Professional Documents
Culture Documents
http://cad.sagepub.com
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Crime & Delinquency can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://cad.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/54/3/457
An Attitudinal Explanation
of Biases in the Criminal
Justice System
457
Downloaded from http://cad.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009
458
Shavers DAT
Because people want to live in coherent and predictable social worlds
(Allport, 1954), one of the hardest things to understand in life is the occurrence
459
460
the degree of perceived similarity between the stimulus victim and the
observer (Shaver, 1970; Thornton, 1992). In line with the tenets of social
identity theory (Tajfel, 1981, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and its more
recent elaboration, self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes,
Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), DAT formulates two attributional possibilities. On one hand, the more the observers perceive victims as similar to
themselves, the less likely are they to attribute blame for the incident to the
latter; this has been termed judgmental leniency or in-group favoritism
(Tajfel, 1981, 1982; Turner et al., 1987). Observers activate this defensive
blame avoidance bias because they wish to avoid being potentially blamed,
just as they do not blame similar victims, if a similar incident happens to
them. On the other hand, if personal similarity to the victim is perceived to
be low, greater blame will be attributed to the victim (out-group prejudice;
Tajfel, 1981, 1982; Turner et al., 1987; for DAT, see Bell et al., 1994;
Dexter et al., 1997; Elkins et al., 2002; Kouabenan et al., 2001; Locke &
Richman, 1999; Shaver, 1970)1.
Although theoretically this effect of personal similarity may occur with
diverse personal characteristics, it has been demonstrated consistently for
gender similarity (Arce, Farina, & Sobral, 1996; Baldwin & Kleinke, 1994;
Bell et al., 1994; Dexter et al., 1997; Elkins et al., 2002; Kouabenan et al.,
2001). Because women are more likely than men to become future victims
of certain criminal acts, such as wife abuse and rape, female observers are
more likely to feel more positively toward female victims, and consequently to perceive such criminal acts as significantly more serious, than
men. The latter, seeing themselves as dissimilar to female victims, are more
likely to perceive these acts less seriously. In addition, women have also
been found to assign more responsibility to male victims than to female
victims (Bell et al., 1994; Dexter et al., 1997; Feather, 1996; Locke &
Richman, 1999).
461
462
Hypotheses
Based on DATs tenets, the hypotheses of this study were the following:
Hypothesis 1: Observers will be significantly more likely to judge more seriously and
to choose more severe punishments for crime scenarios representing victims personally similar (to themselves) who are victimized by dissimilar offenders than scenarios
representing other combinations of both (dis)similar offenders and victims.
Hypothesis 2: Unlike the preceding hypothesis, contrary scenarios (representing dissimilar victims and similar offenders) will be considered significantly less serious, and
significantly less serious punishments will be chosen for the offenders in them, than
scenarios representing other combinations of (dis)similar offenders and victims.
Hypothesis 3: Consistent with the aforementioned studies and with their corresponding hypotheses, among the personally similar characteristics of observers,
offenders, and victims, gender similarity will exercise a significant effect on
observers reactions to both male and female offending and victimization. In this
regard, it is hypothesized that female observers will be significantly more likely to
judge more seriously and to choose more severe punishments for crime scenarios
that describe female victims who are similar to the observers, and who have been
victimized by male offenders, than scenarios that describe other combinations of
both (dis)similar offenders and victims. On the other hand, scenarios that involve
male victims and female offenders are expected to be judged as less serious, and to
yield significantly less serious punishments, than scenarios that involve other combinations of (dis)similar offenders and victims.
463
Method
The present study was conducted in Israel. This choice was deemed
appropriate for two main reasons: (a) Few studies on social attitudes to
criminal offenses and biased judicial practices have been conducted outside
North America. Interestingly, the findings of the few studies of these issues
conducted in Israel (Herzog, 2003) are similar to those previously cited. (b)
Although some social characteristics of the observers, offenders, and victims are not specific to Israel (gender, age, education, income), other characteristics that have traditionally been underrepresented and even ignored
in other samples from Western countries are well represented in this population, for example, a Jewish majority (77%), and an Arab (mostly Muslim)
minority. Moreover, the countrys small population facilitates the collection
of a national sample accurately representing the various social and cultural
groups that form the public.
