Deterring Automobile Repair Fraud - A Field Experiment

• NCJ Number: 89242
• Author(s): P Jesilow; M J O'Brien
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 20 pages
• Grant Number(s): 79-NI-AX-0050
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ); US Dept of Justice NIJ Pub
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Presented at the American Sociological Association Meeting, August 1980, New York.

Annotation

This study presents preliminary results from a pre- and post-test examination of the deterrence effectiveness of intervention targeting automobile repair fraud.

Abstract

Women, who are more likely to be victims of repair fraud, were sent to randomly selected repair facilities in two matched California metropolitan areas. The women explained to the appropriate persons at the garages that they were preparing to move from the area and their cars would not start. The assumption in this contrived story was that a person leaving the area would be a particularly vulnerable target for fraud. The women further explained that they had brought their car batteries in for the shops to test. All of the batteries were known to be good, so the test of honesty involved whether or not the shops would recommend the purchase of a new battery. The experimental area was then subjected to an intervention involving (1) public service announcements about the existence of a State agency to which consumers could report questionable repair dealers, (2) the county district attorney's filing of a civil suit against a national firm for illegalities in their auto repair outlets, and (3) the Bureau of Automotive Repair's sending of a letter to repair dealers reminding them of their duties under the law and the consequences of violation. No intervention was conducted in the control area. All shops tested before the intervention were tested after the intervention. Additionally, a post-test-only group was battery-tested in each area. The pre-test 'honesty' rate (the percentage of shops that did not recommend a new battery) for the experimental group was 92.5 percent (n=67). For the control group, the rate was 94.1 percent (n=68). At the post-test, these groups had 'honesty' rates of 85.9 percent (n=64) and 85 percent (n=60) respectively. The 'honesty' rate for the post-test-only group in the experimental area was 91 percent (n=90), and the rate for the post-test-only group in the control area was 80.7 percent (n=88). The only chi square that was significant was the difference between the pre-test group's 'honesty' rate in the control area and the post-test-only group's 'honesty' rate in the control area. Forty-four references are provided.