeared to be short-lived. Almost two years

after the smoking ban was introduced, only 59 percent of the bars complied with the

smoking ban (Intraval 2010).2This variation in (non-) compliance makes the Dutch smoking

ban an interesting case to explain compliance motivations.

The aim of this paper is to understand and to explain different levels of compliance with the

smoking ban of Dutch bars. In order to understand these differences in compliance, one has

to focus on motivations of the regulatees. With respect to the smoking bans we may

differentiate between customers, bar staff and bar owners. This paper focuses on the bar

1See Weyers (2010) for background and more detail about the Dutch smoking ban in bars.

2At present, 75 percent of the bars complied with the smoking ban.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/26

3

owners, because they can be legally sanctioned for violation of the smoking ban. Thus, bar

owners are expected to play a central role in (non-) compliance with the smoking ban by

differences in smoking policy. I will argue that the central explanation for differences in

compliance are, what Valerie Braithwaite (1995, 2009) refers to as "motivational postures".Braithwaite distinguishes between five postures: commitment, capitulation, resistance,

disengagement and game playing.

Motivational postures have demonstrated to be a fruitful explanation for compliance

(Braithwaite, 1995; 2003; 2009). However, thus far, they have never been used to explain

the compliance with smoking bans. Braithwaite claims that motivational postures are

measures that are not context sensitive (Braithwaite, 2003: 17). However, postures are

seldom applied outside Australia. There is another strength of the posture model. As said

postures are indicative of (non-) compliance. Postures are not only aimed to describe and

explain (non-) compliance, they are also useful to describe the character of the (non-)

compliance. This underlines the scientific and social relevance of this motivational postures

approach.

In this paper I will argue that postures are useful in the context of smoking bans and that

they are indicative of (non-) compliance of bars. Moreover, this paper will nuance

Braithwaites claim that motivational postures are not context sensitive.

THEORY

Postures can be used to capture the ways in which regulatees position themselves in relation

to a regulatory authority. Postures can be defined as conglomerates of beliefs, attitudes,

preferences, interests, and feelings that together communicate the degree in which an

individual accepts the agenda of the regulator, in principle, and endorses the way in which

the regulator functions and carries out duties on a daily basis (Braithwaiteet al. 2007: 138).

Central to this posturing is the concept of social distance (Bogardus, 1928). Based on their

relationship with the regulator (authority) and by the support with the regulation, people

can place social distance between themselves and concerned authorities. When people wish

to create a greater distance between themselves and authorities, they intend to be more out

of reach and out of contact with authorities. In case of greater social distance, it becomesmore difficult for regulators to respond to the dissatisfaction of the concerned regulatees.


4/26

4

Braithwaite distinguishes between five postures: commitment, capitulation, resistance,

disengagement and game playing. These postures differ in social distance (low to high) and

in the way dissatisfaction is expressed. These postures also differ in which element of social

distance (authorities versus regulation) is predominant.

Motivational postures have demonstrated to be a fruitful explanation for compliance and

non-compliance of regulatees in different contexts: for example taxing (Braithwaite, 2002;

2009 and Kircher & Wahl, 2010), environmental law (Bartel & Barclay, 2011), safety

(Braithwaite, 2011), nursing homes (Braithwaite, 1994; 1995) and child-care. Furthermore,

commitment and capitulation are indicative for compliance, whereas resistance,

disengagement and game playing are indicative for non-compliance of regulatees

(Braithwaith et al. 1994; Braithwaite, 2003; Braithwaite, 2011; Murphy et al. 2009, Murphy

& Cherney, 2012).

Commitment is associated with embracing the mission of the respective authority or the

agenda of the authority(Braithwaite et al. 2007: 139). That is to say, commitment is

characterized by supporting the regulation. This is the main reason for the low social

distance between the regulator and the regulatee. As a consequence the relationship with

the regulator will be harmonious.

Capitulationis more focused on a good relationship with the regulator. This relationship is

mainly based on avoiding problems with the regulator and simply doing what is asked,

instead of supporting the regulation as the right thing to do. As Braithwaite states:

regulatees agreed to do what is being asked , driven by willingness to please and desire to

avoid trouble, without stopping to think too much about the ultimate goals (Braithwaite,

2009: 78).

