Search

The mission of policing is “to protect and serve,” but recent events suggest that many Americans, and especially Black Americans, do not feel protected from the police. Understanding police-related fear is important because it may impact civilians’ health, daily lives, and policy attitudes. To examine the prevalence, sources, and consequences of both personal and altruistic fear of the police, we surveyed a nationwide sample (N = 1,150), which included comparable numbers of Black (N = 517) and White (N = 492) respondents. Most White respondents felt safe, but most Black respondents lived in fear of the police killing them and hurting their family members. About half of Black respondents preferred to be robbed or burglarized than to have unprovoked contact with officers. The racial divide in fear was mediated by past experiences with police mistreatment. In turn, fear mediated the effects of race and past mistreatment on support for police defunding and intentions to have “the talk” with family youths about the need to distrust and avoid officers. The deep American racial divide in police-related fear represents a racially disparate health crisis and a primary obstacle to law enforcement’s capacity to serve all communities equitably.

The gun ownership literature is vast, with dozens of studies seeking to explain who owns guns and why. We build on this literature in two key ways. First, we introduce a new variable into the fold: moral concern about harming others. We theorize that this concern actively inhibits gun ownership. Second, we direct theoretical and empirical attention to a predictor of gun ownership that has frequently been overlooked in the contemporary gun literature: childhood socialization. Using data from a national sample of 1,100 adults, we find that moral concerns about harm represent a barrier to gun ownership and limit the number of guns people own. By contrast, childhood socialization has the opposite effect. Furthermore, we find that childhood socialization is not only the strongest predictor of owning guns but also fully mediates the relationship between gender and gun ownership.

Research Summary: We administered a survey experiment to a national sample of 1068 U S adults in April 2020 to determine the factors that shape support for various policing tactics in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic Respondents were sharply divided in their views about pandemic policing tactics and were least supportive of policies that might limit public access to officers or reduce crime deterrence Information about the health risks to officers, but not to inmates, significantly increased support for “precautionary” policing, but not for “social distance” policing The information effect was modest, but may be larger if the information came from official sources and/or was communicated on multiple occasions Other factors that are associated with attitudes toward pandemic policing include perceptions of procedural justice, altruistic fear, racial resentment, and authoritarianism Policy Implications: When considered together with other evidence, one clear takeaway from our study is that the public values police patrols and wants officers on call, even during pandemics Another is that people who believe the police are procedurally just are more willing to trust officers in times of crisis and to empower them to enforce new laws, such as social distancing ordinances Our results thus support continued procedural justice training for officers A third takeaway is that agencies must proactively communicate with the public about the risks their officers face when responding to public health crises or natural disasters, in addition to how they propose to mitigate those risks They must also be amenable to adjusting in response to community feedback © 2021 American Society of Criminology

After years of decreasing public punitiveness and declining crime rates, politicians are seeking evidence-based crime policies to reduce mass incarceration without increasing crime. One such policy that has been implemented in several US cities is the Operation Peacemaker Fellowship (OPF), which incentivizes conformity and program participation by providing monetary stipends to individuals at risk of violent offending, thereby simultaneously reducing violence and incarceration. Yet, there is no evidence about public support for such policies. Using a nationally representative survey experiment, we examine public support for violence prevention stipends. We employ a referendum-style, contingent valuation design to measure the impact of tax increases versus tax savings on public opinion, and we randomize message framing that emphasizes the stipend program’s risky versus protective features. Both tax changes and risk framing matter. The public is willing to vote for stipends when they reduce taxes and are framed as a method to save lives. Most Republicans oppose stipends under all conditions. Reformers can increase public support for effective, nonpunitive policies that target violent offenders by emphasizing both their economic and social benefits. However, such policies are likely to face consistent opposition from certain portions of the public.

Body-worn cameras (BWC) have diffused rapidly throughout policing as a means of promoting transparency and accountability. Yet, whether to release BWC footage to the public remains largely up to th...

This study explores whether Americans’ punitiveness and perceptions of redeemability are shaped more by the type of crime committed or by judgements about an offender’s moral character. Guided by theories of neoliberalism, we focus on laziness as an indicator of flawed character that is independent of criminality. A sentencing vignette experiment administered to a national sample of the U.S. population tested the effects of crime type and a defendant’s employment status, work ethic, and race on respondents’ preferred punishment and perceptions of the defendant’s redeemability. Both crime type and work ethic significantly affect perceived (ir)redeemability and sentencing preferences, but the effects are not identical. Work ethic exerts the largest effect on perceived (ir)redeemability, whereas crime type most strongly influences sentencing preferences. We discuss the implications of our findings for act- vs. person-centered theories of punishment, as well as the role of laziness stigma in social responses to lawbreakers.