Theoretically, because legal biases involve concrete decisions made by
official criminal judicial agents, the latter would constitute the preferred
population on which to test the effect of DATs personal dissimilarity
or similarity between offenders, victims, and independent observers.
However, the necessary formal permission from the Israeli judicial system
could not be obtained to solicit participants who were criminal judicial
agents. Therefore, these relationships were tested among the general public.
Note that police officers, prosecutors, and judges represent distinct subsets
of the Israeli adult population, with unique legal education, experience, and
on-the-job training. Yet several studies have shown close agreement (i.e.,
consensus) in attitudes between the public at large and different types of
judicial practitioners on various criminological issues (Corbett & Simon,
1991; Landsman & Rakos, 1994; Levi & Jones, 1985; McCleary, ONeil,
Epperlein, Jones, & Gray, 1981; Sellin & Wolfgang, 1964). Accordingly,
we expected our assertion that attitudes to offenders would be influenced
by the perceived similarity between them and criminal justice practitioners
to be valid for contexts other than the legal system as well. Moreover, these
defensive attribution processes are assumed to be universal, not restricted
to members of a particular profession; they are believed to stem from
peoples socialization within their culture and not reserved to members of
a particular profession. It thus would seem appropriate to start with an
investigation of perceptions among the general population. In this regard,
this study may also help us to understand potential and actual jurors
decisions.
464
Dependent Variables
Respondents were asked to judge each scenario appearing in his or her
questionnaire subjectively on two levels: by evaluating its perceived seriousness (on a Likert-type scale from 1 = not serious at all to 11 = very serious; Herzog, 2003; OConnell & Whelan, 1996) and by determining the
465
most appropriate punishment for it (by choosing one option from death
sentence, life imprisonment, a certain number of years in prison, and
other less serious punishments; see the appendix). The seriousness scores
and punishment options assigned to the scenarios constituted the dependent
variables of the research. Note that research has consistently reported a
high correspondence between subjective evaluations of seriousness and of
appropriate sentence severity: Higher evaluations of seriousness usually
yield more severe punishments recommended for the offenders (OConnell
& Whelan, 1996).
Because the punishment variable involves both numerical (years of
imprisonment) and categorical values (death sentence, life imprisonment, other less serious punishment), for ease of understanding, analysis, and presentation, these latter values were recoded using years of
imprisonment as the common measuring unit; similar to the seriousness
variable, the punishment variable was transformed into an interval scale.
The other less serious punishment option (the least serious category) was
scored as the lowest suggested number of years of imprisonment (0.08
years); the death sentence and life imprisonment (the most serious categories) were scored just higher than the highest suggested number of years
of imprisonment (65 and 60 years, respectively. This choice was made arbitrarily: The rationale was to provide these options with numerical values
representing severe punishments).6
466
and a complete scenario was formed (for details of all the variables and
values used in this study, and included in the evaluated scenarios, and some
sample scenarios, see the appendix). For example, within a hypothetical crime
scenario, chosen randomly from a variety of possible offenses, the offenders
and victims personal characteristics, such as their gender (male or female),
ethnicity (Jewish or Arab), and age (25 or 50 years old), were chosen randomly. Across the study, the scenarios represent a random sample of all possible scenarios (the research population), employing all possible values of the
selected variables. Although (statistically) two identical scenarios might be
evaluated by different respondents, each evaluated scenario has a high probability of being unique because of the large number of stimulus combinations.7
Because of their complete randomization, a scenarios variables cannot
covary with either the respondents personal (demographic) characteristics or
with themselves. Rossi and Anderson (1982) note that by permitting multiple
variables of a crime scenario to vary randomly across scenarios, and by controlling the respondents personal characteristics, this technique allows the
simultaneous exploration of the effects of several independent and control
variables, while still providing unbiased estimates of each variables contribution to the respondents overall judgment (Rossi et al., 1985).
This advantage seems to be decisive, particularly in a study like this one.
Some variables related to the scenarios, such as some personal characteristics of offenders and victims, were expected to have a considerable influence
on respondents attitudes to them. As formulated in the third hypothesis, it
was also expected that such relationships would vary considerably by social
group and especially by gender.