Resistanceis a oppositional posture. This posture reflects relational stress between

regulators and regulatees. This stress can be based on the way regulators are doing business,

for example in the way they perform their inspections. The message from the regulatee is

one of dissatisfaction with the regulation or with the relevant procedures. By responding to

these grievances, regulators can reduce resistance, and bars owners may shift to the

posture of commitment or capitulation.


5/26

5

Disengagementalso reflects dissatisfaction with the regulation and the regulators. However,

this dissatisfaction goes beyond resistance. It is characterized by a cool detachment from

regulatory efforts(Braithwaite et al. 2007: 139) and by a complete dismissal of the

regulator and the regulatory system (Braithwaite, 2009: 78). This is accompanied by feelingsof indifference and is expressed by saying the regulation is of no use. Those who feel

disengaged place themselves out of the reach (psychologically) of the regulators. This

withdrawal, instead of the more vocal opposition of resistance, is more difficult to handle for

regulators. As Braithwaite states: It involves dropping out, with no communication that

betrays the source of the injury, and therefore no basis for responsiveness that can repair

the situation (Braitwaite, 2009:80).

Game playingis also a posture which is based on a high social distance to regulators and the

regulation, including the emotional detachment of disengagement (Braithwaite et al. 2009:

139). The social distance is principally based on low support for the regulation. Game playing

consists of a specific attitude to law, what is seen as something that can be used for ones

own purposes, rather than something that shall be respected (Braithwaite, 2002: 19). Game

players live to the letter of the law but not to its spirit. In this respect it parallels capitulation.

An important difference between capitulation and game playing is that the former is

captured by the regulator, whereas the latter is challenging the regulator. Also, the

relationship with authority is actually different compared to resistance and disengagement.

Where disengagement is based on feelings of alienation and withdrawal, game playing is

based on the feeling that regulators could be beated on their own game (Braithwaite, 2009:

109). Therefore, game playing is essentially a posture of competition.

Character of the (non-) compliance

Resistance is about reflecting stress about regulators and the regulation. Regulators may

respond to these signals to diminish this stress or dissatisfaction. When dissatisfaction is

accompanied by feelings of disengagement it is more problematic for regulators, because

people want to stay out of reach from the regulators and therefore they are irresponsive for

additional efforts from the regulator. Empirical studies in the context of nursing homes and

taxing supports this claim. In existing research about postures and taxing, people were

surveyed twice. In the meantime, regulatory action was carried out to increase compliance.


6/26

6

The resisters showed a higher level of compliance, while the disengaged were characterized

by a decreasing compliance, despite the additional efforts of regulators (Braithwaite, 2009:

80). This paper focuses on two questions:

1.

Are motivational postures applicable in the context of a smoking ban in Dutch bars?

2. Can differences in (non-) compliance be explained by motivational postures of bar

owners?

Structure of the paper

In the first section I will discuss the research design and the methodology of this study. The

second section discusses the applicability of the motivational posture model in the context

of the smoking ban in bars. The third section gives a profile of bar owners, based on postures

and background variables. In the fourth section the central argument of this paper will be

discussed, that is the relationship between motivational postures and the self-reported

compliance of bar owners. In the final section I will summarize the main conclusions of this

study.

PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE

The present study utilized survey data collected from a random sample of 398 bar (venue)

owners from the Netherlands. An introduction letter had been sent to a random sample of

bar owners, in which the purpose of the study was explained and in which they were invited

to participate in the web survey (using an password). The 16 page survey examined a range

of issues, including views about the smoking ban, personal experience with the inspection

agency (NVWA), smoking policy in their bar, motivational postures and questions about the

owner of the bar and his or her establishment.

A total of 1801 bars received a letter in October 2012)3. A reminder was sent three weeks

later. Meanwhile, a database of email-addresses was created to obtain a higher response.

Two weeks after the first reminder (post) an email was sent to bars whose email was

available (1 out of 3), followed by a reminder two weeks later. After a period of

approximately three months a total of 429 completed surveys were returned (response rate:

24%).3This is corrected for not existing or fault addresses (N=54).


7/26

7

In addition, 23 in-depth interviews were conducted with bar owners, in June 2013. The

survey ended with the question, do you want to participate in an interview? About 50

percent wished to participate. Based on their motivational postures and variation on other

variables (purposive sampling) a total of 23 bar owners were interviewed. Thematicsaturation was achieved around this point, that is to say that additional interviews would not

lead to new thematic information about the smoking ban in bars.