Fields closely related to empirical legal research (ELR) are enhancing their methods to improve the credibility of their findings. This includes making data, analysis codes and other materials openly available on digital repositories and preregistering studies. There are numerous benefits to these practices, such as research being easier to find and access through digital research methods. However, ELR appears to be lagging cognate fields. This may be partly due to a lack of field-specific meta-research and guidance. We sought to fill that gap by first evaluating credibility indicators in ELR, including a review of guidelines for legal journals. This review finds considerable room for improvement in how law journals regulate ELR. The remainder of the article provides practical guidance for the field. We start with general recommendations for empirical legal researchers and then turn to recommendations aimed at three commonly used empirical legal methods: content analyses of judicial decisions, surveys and qualitative studies. We end with suggestions for journals and law schools.

Objectives. Questionable research practices (QRPs) lead to incorrect research results and contribute to irreproducibility in science. Researchers and institutions have proposed open science practices (OSPs) to improve the detectability of QRPs and the credibility of science. We examine the prevalence of QRPs and OSPs in criminology, and researchers’ opinions of those practices.Methods. We administered an anonymous survey to authors of articles published in criminology journals. Respondents self-reported their own use of 10 QRPs and 5 OSPs. They also estimated the prevalence of use by others, and reported their attitudes toward the practices. Results. QRPs and OSPs are both common in quantitative criminology, about as common as they are in other fields. Criminologists who responded to our survey support using QRPs in some circumstances, but are even more supportive of using OSPs. We did not detect a significant relationship between methodological training and either QRP or OSP use. Support for QRPs is negatively and significantly associated with support for OSPs. Perceived prevalence estimates for some practices resembled a uniform distribution, suggesting criminologists have little knowledge of the proportion of researchers that engage in certain questionable practices.Conclusions. Most quantitative criminologists in our sample use QRPs, and many use multiple QRPs. The substantial prevalence of QRPs raises questions about the validity and reproducibility of published criminological research. We found promising levels of OSP use, albeit at levels lagging what researchers endorse. The findings thus suggest that additional reforms are needed to decrease QRP use and increase the use of OSPs.

Objectives: This experiment addressed whether, when administering a survey to police managers, it is best to measure organizational justice using attitudinal questions tapping into perceived importance or behavioral self-reports. Methods: We administered a survey to a national probability sample of police executives using a split-ballot experimental design, where respondents randomly received items measuring either (a) the perceived importance of organizational justice or (b) the self-reported usage of organizational justice. Results: Perceived importance of organizational justice was not significantly associated with the perceived quality of relationships with subordinates. However, actual usage of organizational justice was, increasing the perceived quality of relationships (b = .554, p < .001). Conclusions: Our results suggest that: 1) the measurement of organizational justice matters, and 2) mangers who believe organizational justice is important still sometimes fail to use it. Future research should measure the concept using behavioral reports and should seek to explain this importance-usage gap.

People overestimate the risk of some events, such as terrorist attacks and immigrant crimes, but not of others. Stereotype amplification theory indicates that politicized, out-group stereotypes may be to blame. We examine Americans’ perceptions of the risk that different forms of violence—out-group, in-group and non-racialized—will occur in their local communities. We hypothesize that negative stereotypes of immigrants and Muslims will increase the perceived risk of out-group violence but not of other forms of violence. Analyses of original survey data from a sample of 1,068 Americans reveal four findings: (1) most Americans accurately perceive home-grown violence to be more likely than violence by foreigners, (2) political identification and ideology strongly predict out-group stereotypes, (3) out-group stereotypes strongly predict the perceived risk of out-group violence but are not significantly associated with risk perceptions for other forms of violence and (4) vulnerability factors predict risk perceptions for all forms of violence.

PURPOSE: Despite the growing popularity of online opt-in samples in criminology, recent work shows that resultant findings often do not generalize. Not all opt-in samples are alike, however, and matching may improve data quality. Replicating and extending prior work, we compare the generalizability of relational inferences from unmatched and matched opt-in samples. METHODS: Estimating identical models for four criminal justice outcomes, we compare multivariate regression results from national matched (YouGov) and unmatched (MTurk) opt-in samples to those from the General Social Survey (GSS). RESULTS: YouGov coefficients are almost always in the same direction as GSS coefficients, especially when statistically significant, and are mostly of a similar magnitude; less than 10% of the YouGov and GSS coefficients differ significantly. By contrast, MTurk coefficients are more likely to be in the wrong direction, more likely to be much larger or smaller, and are over twice as likely to differ significantly from GSS coefficients. CONCLUSIONS: Matched opt-in samples provide a relatively inexpensive data source for criminal justice researchers, compared to probability samples, and also appear to carry a smaller generalizability penalty than unmatched samples. Our study suggests relational inferences from matched opt-in samples are more likely to generalize than those from unmatched samples.