467
Data Analysis
Tables 1 and 2 respectively present the means and standard deviations
of the (dependent) variables seriousness and punishment apportioned
by the respondents in the whole sample to each of the several conditions of
the three independent variablesdissimilarity or similarity in gender, ethnicity, and ageregarding offenders and victims, as randomly expressed in
the crime scenarios, and regarding the respondents themselves. The statistical significance for several comparisons between the different conditions
(36 independent t tests) is also included in the tables. For ease of understanding, and because of the large number of statistical tests conducted, the
summary statistics are not reported, but only the existence of significant differences across rows and columns.
The influence of the respondents, offenders, and victims personal dissimilarity or similarity (independent variables) on the seriousness scores
and punishment options (dependent variables) apportioned to the crime scenarios was also analyzed. Two multivariate OLS regression models were
used, with account taken of all the scenario variables, respondents personal
characteristics, and the relationships between the independent variables.
468
Table 1
Comparison of the Mean Rating (and Standard Deviations) of the
Seriousness Scores for All the Crime Scenarios, by the Respondents,
Offenders, and Victims Gender, Ethnicity, and Age
for the Whole Sample of Respondents
Comparison by Gender
Personal Similarity
Kind of Respondent
Kind of Offender
Kind of Victim
Similar
victim
Dissimilar
victim
Total
Female Respondents
Male Respondents
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
8.67
(2.58)
8.61
(2.27)
8.64
(2.52)
9.78*
(1.95)
8.86*
(2.48)
9.48*
(2.27)
9.50
(2.18)
8.76*
(2.57)
9.16
(2.39)
8.61
(2.61)
9.50*
(2.06)
9.19
(2.31)
8.65
(2.54)
8.36*
(2.49)
8.55*
(2.53)
8.63
(2.57)
9.19*
(2.25)
8.93*
(2.42)
*p < .05.
Comparison by Ethnicity
Personal Similarity
Kind of Respondent
Kind of Offender
Kind of Victim
Similar
victim
Dissimilar
victim
Total
Jewish Respondents
Arab Respondents
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
8.94
(2.33)
8.70
(2.50)
8.82
(2.21)
9.35*
(2.18)
9.25*
(2.39)
9.31*
(2.38)
9.14
(2.34)
9.04
(2.34)
9.09
(2.29)
8.42
(2.28)
6.52*
(3.62)
7.49
(3.25)
9.32*
(2.28)
8.45*
(2.49)
8.91*
(2.41)
8.89
(2.25)
7.51*
(3.19)
8.19*
(2.78)
*p < .05.
Comparison by Age
Personal Similarity
Kind of Respondent
Kind of Offender
Kind of Victim
Similar
Victim
Dissimilar
Victim
Total
Younger Respondents
Mature Respondents
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
9.03
(2.44)
8.54*
(2.63)
8.82
(2.43)
9.00
(2.22)
8.88
(2.41)
8.94
(2.37)
9.01
(2.37)
8.67*
(2.40)
8.86
(2.36)
9.10
(2.54)
8.33*
(2.88)
8.76
(2.64)
9.35
(2.41)
8.95*
(2.74)
9.15*
(2.51)
9.19
(2.57)
8.60*
(2.53)
8.94
(2.48)
*p < .05.
Downloaded from http://cad.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009
469
Table 2
Comparison of the Mean Rating (and Standard Deviation) of the
Punishment Options for the Crime Scenarios, by the Respondents,
Offenders and Victims Gender, Ethnicity and Age,
for the Whole Sample of Respondents
Comparison by Gender
Personal Similarity
Kind of Respondent
Kind of Offender
Kind of Victim
Similar
victim
Dissimilar
victim
Total
Female Respondents
Male Respondents
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
12.78
(20.81)
10.84
(21.21)
12.47
(21.07)
21.67*
(24.23)
13.24*
(20.07)
18.97
(23.21)
19.42
(23.72)
12.58*
(20.73)
15.77
(22.60)
13.42
(20.36)
18.83*
(22.98)
15.93
(22.23)
13.64
(20.90)
10.25*
(18.84)
11.94*
(20.26)
13.54
(20.66)
14.50*
(22.26)
12.11*
(21.56)
*p < .05.