Measures

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and Cronbachsalpha reliability.

Table 1 Variables (means)

Measure N Mean (SD)

Self-reported compliance 363 3.8 (1.3) .93

Commitment 429 3.2 (1.4) .82

Capitulation 406 2.6 (0.9) .72

Resistance 394 3.3 (0.8) .63

Disengagement 398 2.6 (0.9) .73

Game playing 422 2.8 (1.2) .74

Economic impact of the smoking ban 341 4.3 (0.9) .82

Deterrence 394 3.1 (1.5) -

Comfort in pointing customers at the smoking ban 344 3.2 (1.4) -

Age 395 3.8 (1.0) -

Education (highest) 390 3.9 (0.8) -

Experience with inspection agency 402 2.8 (1.0) -

Size of establishment 391 4.9 (2.0) -

Table 2 variables (frequencies)

Measure N Percentage

Abolish smoking ban

No 110 33

Yes 219 67

Total 329 100

Smoking room

No 234 57

Yes 175 43

Total 409 100

Smoking

No 260 65

Yes 137 35

Total 397 100

Sex

Man 286 73

Woman 107 27

Total 393 100


8/26

8

Dependent variable

Self-reported compliance

Self-reported compliance behavior was measured with seven items, based on a combination

of three general questions (This establishment complies with the smoking ban) and four

specific questions about conditions for (non-) compliance in bars (If the weather is bad, I

permit smoking in my establishment or smoking inside this establishment is permitted after

midnight. The answers were given on a five-point scale (1=completely disagree to

5=completely agree). The scores of the general questions were combined into one overall

score for self-reported compliance behavior. A higher score indicates a higher level of

compliance (M= 3.82, SD= 1.34, Cronbachs = .93).

Independent variable

Motivational postures

The measures of motivational postures were based on Braithwaite (2009) and measured

with 20 items. Commitmentwas measured with four items: complying with the smoking ban

is the right thing to do, Its my responsibility toensure that people dont smoke in my bar,

I feel a moral obligation to comply with the smoking banand complying with the smoking

ban is a responsibility that should be willingly accepted by all bars. The answers were given

on a five-point scale (1=completely disagree to 5=completely agree). A higher score indicates

more commitment(M= 3.17, SD= 1.36, Cronbachs = .82).

Capitulation was measured with four items: if you cooperate with the NVWA, they are likely

to be cooperative to you, The NVWA is encouraging to those who have difficulty meeting

their obligations through no fault of their own, even if the NVWA finds that I am doing

something wrong, they will respect me in the long run as long as I admit my mistakes and

no matter how cooperative or uncooperative the NVWA is, the best policy is to always be

cooperative with them.The answers were given on a five-point scale (1=completely

disagree to 5=completely agree). A higher score indicates a more capitulation (M=2.59, SD=

0.92, Cronbachs = .72).


9/26

9

Resistance was measured with 5 items: once the NVWAhas branded you as non-compliant,

they will never change their mind,the NVWA is more interested in catching you for doing

the wrong thing, than helping you do the right thing, its important not to let the NVWA

push you around, bars have to take a stand against the NVWA and Im dissatisfied with the

practice of the NVWA.The answers were given on a five-point scale (1=completely disagree

to 5=completely agree). A higher score indicates more resistance(M= 3.28, SD= 0.78,

Cronbachs = .63).

Disengagement was measured with four items: I dont care ifthe NVWA thinks that I am not

doing the right thing, I personally dont think that there is much the NVWA can do to make

me comply with the smoking ban, if I dont want to, I dont really know what the NVWA

expects of me and Im not about to askand I dont care what the NVWA thinks of me. The

answers were given on a five-point scale (1=completely disagree to 5=completely agree). A

higher score indicates more disengagement (M= 2.62, SD= 0.94, Cronbachs = .73).

Game-playing was measured with three items: I enjoy talking to fellow bar owners about

loopholes in the smoking ban regulations,I enjoy spending time to work out how changes in

the smoking ban (regulation) will affect me and I enjoy the game of finding ways to evade

the smoking ban.The answers were given on a five-point scale (1=completely disagree to

5=completely agree). A higher score indicates more game-playing (M= 2.80, SD= 1.23,

Cronbachs = .74).