Purpose:Over the past several months, the coronavirus has infected more than six million Americans and killed nearly 200,000. Governors have issued stay-at-home orders, and prosecutors have filed criminal charges against individuals for defying those orders. And yet many Americans have still refused to keep their distance from their fellow citizens, even if they had symptoms of infection. The authors explore the underlying causes for those who intend to defy these norms.Methods:Using national-level data from a March 2020 survey of 989 Americans, the authors explore intentions to defy social distancing norms by testing an interactionist theory of foundation-based moral behavior in combination with faith in President Trump during the coronavirus pandemic. The analysis controls for a range of variables, including measures of low self-control and deterrence.Results:Low self-control is the strongest predictor of defiance intentions. Consistent with interactionist theory, defiance intentions are significantly higher for those holding specific faith in Trump and those endorsing binding foundations. Furthermore, the interaction of these two variables is significant and in the predicted direction. The results hold for two different measures of faith in Trump.Conclusions:Even with a strong effect for low self-control, faith in President Trump is a strong predictor of refusal to social-distance, and its effect is largest among individuals high in binding foundations.

Rational choice theory in criminology is based on a model of decision-making, expected utility theory (EUT), that research in psychology and economics has shown to be descriptively inaccurate for many types of human decisions. Because of its ability to account for intuitive reasoning and anomalies in crime decisions, prospect theory (PT) may be a viable alternative to EUT for explaining criminal choices. The present study tests several hypotheses derived from PT about the effects of framing, reference dependence, and decision weights in crime decisions. We present findings from a series of survey-based experiments conducted with three different samples. The results support our hypotheses derived from EUT, but not those from PT. We find that although initial wealth, criminal benefits, and arrest risk impact offender decision-making, sanction-cost frames and gains/losses from monetary reference points have little if any effect. We discuss the implications of our findings and directions for future research.

Data fraud and selective reporting both present serious threats to the credibility of science. However, there remains considerable disagreement among scientists about how best to sanction data fraud, and about the ethicality of selective reporting. The public is arguably the largest stakeholder in the reproducibility of science; research is primarily paid for with public funds, and flawed science threatens the public's welfare. Members of the public are able to make meaningful judgments about the morality of different behaviors using moral intuitions. Legal scholars emphasize that to maintain legitimacy, social control policies must be developed with some consideration given to the public's moral intuitions. Although there is a large literature on popular attitudes toward science, there is no existing evidence about public opinion on data fraud or selective reporting. We conducted two studies-a survey experiment with a nationwide convenience sample (N = 821), and a follow-up survey with a representative sample of US adults (N = 964)-to explore community members' judgments about the morality of data fraud and selective reporting in science. The findings show that community members make a moral distinction between data fraud and selective reporting, but overwhelmingly judge both behaviors to be immoral and deserving of punishment. Community members believe that scientists who commit data fraud or selective reporting should be fired and banned from receiving funding. For data fraud, most Americans support criminal penalties. Results from an ordered logistic regression analysis reveal few demographic and no significant partisan differences in punitiveness toward data fraud.

Drawing on prior theoretical and empirical work on survey participation, this study develops one potential method for increasing response rates and response quality in correctional surveys. Specifically, we hypothesize that providing inmates with a superficial survey choice (SSC)—that is, a choice between completing either of two voluntary surveys that are actually differently ordered versions of the same questionnaire—will increase their motivation both to participate in a given survey and to respond thoughtfully to the questions asked therein. We test the effectiveness of this method by evaluating its impact on unit nonresponse, item nonresponse, and answer reliability. To do this, we analyze experimental data from a recent survey of male inmates incarcerated in a medium security, private prison. Findings indicate that the overall response rate is higher among inmates who are provided a survey choice. In addition, the evidence shows that the SSC method increases the percentage of individual items completed, the number of demanding questions completed, and the reliability of reported responses. The results from the analyses are consistent with the hypotheses that motivated this study and suggest that the SSC method holds promise as a tool for correctional researchers.