- Email: [email protected]
Rethinking what? A comment on Williams's “deterrence and social control: Rethinking the relationship”
Journal of Cri,mnu/ Jusrrce. Vol. 13. pp.l53-154 Pergamon Press. Printed m U.S.A
RETHINKING “DETERRENCE
W47-2352/X5 $3 IHI + .(Wl Copyright c IYXS Pcrgamon Press Ltd.
(1985)
WHAT? A COMMENT ON WILLIAMS’S AND SOCIAL CONTROL: RETHINKING THE RELATIONSHIP”
WELDON T. JOHNSON
Departments of Criminal Justice and Sociology University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago, Illinois 60680
ROBERT F. MEIER Department of Sociology Washington State University Pullman. Washington 99164
Neither much time nor space is justified except to say this: First, the editors of the Journal ofcriminal Jusrice are to be congratulated for doing something that is rare among social and behavorial science journals today-deciding to devote publication space to a replication, especially a replication that produced findings that are consistent with the original study. Second, and despite the above, we are disappointed that the decision to publish this replication settled for so much replication-to the point of repetition. It is reasonable to expect any replication to at least take the area of inquiry one step beyond prior points. Williams’s article does not do that in either the conceptual or methodological areas that the Meier-Johnson (1977) study addressed seven years ago. That original study represents. we think, a
novel break with previous studies on deterrence, and the present article does not improve upon that work with useful conceptual or measurement contributions. Third, this comment is not intended to minimize Williams’s concern with the analytic problems associated with the statistical treatment of missing data. On this point. we think that the Meier-Johnson analysis was not as sophisticated as it should have been, although this is by no means the most important statistical problem with the Meier-Johnson analysis.’ With respect to the treatment of missing data, the MeierJohnson paper is not entirely clear about what procedure (replacement-with-means) was actually used. At the same time, the adequacy of the alleged “correction” in the present study is not clear, in light of that study’s inability to avoid the same analytic problem we encountered. It simply makes
153
154
WELDON
T. JOHNSON
no sense to ask present users why they are loot users! The author of the present study claims that “analysis of the trichotomous dependent variable necessitated the deletion of four of the independent variables (legal threat, significant-other presssure, phySica fears of marijuana. feeling that use is immoral)” (p. 146). Clearly, we sympathize with the problem; it was our problem as well. It is a logical problem posed by this approach, and one that does not have a statistical solution. At the same time, the analytic problems posed by missing data, including the results of the alternative procedures designed to address them, are important. Fourth, the present study’s stated rationale for the decision to replicate the MeierJohnson model with a “general-population. Texas sample” is amusing in terms of the apparent seriousness with which it is defended. It is perhaps sufficient to say that Meier and Johnson had a “theoretical rationale” for selecting sample areas-Cook County, Illinois; Washington, D.C.; and Omaha, Nebraska-three jurisdictions that differed with respect to penalty provisions for marijuana convictions.’ The data pertaining to Cook County were reported in Meier-Johnson (1977), and the data from the other two jurisdictions were reported subsequently, in an article published two years ago (Meier, 1982). In that later report, the same general patterns were found (i.e..
and ROBERT
F. MEIER
extralegal controls \vere more important than legal controls). although the wlrrtit*c importance of legal factors \,aried across the jurisdictions (legal controls were more important in the ,jurisdiction v.ith rhe leastsevere legal penalty for marijuana-possession convictions). Still. the idea of a Texan replication has a romantic appeal. Finally. although we welcome the opportunity to respond. we do not want to suggest by this rejoinder that the article under discussion here advances our understanding of social-control processes beyond our admittedly preliminary effort in lY77. But the readers may decide this matter for themincluding whether the article reselves. thinks anything.
NOTES ’ The most Important analytic problem is the use ot ordinary least-square repression techniques with a dependent variable on which the ampic is wry skewed. In such situations. the upper and Iowcr limits of the correlatwn coefficient are prohahly less than plus and minus one. ’ See note
IO in Mexr
and Johnson.
IY77.
REFERENCES Meier. R. F. and Johnson. W. T. ( lY77). Deterrence as social control: The legal and cxtrnlegul production of conformity. Aln Socrol Rn, 42: 2Y2-30-t. Meier. R. F. (IYX?). Jurisdictional differences in deterring martjuana use. J Drug /.s.stres. 12: 61-71.