Comparison by Ethnicity
Personal Similarity
Kind of Respondent
Jewish Respondents
Arab Respondents
Kind of Offender
Kind of Victim
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
Similar
victim
Dissimilar
victim
Total
15.65
(24.62)
10.98*
(18.04)
13.74
(22.15)
20.04*
(24.44)
14.46*
(20.54)
17.82*
(23.15)
17.63
(23.26)
12.69*
(22.03)
15.61
(22.55)
7.49
(13.42)
5.63*
(9.35)
6.66
(20.54)
20.37*
(24.41)
13.68*
(20.80)
16.68*
(17.75)
14.28
(19.49)
10.33
(19.71)
12.29*
(20.02)
*p < .05.
Comparison by Age
Personal Similarity
Kind of Respondent
Younger Respondents
Mature Respondents
Kind of Offender
Kind of Victim
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
Similar
victim
Dissimilar
victim
Total
20.92
(25.29)
13.36*
(20.69)
17.03
(23.31)
15.03*
(21.42)
16.88*
(22.60)
16.76
(22.56)
17.70
(23.47)
14.27*
(20.99)
16.26
(22.47)
15.29
(20.77)
10.83*
(18.03)
13.46
(21.21)
20.19*
(24.62)
14.16*
(20.78)
17.13*
(22.27)
18.16
(19.79)
12.12*
(22.78)
15.57
(21.61)
*p < .05.
Downloaded from http://cad.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009
470
Results
From Table 1, we learn first that regardless of the personal similarity
between observers, offenders, and victims, male and Arab observers
awarded all the evaluated scenarios significantly lower seriousness scores
than female and Jewish respondents; no such significant difference was
found in the comparison between younger and mature adult respondents.
Second, the observers mostly gave relatively higher seriousness scores
to crime scenarios depicting an offender personally dissimilar, or a victim
personally similar, to themselves than they gave to scenarios depicting a
similar offender or a dissimilar victim. Except for the case of young respondents, these differences reached statistical significance in the other conditions. In the exceptional case of male respondents, these significant
differences were reversed in their direction. Third, concerning the specific
research hypotheses, Table 1 shows that in most research conditions, the
significantly highest seriousness means (and the relatively smallest standard deviations) were obtained from scenarios with an offender dissimilar
and a victim similar to the observers, whereas the significantly lowest
means were usually obtained from the opposite scenarios. Note that this
significant gap in seriousness scores was most evident for Arab respondents. Again, this trend was reversed in the case of male respondents. Note
that because of the high number of t tests conducted in this and the next
table, some significant effects were perhaps because of chance.
Similar trends to those described for the seriousness (first dependent)
variable in the three levels of analyses (Table 1) were found for the punishment (second dependent) variable chosen by the respondents for the various crime scenarios. This pattern is expected, considering that the correlation
471
Table 3
Unstandardized Coefficients (and Standard Errors) for the
Seriousness of and Punishment for Crime Scenarios, by Scenario
Variables, Respondents Personal Details and Interrelationships
Between Dissimilarity or Similarity Between Respondents, Offenders
and Victims, for the Whole Sample of Respondents
Values
Dependent Variable
Variables
Offenders gender
Victims gender
Offenders ethnicity
Victims ethnicity
Offenders age
Victims age
Degree of
offenses harm
Criminal offense
Offenders
criminal record
Respondents gender
Respondents age
Respondents education
Respondents income
0 = male; 1 = female
0 = male; 1 = female
0 = Jewish; 1 = Arab
0 = Jewish; 1 = Arab
0 = 25 years old;
1 = 50 years old
0 = 25 years old;
1 = 50 years old
0 = severe; 1 = light
0 = violence; 1 = property
0 = not stated; 1 = yes
0 = male; 1 = female
Interval
Interval
0 = less than 5,
000 NIS; 1 = more
Respondents ethnicity 0 = Jewish; 1 = Arab
Respondents
0 = secular; 1 = traditional
religiosity
or religious
Respondents
0 = natives or veterans;
status in the country 1 = immigrants
Respondents
0 = married; 1 = other
familial status
Respondents
0 = full-time job;
occupational status 1 = other
Interrelationship for
Female: Dissimilar
Offender Similar Victim
respondents gender
Female: Similar
Offender Dissimilar Victim
(dummy variable)a
Male: Dissimilar
Offender Similar Victim
Male: Similar
Offender Dissimilar Victim
Interrelationship for
Jewish: Dissimilar
Offender Similar Victim
Seriousness
Punishment
.27 (.06)*
.25 (.20)*
.12 (.08)
.17 (.13)
.05 (.13)
1.51 (1.97)*
2.47 (1.84)*
1.09 (1.63)
.96 (1.25)
.97 (1.22)
.04 (.13)
1.07 (1.60)
.16.40 (1.16)**
11.29 (.99)**
.22 (.06)*
.00 (.00)
.04 (.01)**
.03 (.12)
1.90 (1.75)*
.10 (.04)*
.37 (.20)**
.71 (1.12)
.46 (.08)**
.45 (.07)**
3.89 (1.62)**
2.21 (1.06)*
.52 (.12)**
2.17 (1.11)**
.29 (.07)**
1.89 (1.18)*
.10 (.06)
.64 (.32)**
.50 (1.05)
9.35 (2.67)**
.27 (.33)*
2.25 (3.11)**
.14 (.27)
1.85 (2.51)*
.50 (.25)**
6.56 (2.30)**
.25 (.17)*
7.01 (1.62)**
(continued)
472
Table 3 (continued)
Variables
Values
Dependent Variable
Seriousness
Punishment
between the two dependent variables was relatively high (r = 0.42, p <.05).