Background variables

Economic impact of the smoking ban

There are indications that bar owners who experience higher costs (for example a loss inturnover) were more inclined to violate the smoking ban (TNS, 2009). The economic impact

of the smoking ban is measured with four items: The smoking ban results in an increasing

turnover and the smoking ban results in welcoming new customers, the smoking ban

results in a lower sale of alcohol in my establishment and the smoking ban results in a

runaway of major customers to establishments were smoking is allowed. The answers were

given on a five-point scale (1=completely disagree to 5=completely agree). A higher score


10/26

10

indicates a higher economic impact of the smoking ban (M=4.27, SD=0.94, Cronbachs =

.82).

Deterrence

Deterrence was measured with the following statement: If you violate the smoking ban,

how likely do you think that you would be fined by the NVWA (see Tyler, 1990, 188). The

answers were given on a five-point scale (1= not at all likely to 5=very likely). A higher score

indicates a higher perceived probability of getting fined (M=3.05, SD=1.45).

Social distance

To check if postures represent social distance two items were included, based on support for

the regulation (smoking ban) and based on the perception of (dis) respectful treatment by

the inspection agency. Support for the regulation is measured by asking if one wishes to

abolish the smoking ban or one wishes to have a more comprehensive and more strict

smoking ban, without exemptions for small bars.

Furthermore an item about respectful treatment by the NVWA was added: The NVWA

treats bar owners with respect. The answers were given on a five-point scale (1=completely

disagree to 5=completely agree). A higher score indicates a more respectful treatment by

the NVWA.

Characteristics of bar owner

Besides, education, sex, age, personal smoking behavior and the comfort in pointing

customers at the smoking are also included. A previous study about the smoking ban in the

Netherlands (also bars), showed that many bar owners find it difficult to point customers at

the smoking ban. Furthermore, bar owners who smoke, showed less support for the smoking

(TNS, 2009).

Differences in bar lay-out and design

Finally, bar owners were asked if they have a smoking room and if this room is enclosed

when it is attended by customers. Bars having a smoking room are more inclined to comply

with the smoking ban (TNS, 2009). Also size had been included in two ways: based on the


11/26


12/26

12

The results of this analysis revealed that the postures can be regarded as relatively

independent. We can conclude that bar owners recognize themselves in terms of

motivational postures and that these scales were relatively independent from each other.

The same applies here, the factors of commitment and game playing were related on twoout of three items of game playing. Furthermore resistance and game-playing are related on

one of the items of game playing. To sum up, motivational postures were relatively

independent of each other, but game-playing and commitment are not cleanly separated

from each other.

Table 4Factor analysis differentiating motivational postures (all bars)

Item Factor

1 2 3 4 5

Commitment

Obeying the smoking ban is a responsibility that should be .79

Obeying the smoking ban is the right thing to do .77

I feel a moral obligation to obey to the smoking ban .75

I accept responsibility for banning smoking in my .64

I enjoy the game of finding ways to circumvent the smoking -.68 .41 #

Disengagement

I dont really know what the NVWA expects of me and Im .74

I dont care if I am not doing the right thing by the NVWA .74

I dont care what the NVWA thinks ofme .66

I personally dont think that there is much the NVWA can do .63Capitulation

If you cooperate with the NVWA they are likely to be .74

Even if the NVWA finds that I am doing something wrong .73

The NVWA is encouraging to those who have difficulties .62

No matter how cooperative or uncooperative the NVWA is -.41 .55 #

Resistance

Once the NVWA branded you as a non-compliant, they will .68

The NVWA is more interested in catching you for doing the .62

Im dissatisfied with the practices of the NVWA .49

Its important not to let the NVWA push you around .44 # .54

Bars had to take a stand against the NVWA

Game-playing

I enjoy talking to friends about loopholes in the smoking ban -.46 .67 #I enjoy spending time to working out how changes in the .66

Eigenvalues 3.51 2.54 2.08 1.87 1.79

Explained variance (%) 17.52 12.69 10.39 9.37 8.93

Principal components factoring with varimax rotation. Only loading >.40 are displayed. Due to space constraints in

table 1, full wording of items can be found in the participants section of this paper. # denotes cross loadings on

two factors.


