Appendix 4: Which drivers are influenced by fine amounts?

1. Perception of the offence:

1. Perception of the offence
Driver Applies to… Relationship to fine amounts Rationale and key considerations
Cost-benefit analysis Decisions to:
  • Offend
  • Challenge
  • Re-offend
 Cost-benefit analysis includes three factors: Benefit of taking an action (e.g., committing offence/re-offence or challenging a fine) vs. cost (e.g., perceived certainty of being caught x severity of penalty, or time & effort spent on challenging a fine).For offending behaviour, the benefit is not influenced by the fine amount but the cost is. The severity of the penalty is directly linked to the fine amount: the higher the fine, the higher the severity. The perceived certainty is not influenced by the fine amount, but it can mediate the influence of the fine amount. Where individuals are making cost-benefit calculations (explicitly or implicitly) higher fines will reduce the likelihood of offending.When considering whether to challenge a fine, the cost-benefit analysis is slightly different. The benefit of challenging is influenced by the fine amount, not the cost. The gains of successfully challenging a fine will feel larger when facing a higher fine. A higher fine amount will push a cost-benefit analysis toward making a challenge.When considering whether to re-offend, the perceived costs of offending are likely to increase after being caught. An individual’s perception of being caught and the severity of the penalty will both be higher when reoffending. An increase in both of these factors will theoretically reduce the likelihood of reoffending. However, this has not been proven.
  • On offending decisions:
    • Rational Choice Theory (RCT) applied to the field of criminology views offending behaviour as the result of individual rational consideration of the expected benefits vs. costs of committing an offence (Note: RCT is severely limited in predicting offending behaviour. Offences committed by individuals (and those committed by organizations, although to a lesser extent) are rarely purely the product of a deliberative cost-benefit analysis).
    • Increased fine amounts increase the potential costs of committing the offence in relation to benefits, resulting in a lower level of offending – however, if individuals believe the benefits of offending are “worth” the costs they may incur, they will still offend (i.e., individuals may choose to incur the fine or “buy their way out of” offending, because it is worth it to them)
  • On challenging decisions:
    • When facing a larger fine, individuals will feel they have more to benefit by challenging – they will perceive the benefit of challenging a higher fine are larger than a lower fine because this will result in greater savings
    • The cost will not be influenced as individuals will likely need to put the same amount of effort in to challenge a fine, regardless of its size
  • On re-offending decisions:
Perceived harm and other moral beliefs Decisions to:
  • Offend
  • Challenge
  • Re-offend
 Higher fines can make an offence seem more immoral, severe or harmful. If an individual’s perception of the offence aligns with this assessment, they will be less likely to offend, challenge a fine, and re-offend.We recommend communicating the rationale behind higher fine amounts to help individuals understand the severity / harm of certain offences.
  • On offending decisions:
    • People are less likely to commit offences the more immoral or harmful they perceive them to be.
    • Higher fine amounts can signal that an offence is “morally wrong” or more harmful than an offence with a lower associated fine amount.
    • Jurisdictions including Canada already use the nature of an offence to determine fine amounts
  • On challenging decisions:
    • If an individual agrees with this “assessment” of moral harm, they will feel greater remorse or guilt and accept the fine amount. If an individual disagrees with this assessment, they may be more likely to challenge it.
  • On re-offending decisions:
    • In Canada and other jurisdictions, fine amounts generally increase for re-offences. These increases reinforce the “signal” that repeating this offence is “morally worse”, reducing the likelihood of a repeat offence. This is more likely to be impact against one-time offenders, not repeat offenders.
Perceived benefits Decisions to:
  • Offend
  • Challenge
  • Re-offend
 See “cost-benefit” analysis on previous slide. Fines should be higher where the economic benefits of the offence are greater to ensure that a cost-benefit analysis does not promote offending. However, it is important to remember that higher fines are more likely to be challenged.
  • Canada and other jurisdictions provide guidelines to issue higher fine amounts for offences with greater economic benefits.
Frequency of exposure Decisions to:
  • Offend
  • Re-offend
 While higher fines cannot influence how frequently people are in a position to commit a given offence, fine amounts will matter less where people have frequent opportunities to commit an offence (and will matter more where they have fewer opportunities). This applies more to one-time offenders and less to habitual or repeat offenders.
  • On offending decisions:
    • Increases in fine amounts may reduce individual’s likelihood to commit one-time offences as shown by a reduction in first-time offences
  • On re-offending decisions:

2. Perception of the punishment:

2. Perception of the punishment
Driver Applies to… Relationship to fine amounts Rationale and key considerations
Awareness Decisions to:
  • Offend
  • Challenge
  • Re-offend
 While higher fines cannot influence individuals’ awareness of the fine, fine amounts will be more impactful when people have more awareness about them. Greater awareness can result in lower offending or reoffending rates.When considering whether to challenge a fine, an individual who is caught by surprise will be more likely to challenge a fine, especially if it is large in size. Those who are aware of it, but choose to offend anyway, may be less likely to challenge the fine.We suggest making increases to fine amounts publicly salient in order to increase general awareness. To reduce re-offending, we also suggest communicating to offenders that fines will increase for subsequent offences when issuing them a fine the first time.
  • On offending decisions:
    • People in general have limited awareness of sanctions against offences
    • Once awareness increases, the actual influence of the higher fine amount will depend on how it is perceived in relation to other factors (e.g., perceived costs vs. perceived benefits, see cost-benefit analysis)
  • On challenging decisions: We have found no research on the relationship between awareness and challenging a fine
  • On reoffending decisions:
    • After individuals are caught, their awareness of a fine increases. If fine amounts increase for repeat offences, we hypothesize that individuals’ decision to reoffend will depend on their awareness of newer amounts
    • However, greater awareness does not always mean increased deterrence. Individuals who are aware of a penalty may perceive that their chances of being caught again are lower (see certainty of punishment).
Perceived fairness Decisions to:
  • Offend
  • Challenge
  • Re-offend
 Fines that are considered more fair will reduce offending/challenging/re-offending behaviour. However, whether a higher fine or lower fine is perceived to be fair/unfair is unclear in general. We hypothesize that in most cases, smaller fines will feel fairer, but not when the perception of moral harm is high.We also hypothesize that the more fair a fine is perceived to be, the less likely it is to be challenged.
  • On offending decisions:
    • The higher the perceived fairness of the legal system and the penalty, the stronger the intent to comply.
    • The Governments of Canada and Australia list fairness as a guiding principle when setting fine amounts.
  • On challenging decisions:
    • Negative emotional reactions to (traffic) penalties are stronger if the penalty is considered to be unfair, possibly increasing their desire to challenge it
  • On re-offending decisions:
Certainty of punishment Decisions to:
  • Offend
  • Re-offend
 See cost-benefit analysis. Fine amounts will not impact the perceived certainty of being caught. However, the more certain people think they are to be caught, the more impactful a higher fine amount will be.As a result, we would suggest that alongside fine level reviews, additional investments are made in increasing the perceived likelihood of being caught/fined.
  • On offending decisions:
    • Although the perceived likelihood of being “caught” has demonstrated high levels of deterrence in the literature, the relationship to higher fine amounts is less clear. The certainty of punishment is seen as more important than its severity (e.g., level of fine).
    • Higher fine amounts coupled with higher certainty can have a greater deterrent effect.
  • On re-offending decisions:
    • Mixed results on how being caught influences an individual’s perceived certainty of being caught again. While the actual certainty of being ticketed may increase among individuals with multiple violations, we also see that after being caught, individuals may perceive a lower likelihood of getting caught again. Relationship to fine amounts is less clear.
    • An increase in enforcement hours alongside increases in fine amounts shows a significant decline in reoffending.
Severity of punishment Decisions to:
  • Offend
  • Challenge
  • Re-offend
 See cost-benefit analysis. If people are aware of them, higher fines will increase the perceived severity of punishment. However, there is a nonlinear relationship between perceived severity and deterrence, with large increases in fines often associated with only a small decrease in offending.There is no evidence on the relationship between severity and challenging a fine. We hypothesize that larger fines will be more likely challenged (unless they are perceived as fair)The severity of fines when reoffending is higher than one-time offences. An increase in severity may reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
  • On offending decisions:
    • Theoretically, people are less likely to commit offences the more severe they perceive the punishment to be – these are the assumptions jurisdictions (e.g., UK) make when they propose increases in fine amounts
    • We see mixed results and a non-linear relationship (e.g., cannot say that a $200 fine has double the impact of a $100 fine). Much offending is not driven by rational cost-benefit analysis.
  • On re-offending decisions:
    • Some studies show a decrease in re-offences after fine amounts increase. The experience of paying a fine increases future compliance. This is greater when the fine amount is greater.
    • Others find no effect of fine severity on the likelihood of committing a further offence.
    • In some cases, repeat offenders may get used to higher fines as a result of exposure – the effects will be small and only temporary. This “desensitization” to fine amounts can influence an individual’s cost-benefit analysis for reoffending.
    • Across jurisdictions (e.g., Canada and Australia) fine amounts for re-offenders are greater.
Celerity of punishment Decisions to:
  • Offend
  • Re-offend
 Similar to the certainty factor, we hypothesize that the impact of fine amounts on offending or re-offending are mediated by the perceived celerity of punishment.As a result, we would suggest that alongside fine level reviews, additional investments are made in increasing the perceived celerity of punishment.
  • On offending decisions:
    • Imposing fines immediately after an offence can make the consequences more tangible and immediate than those that are distant in time. If an individual knows that a fine will be imposed immediately, the direct and immediate connection between the action and its consequence is clearer, making the potential cost of the action more salient.
    • We hypothesize that higher fine amounts coupled with higher celerity can have a greater deterrent effect. The immediate threat of a more severe consequence is likely to instill a stronger sense of risk, thereby discouraging the offence more effectively.
  • On re-offending decisions: Limited evidence.
Recency of previous punishment Decisions to:
  • Re-offend
 The recency of previous punishment will influence an individual’s likelihood of reoffending. Individuals are less likely to reoffend shortly after being penalized – this relationship will be stronger if the previous punishment was perceived as severe or more meaningful.
  • On re-offending decisions:
    • Individuals who have been recently convicted (e.g., within two months) are less likely to reoffend. This wears off by 3-4 months.