These trends were also related to variation in both the respondents personal
characteristics (especially gender and ethnicity), the offenders, and victims separate dissimilarity or similarity to them, and their combination.
As noted, Tables 1 and 2 present analysis of the dissimilarity or similarity between offenders and victims in the scenarios and the respondents who
evaluated them using one personal variable at a time. Therefore, an additional, deeper analysis of these data, using a global measure of similarity
(all combinations of such personal variables), was conducted. Generally,
like the findings in Tables 1 and 2, this analysis showed that respondents
tended to allot the relatively highest mean seriousness and punishment
scores to scenarios depicting both a similar victim and a dissimilar
offender, from the respondents point of view, and the relatively lowest
means for both dependent variables to scenarios depicting the opposite
situation. To save space, this analysis is not included in the present study.
473
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to analyze Shavers DAT from a
criminological perspective while (in contrast to former studies) taking into
account the heterogeneous nature of personal dissimilarity or similarity in
several social characteristics between offenders and victims involved in
criminal situations and independent observers. This study extends previous
research on DAT by addressing several personal social characteristics
instead of only one.
In line with DATs tenets of personal similarity, the first two hypotheses
of this study received general, albeit not complete, support from the findings:
Taking into account some salient personal characteristics, such as gender,
ethnicity and age, respondents scores of seriousness and punishment
474
475
studys female respondents were able to perceive sufficient personal similarity to the women in the scenarios to judge their offending or victimization differently.
A highly exceptional trend, however, completely opposed to DATs
tenets of personal similarity, and hence to the first two hypotheses, was
found among male respondents (Tables 1 to 3). This finding may be seen as
weakening the applicability of DAT as a plausible explanation for biases
committed by judicial practitioners. The failure of mens data to support
DAT is particularly problematic as men are represented in greater proportions among people who make criminal justice decisions. Further examination of these trends is required.
However, this finding concerning men still finds support in bias in criminal justice and in social psychology literature. Women do constitute a
socially disadvantaged group, and most of the criminal system agents are
males; still, wide empirical evidence exists that female offenders are often
treated leniently in the legal system. Unlike personal similarity, the explanation for this favorable posture can be found in traditional gender-role
attitudes of men to women in patriarchal societies: It has been documented
that when groups in society possess high status and sufficient power to
protect their status, as males do, they can afford to be relatively charitable
toward out-groups, such as females, showing a kind of benevolent paternalism (Daly & Tonry, 1997; Farnworth & Teske, 1995; Sampson &
Lauritsen, 1997). As predicted by social identity theory, female observers
seem to rely more heavily than male observers on gender-based identification processes and to use DA to a greater extent (Elkins et al., 2002).
The second part of this hypothesis predicted similar findings for other
personal characteristics; this was also supported by the research findings.
First, Tables 1 and 2 show similar identification and prejudice trends for
ethnicity and age. Second, Table 3 also shows significant coefficients for
respondents other personal characteristics, such as education, religiosity,
and status in the country, considerably affecting judgments of seriousness
and punishments. These findings are also in line with social identity theory,
assuming that people typically use not one but several group identities to
define themselves, although some categories are expected to hold more
subjective importance than others. Hence, further investigation of the effect
of additional independent variables on perceptions of criminal offenses in
general, and on personal dissimilarity or similarity with offenders and victims in particular, is required.