13/26

13

Bars with or without food and game-playing

Braithwaite claims that postures can be used in all regulating contexts in which an authority

and a regulation are present. Game playing seems strongly related to commitment (more

game playing indicates less commitment). Game-playing is derived from what Mc Barnett

calls creative compliance. Creative compliance is about seeing law as material to be

worked on, to be tailored, regardless of the policy behind it, to ones own or ones clients

interests (Mc Barnett, 2002: 230). This involves (for example) seeking out the ex-files of law,

expressing exceptions, with practices to fit them.

In the case of the Dutch smoking ban, there are exceptions in the law, and one of these

exceptions is only applicable to specific bars, namely bars without food. Bars where drinking

is the main source of income, smaller than 70 meters and without employers may apply to

this exception. This exception can be seen as a grey area in the law that can create confusion

or space for game playing. The law is more clear for the bars serving food than, than for bars

without food. Here we ask the question has game playing a better fit when there is a

greater confusing about the law and subsequent more space for game playing? To answer

this question a factor analysis is performed (only to answer this specific question), based on

a subsample of 213 bars without food.4

The factor analysis showed again a five factor-solution based on commitment, capitulation,

resistance, disengagement en game-playing. Interestingly, the overlap between game-

playing and commitment has declined to one item. Contrary to the previous analysis the

positive loading of this item is stronger than the negative loading on commitment.

Furthermore, the overlap between resistance and game-playing has disappeared. These

results indicate that when there is a greater confusion and space for game playing in law

(based on exceptions), game playing can be cleaner differentiated or separated from other

motivational postures.

4(including a 38 bars that can apply to this exception)


14/26

14

Table 5Factor analysis differentiating motivational postures (only bars without food)

Item Factor

1 2 3 4 5

Commitment

Obeying the smoking ban is a responsibility that should be .79

Obeying the smoking ban is the right thing to do .78

I feel a moral obligation to obey to the smoking ban .76

I accept responsibility for banning smoking in my .63

Disengagement

I dont care if I am not doing the right thingby the NVWA .76

I dont really know what the NVWA expects of me and Im .71

I dont care what the NVWA thinks of me .68

I personally dont think that there is much theNVWA can do .65

Capitulation

The NVWA is encouraging to those who have difficulties .75

If you cooperate with the NVWA they are likely to be .73

Even if the NVWA finds that Im doing something wrong .71

No matter how cooperative or uncooperative the NVWA is .44

Game playing

I enjoy talking to friends about loopholes in the smoking ban .78

I enjoy spending time to working out how changes in the .77

I enjoy the game of finding ways to circumvent the smoking -.54 .56

Resistance

Once the NVWA branded you as a non-compliant, they will .64

The NVWA is more interested in catching you for doing the .62

Im dissatisfiedwith the practices of the NVWA .60Its important not to let the NVWA push you around .51

Bars had to take a stand against the NVWA

Eigenvalues 3.14 2.47 2.15 1.97 1.88

Explained variance (%) 15.71 12.35 10.75 9.88 9.41

Principal components factoring with varimax rotation. Only loading >.40 are displayed. Due to space constraints in

table 1, full wording of items can be found in the participants section of this paper. # denotes cross loadings on

two factors.


15/26

15

Distributions of postures

Postures are applicable in the context of the Dutch smoking ban, applicable to bar owners.

But, how are these postures shared through bar owners? To address this question I followed

the approach of Braithwaite (2009). When bar owners have a higher score than the midpoint

of the rating scale (higher than 3) they endorse a posture. The results were presented in

figure 1.

The postures of commitment (53%) and resistance (55%) are common among bar owners.

Game playing is also an common posture of bar owners (41%). The postures capitulation and

disengagement are less common among bar owners. As you can see these percentages add

up to more than 198 percent. This is because people can hold multiple postures at one time.

Figure 1- Postures of bar owners (percentage)

To make the use of distributions of postures more practically useful I developed an

additional approach to calculate and present the distribution of motivational postures

among bar owners. In my approach, that I call dominant postures, each bar owner is

allocated to one posture. This allocation is based on the highest score on a motivational

posture. When a bar owner has a score of 4 on commitment and 3 on capitulation, then he is

classified as a commitment.5This approach makes it possible to show the relative

5Difference between two postures is 0,10 or more. In case of similar score no dominant posture is assigned.

41

25

55

25

53

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Game-playing

Disengagement

Resistance

Capitulation

Committment


16/26

16

importance of specific motivational postures and adds to the practical relevance and

usability of the posture model. The results of this analysis were presented in figure 2.