RETHINKING “DETERRENCE
W47-2352/X5 $3 IHI + .(Wl Copyright c IYXS Pcrgamon Press Ltd.
(1985)
WHAT? A COMMENT ON WILLIAMS’S AND SOCIAL CONTROL: RETHINKING THE RELATIONSHIP”
WELDON T. JOHNSON
Departments of Criminal Justice and Sociology University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago, Illinois 60680
ROBERT F. MEIER Department of Sociology Washington State University Pullman. Washington 99164
Neither much time nor space is justified except to say this: First, the editors of the Journal ofcriminal Jusrice are to be congratulated for doing something that is rare among social and behavorial science journals today-deciding to devote publication space to a replication, especially a replication that produced findings that are consistent with the original study. Second, and despite the above, we are disappointed that the decision to publish this replication settled for so much replication-to the point of repetition. It is reasonable to expect any replication to at least take the area of inquiry one step beyond prior points. Williams’s article does not do that in either the conceptual or methodological areas that the Meier-Johnson (1977) study addressed seven years ago. That original study represents. we think, a
novel break with previous studies on deterrence, and the present article does not improve upon that work with useful conceptual or measurement contributions. Third, this comment is not intended to minimize Williams’s concern with the analytic problems associated with the statistical treatment of missing data. On this point. we think that the Meier-Johnson analysis was not as sophisticated as it should have been, although this is by no means the most important statistical problem with the Meier-Johnson analysis.’ With respect to the treatment of missing data, the MeierJohnson paper is not entirely clear about what procedure (replacement-with-means) was actually used. At the same time, the adequacy of the alleged “correction” in the present study is not clear, in light of that study’s inability to avoid the same analytic problem we encountered. It simply makes
153
154
WELDON
T. JOHNSON
no sense to ask present users why they are loot users! The author of the present study claims that “analysis of the trichotomous dependent variable necessitated the deletion of four of the independent variables (legal threat, significant-other presssure, phySica fears of marijuana. feeling that use is immoral)” (p. 146). Clearly, we sympathize with the problem; it was our problem as well. It is a logical problem posed by this approach, and one that does not have a statistical solution. At the same time, the analytic problems posed by missing data, including the results of the alternative procedures designed to address them, are important. Fourth, the present study’s stated rationale for the decision to replicate the MeierJohnson model with a “general-population. Texas sample” is amusing in terms of the apparent seriousness with which it is defended. It is perhaps sufficient to say that Meier and Johnson had a “theoretical rationale” for selecting sample areas-Cook County, Illinois; Washington, D.C.; and Omaha, Nebraska-three jurisdictions that differed with respect to penalty provisions for marijuana convictions.’ The data pertaining to Cook County were reported in Meier-Johnson (1977), and the data from the other two jurisdictions were reported subsequently, in an article published two years ago (Meier, 1982). In that later report, the same general patterns were found (i.e..
and ROBERT
F. MEIER
extralegal controls \vere more important than legal controls). although the wlrrtit*c importance of legal factors \,aried across the jurisdictions (legal controls were more important in the ,jurisdiction v.ith rhe leastsevere legal penalty for marijuana-possession convictions). Still. the idea of a Texan replication has a romantic appeal. Finally. although we welcome the opportunity to respond. we do not want to suggest by this rejoinder that the article under discussion here advances our understanding of social-control processes beyond our admittedly preliminary effort in lY77. But the readers may decide this matter for themincluding whether the article reselves. thinks anything.
NOTES ’ The most Important analytic problem is the use ot ordinary least-square repression techniques with a dependent variable on which the ampic is wry skewed. In such situations. the upper and Iowcr limits of the correlatwn coefficient are prohahly less than plus and minus one. ’ See note
IO in Mexr
and Johnson.
IY77.
REFERENCES Meier. R. F. and Johnson. W. T. ( lY77). Deterrence as social control: The legal and cxtrnlegul production of conformity. Aln Socrol Rn, 42: 2Y2-30-t. Meier. R. F. (IYX?). Jurisdictional differences in deterring martjuana use. J Drug /.s.stres. 12: 61-71.