3. Environmental factors:

3. Environmental factors
Driver Applies to… Relationship to fine amounts Rationale and key considerations
Social judgment Decisions to:
  • Offend
  • Re-offend
 Higher fines may reduce offences by signaling that an offence is more immoral or harmful (see perceived harm and other moral beliefs), which may in turn increase the perceived social condemnation associated with it. This condemnation would likely increase with repeat offences (signaling that an individual regularly does not follow the rules, is a habitual offender)This relationship suggests that developing ways to communicate social judgment when setting fine amounts (e.g., publicly administered penalties) could be effective.
  • On offending decisions:
    • Stigma / loss of standing in a community can deter ‘undesirable behaviour’ just as much or more effectively than legal actions.
    • Higher fine amounts can increase social condemnation by signaling the seriousness of the offence – one study finds that observers tend to draw a more negative inference about an offender’s propensity for wrongdoing when legal penalties are higher (vs. when legal penalties are light)
    • In another study, the threat of publicly administered penalties resulted in greater compliance
  • On re-offending decisions: Limited evidence
Group identity Decisions to:
  • Offend
  • Challenge
  • Re-offend
 While higher fines cannot influence social norms associated with offending, fine amounts are more likely to be impactful when people belong to groups with ‘law abiding’ norms. If an individual belongs to a ‘law-breaking’ group, higher fine amounts may increase rates of offending. This would also apply when considering re-offending.When increasing fine amounts, we recommend taking a gradual approach to slowly shift social norms around compliance.When considering whether to challenge a fine, individuals’ likelihood of paying their fines is influenced by social norms. People’s understanding of how common or accepted it is to challenge a fine will significantly influence their behaviour to align with this understanding.We recommend sharing messaging about social norms to encourage fine payment (e.g., the majority of people pay their fines in a timely manner).
  • On offending/re-offending decisions:
    • Laws that are in strong conflict with prevailing social norms may backfire – individuals within a group are more likely to offend when group norms are in conflict with the law.
    • Higher fines have counteracting effects, reducing behaviour among groups of law-abiding individuals but increasing it among groups of ‘law-breakers’.
    • The gradual tightening of laws (or increase in penalties) can be more effective in influencing social norms and behavior.
  • On challenging decisions:
    • BIT research has shown that (descriptive) social norm messaging can increase payment rates for overdue tax, as well as likelihood of paying fines
  • Justice Canada notes the desire to use fine amounts to establish more positive social norms around regulatory compliance.

4. Individual factors:

4. Individual factors
Driver Applies to… Relationship to fine amounts Rationale and key considerations
Previous history Decisions to:
  • Offend
  • Challenge
  • Re-offend
 Higher fine amounts are more likely to be impactful among one-time offenders. Individuals with a history of offending are less likely to be influenced by higher fine amounts, and more likely to re-offend. Higher fine amounts will not influence the behaviour of repeat offenders without complementary measures that support the psychological// were fined forsocial drivers triggering reoffending behaviour.On decisions to challenge a fine, an individual’s previous experience with offending / challenging fines will influence their cost-benefit analysis of challenging in the future – i.e., if previous experiences with challenging fines have been costly, or not successful, an individual may be less likely to challenge in the future. This relationship is not influenced by higher fine amounts.We recommend exploring the use of complementary measures to implement along with fines that support social and psychological drivers that trigger re-offending.
Personality traits /
Personal values /
Demographic factors		 Decisions to:
  • Offend
  • Challenge
  • Re-offend
 N/A – Although the impact of fine amounts will be influenced by an individual’s personality traits (e.g., self-control, impulsivity, risk tolerance, etc.), personal values, and demographic factors, this relationship is unclear and highly varied across individuals. Fine amounts are unlikely to influence these factors.We recommend excluding personality traits, personal values, and demographic factors from consideration when setting fine amounts.
  • Limited evidence