Figure 2

Dominant postures of bar owners (percentage)

In accordance with the previous analysis the postures capitulation (5 %) and disengagement

(5 %) are the least common postures of bar owners. But more interesting, this percentage is

much lower than one would expect, based on the previous analysis. Based on a total

percentage of almost 200 percent one would expect that the distribution for each posture

should be divided by two. This would be the case if the dominance of the postures is equally

distributed. For capitulation and disengagement one would expect both postures to be

endorsed by 12 percent of the bar owners. The reason for the much lower percentage is that

the dominance of the postures is actually not equally distributed. In this case, this means

that bar owners with scores higher than 3 on capitulation or disengagement (previous

analysis) often have a second posture with a higher score, the so-called dominant posture.

Almost one out of two bar owners has commitment as dominant posture. Conversely the

posture of commitment is more frequent endorsed by bar owners (47 percent) in

comparison with the expected percentage of 26 percent (53 divided by 2). When a bar

owner has a score higher than 3 on commitment, than most of the time its also the

20

5

23

5

47

0 10 20 30 40 50

Game-playing

Disengagement

Resistance

Capitulation

Committment


17/26


18/26

18

In accordance with the results of Braithwaite we see that commitment and capitulation

accompany perceptions that the inspection agency treated the bar owners respectfully

(r=.34 and r=.53) and that the smoking ban should not be abolished (r=-.69 en r=-.33). The

interviews were also illustrative and complementary at this point. A typical expression ofcommitment is the following reaction of a bar owner to a more comprehensive smoking ban:

Thats great!I hope the new legislation (1 July 2014) will bring more clarity and that

exceptions of the smoking ban are no longer allowed. Furthermore, I hope that everyone will

simply comply with the smoking ban.

Capitulation is more about avoiding problems with the regulator than supporting the

regulation. One of the bar owners said: I once kicked out the NVWA. I will never do that

again because after that, they came every week and that was a quite bad experience. Its

best policy to always cooperate with them!

The results for resistance, disengagement and game-playing are in the opposite direction.

Bar owners endorsing these postures wish to abolish the smoking ban. This definitely

concerns bar owners who can be classified as game players (r=.67). Resistance appears to be

directed at two elements of the regulation: the exception of the smoking ban and the

question who should be fined for violating the smoking ban. The first element of discontent

is for instance expressed as: The 70 square meters rule (legal exception of the smoking ban)

doesnt solve the problems. For example my neighboursbar is smaller than 70 square meters

and they are allowed to smoke, while we are not. There is totally no logic in this. I know there

is 70 centilitre in a bottle of wine, but why 70 square meters instead of 100, 120 or 200? The

second element of discontent can be formulated as: I think its awful that bar owners are

fined for violating the smoking ban! That would be the same as fining the railway company

when I smoke on a train. Its an inequality I experience as truly unpleasant.Furthermore

resistance is also expressed by a critical stance toward the way the regulator conducts its

inspections: When the NVWA treats you with respect, it makes no sense to fight them. But

when they dont introduce themselves as inspectors, I find it much more difficult to

cooperate. I think its quite rude.Disengagement is more about keeping out of contact with

the regulator instead of voicing discontent (resistance): I dont see any point in discussing

the smoking ban with the NVWA! In my view, as soon as this legislation is formally

introduced, it becomes the law.


19/26

19

The interviews indicated that game-playing sometimes is with the letter of the law (see

Ewick & Silby, 1998). For example one bar owner sacked his employees to fit the exception

of the smoking ban, based on the requirement of not having employees. Another example is

about bar owners who have decreased their floor space below the 70 square meters rule, forinstance by dividing a bar in two separate bars with two bar owners. However, most of the

time game playing is outside the law, game playing goes beyond the law. One striking

example is about bar owners allowing smoking after midnight: Most of the bar owners are

not particularly clever, but what they do know is when civil servants go home. Then they

think, the civil servant is sleeping; now I can put the ashtray back on the table. This happens

especially after midnight. Other methods to evade the inspections by the NVWA are using

flower vases as ashtrays and warning other bars when inspectors are on patrol.

Instrumental explanations

Economic impact is often been viewed as an important variable in the context of smoking

bans. Commitment and capitulation are related with a lower economic impact (r=-.34 and

r=-.27), while resistance (r=.28), disengagement (r=.15) and game playing (r=.40) are related

to a higher (or experienced) economic impact. For deterrence the same pattern follows.

Commitment and capitulation are characterized by a lower perceived chance getting caught

(r=-.43 and r=-.25) while resistance (r=.33), disengagement (r.=.16) en game playing (.40) are

related to a higher perceived chance of getting caught. In general, instrumental explanations

are the most important for game-playing (+) and commitment (-). The weakest relationship

between instrumental explanations and postures is found for disengagement. This is an

indication that disengagement may reflect a more principal dissatisfaction not only based on

costs and benefits or deterrence.

Table 7 - Characteristics of bar owners (instrumental variables)

Characteristic Commitment Capitulation Resistance Disengagement Game playing

Economic impact

(higher)

-.34 ** -.27 ** .28 ** .15 ** .40 **

Deterence

(higher)

-.43 ** -.25 ** .33 ** .16 ** .40 **

* p


20/26

20

Characteristics of bar owners

Commitment and capitulation are related to non-smoking of bar owners, while resistance,

disengagement and game-playing are significantly related to smoking of bar owners. The

education level of bar owners looks higher for commitment, while resistance and game

playing represent a lower education of bar owners.

Table 8 - Characteristics of bar owners (social demographic)

Characteristic Commitment Capitulation Resistance Disengagement Game playing

Smoking (no) .20 ** .14 ** -.18 ** -.19 ** -.31 **

Education (higher) .13 ** .07 -.15 ** -.05 -.16 **

Sex (female) .02 .04 -.05 -.05 -.10 *

age -.03 .05 .06 .05 .04

Pointing customers at smoking ban .47 ** .30 ** -.40 ** -.29 ** -.47 **

* p


21/26

21

The posture of disengagement is related to absence of a smoking room (r=.13). For the other

postures there is no significant relationship with the presence of absence of a smoking room

in the establishment. Two items about the smoking room are added to this analysis, based

on the legislation on this point. Smoking in a smoking room is permitted, but the door of thesmoking room has to be closed. Besides, it is not allowed for employers to serve drinks in the

smoking room, because of the protection of bar staff to the harmfulness of second-hand

smoke. Committed bar owners are more inclined to close (if they have a smoking room) their

smoking room (r=.21), while game players are more inclined to leave the door of the

smoking room open (r=-.27). The same picture is revealed for serving drinks in the smoking

room. Committed bar owners are more often inclined to disallow serving drinks in the

smoking room (r=.23), while game players are more inclined to serve drinks in the smoking

room (r=-.27).Size is also associated with postures.

Commitment and capitulation (r=.26 and r=.13) are related with a higher floor space (size),

while disengagement (r=-.18) and game playing (r=-.18) are associated with a lower floor

space and smaller establishments. The same pattern is even stronger when the number of

employees is used as indicator for size. Especially commitment (r=.35) is related to

establishments with more employers while game playing is related to smaller establishments

with less employers (r=.-.31).

POSTURES AND SELF-REPORTED COMPLIANCE

Based on the analysis thus far, it may be argued that postures are applicable both outside

Australia and in relation to the smoking ban. To test if the postures are actually related to

(non-) compliance two analyses are performed: correlation and a regression analysis. The

correlation analysis correspondents with the way postures have been analyzed in general.

This technique is quite weak in terms of causality. Therefore a more strict and elaborate

technique, regression analysis, also had been performed.6The advantage of this approach is

that it controls for rival explanations. This result supports the findings of other scholars.

6Structural equation models are even more elaborated to study causal relations, but for aims of this research

this had not been applied.


22/26


23/26

23

capitulation, is still related to the self-reported compliance of bar owners, indicating that bar

owners with a higher score on commitment show a higher self-reported compliance.

Resistance (=-.09; p


24/26

24

bar owners in this study is almost identical to the official levels of observed compliance7

(Intraval, 2012).8

CONCLUSION

The aim of this paper was to understand and to explain differences in (non-) compliance with

the smoking ban in Dutch bars. The results show that five relatively independent postures

can be distinguished for bar owners. Moreover, this study supports the claim that postures

reflect social distance, based on differing attitudes to abolishing the smoking ban and

perceived treatment by the NVWA.

This study supports the claim that postures are applicable to every context were a regulation

and regulator (or respective authority) are present. Furthermore, postures are related to

compliance, even when controlled for instrumental explanations and other important

background variables. Four out of five postures are related to (non-) compliance.

Commitment is related to a higher self-reported compliance and resistance, disengagement

and game playing are related to a lower self-reported compliance.

7

Observed compliance means in this case the presence of smoking in bars (yes or no).8In this study 64 % of the bar owners reported compliance,. Intraval (2012) observed 61% compliance with the

smoking ban in the Netherlands.


25/26

25

References

Bartel, R. & E. Barclay, Motivational postures and compliance with environmental law in

Australian agriculture,Journal of Rural studies2011-27(2), p. 153-170.

Braithwaite, V., J. Braithwaite, D. Gibson & T. Makkai, Regulatory styles, motivational

postures and nursing home compliance, Law & Policy1994-16(4), p. 363-394.

Braithwaite, V. (1995). Games of engagement: postures within the regulatory community,

Law & Policy, 17, 3, 225-255.

Braithwaite, V. (2003) Dancing with tax authorities: motivational postures and non-

compliantactions, in: V. Braithwaite (red.), Taxing democracy: Understanding tax avoidance

and evasion, Ashgate: Aldershot, 15-39.

Braithwaite, V., Murphy, K. & Reinhart, M. (2007) Threat, motivational postures and

responsive regulation, Special issue Law and Policy, 29, 1, 137-158.

Braithwaite, V. (2009). Defiance in taxation and governance: Resisting and dismissing

authority in a democracy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Braithwaite, V. (2011). Motivations, Attitudes, Perceptions and Skills: Pathways to Safe Work.

Canberra: Safe Work Australia.

Ewick, P. & Silby, S. (1998). The Common Place of Law: Stories of Everyday Life. Chicago:

Chicago University Press.

Gorini, G., Chellini, E. & Galeone, D. (2007). What happened in Italy? A brief summary of

studies conducted in Italy to evaluate the impact of the smoking ban.Annals of Oncology,

18, 1620-1622.

Hertogh, M.L.N., Winter, H.B., & Schudde, L.T. (2012). Een Factuurtje uit Leeuwarden: De

Invloed van Legitimiteit op het nalevings-en betalingsgedrag van CJIB-debiteuren.Groningen:

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.

Howell, F. (2005). Smoke-free bars in Ireland: a runaway success. Tobacco Control, 14, 73-74.

Intraval, & Nederlandse Voedsel en Waren Autoriteit (2010). Inventarisatie naleefniveau

rookvrije horeca najaar 2010.

Intraval, & Nederlandse Voedsel en Waren Autoriteit (2011). Inventarisatie

naleefniveaurookvrije horeca voorjaar 2011.


26/26

Intraval, & Nederlandse Voedsel en Waren Autoriteit (2012b). Inventarisatie

naleefniveaurookvrije horeca najaar 2012.

Kircher, E. & Wahl, K. (2010). Tax compliance inventory: TAX-I Voluntary tax compliance.

Enforced tax compliance, tax avoidance, and tax evasion.Journal of Economic Psychology, 31

(3), 331-346.

Lund, K.E. (2006). The introduction of smoke-free hospitality venues in Norway. Impact on

revenues, frequency of patronage, satisfaction and compliance. SIRUS series 1/2004, Oslo.

D J McBarnet, When compliance is not the solution but the problem: from changes in law to

changes in attitude in V Braithwaite (ed), Taxing Democracy: Understanding Tax Avoidance

and Evasion (Ashgate 2003)

Murphy, K. & Cherney, A. (2012). Understanding cooperation with police in a diverse society.

British Journal of Criminology, 52, 181-201. (Ashgate 2003)

Murphy, K., Tyler, T.R. & Curtis, A. (2009). Nurturing regulatory compliance: is procedural

justice effective when people question the legitimacy of law? Regulation and Governance,

2009, 3 (1), 1-26.

TNS NIPO (2009).Economische Effecten van het Rookverbod in de Horeca.Amsterdam: TNS

NIPO.

Tyler, T.R., Why People Obey the Law, New Haven; London: Yale University Press 1990.

Tyler, T. (2006). Why People Obey the Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Weyers, H.A.M. (2010). Smoking bans in the Netherlands: a mix of self-regulation and

regulation by government. Legisprudence: International Journal for the Study of Legislation,

4(3), 327-342.

commitment, resistance, disengagement and game-playing: understanding (non-) compliance with the...

Documents