476
Conclusion
Theoretical claims, such as labeling and conflict theories, and empirical
evidence consistently indicate that despite values of equity, the judicial system is sometimes biased in its treatment of individual offenders, and influenced by their personally dissimilar social characteristics. Some social
psychological theories, such as Shavers DAT, raise a similar argument.
This study shows the overall applicability of DAT tenets to explain differential perceptions of crime situations, while taking into account several
social characteristics of offenders, victims, and observers. The findings
support the general use of DAT as a possible explanation for biases in the
criminal justice system regarding offenders by individual justice agents.
In this regard, the presence of an individual discretionary component in
criminal justice systems should also entail additional responsibilities. On
one hand, the selection process of legal agents must ensure that the best
people are hired. These should be individuals with the intellectual capacity
and wisdom to make appropriate use of their discretion. Training and simulations that provide guidelines and that ascribe limits to discretionary decisions must also be provided. On the other hand, jurors are expected to be
unbiased and free of any preconceived notions of guilt or innocence. In this
regard, the present findings highlight the importance of using challenges
and voir dire process, applied both by the prosecution and by defense attorneys, to ensure the impartiality of selected jurors. Moreover, they further
emphasize the value of employing professional jurors instead of relying on
voir dire and other strategies. Scientific jury selection, which is based on
correlational techniques from the social sciences, aims at evaluating the
likelihood that potential jurors will vote for conviction or for acquittal on
the basis of the social and demographic characteristics of jury members.
The present findings bear meaningful implications when applying such
techniques.
Note that the applicability of DAT was not perfect with all the evaluated
variables: unlike many other observers, men appear to be less influenced by
motivations of personal dissimilarity or similarity when evaluating crime
situations involving men or women and are apparently more influenced by
other (perhaps traditional gender-role) motivations when evaluating
women. This finding may mean that when men are the observers, the DA
effect is overpowered by a stronger effect. Because criminal justice agents
are predominantly male, further investigation of motivations in the case of
male respondents concerning male and female offenders and victims is
required.
477
478
Appendix 1
Variables and Values:
A. Offenders gender and B. Victims gender
1. Male / 2. Female
C. Offenders ethnicity and D. Victims ethnicity
1. Jewish / 2. Arab
E. Offenders age and F. Victims age
1. 25 years old / 2. 50 years old
G. Degree of offenses harm
1. Relatively light / 2. Relatively severe
H. Criminal offense
1. Violence (including examples of intimate and acquaintance murders, intimate
and acquaintance violence, partner rape, and vehicular homicide)
2. Property (including examples of burglary, shoplifting, and robbery)
I. Offenders criminal record
1. Yes / 2. (Not stated)
Sampled scenarios:
1. Because of suspicion of romantic betrayal, a 25-year-old Jewish man
with a criminal record beat his girlfriend, a 25-year-old Jewish woman,
seriously.
2. A 50-year-old Arab man, with a criminal record, breaks into a 50-year-old
Jewish womans apartment through a window and steals jewels and money
worth NIS 10,000.
3. A 25-year-old Jewish housewife is shopping at a drugstore owned by a
50-year-old Jewish woman and she slips a watch worth NIS 200 into her
handbag and leaves the store without paying for it.
In your opinion, how serious is this act?
Not serious at all
1
2
3
Very serious
10
11
If you were the judge in this case, what would be your decision regarding the
appropriate punishment for the offender?
Sentence him/her to death / to life imprisonment / to _________ years of imprisonment/
to other less serious punishment (probation, community service, fine).
479
Notes
1. Similar tenets may be found in the similarity-attraction hypothesis (see Osbeck,
Moghaddam, & Perreault, 1997). Sociobiologists have suggested that all living organisms
have such a tendency to feel more favorable to genetically similar others and to express fear
and loathing toward genetically dissimilar organisms (see Rushton, 1989).
2. The mere presence of women on a jury was sufficient to change the conviction rate in
criminal cases against or committed by women (Arce, Farina, & Sobral, 1996).
3. Findings from student samples especially have proven not to generalize well to the population at large, particularly to the judicial system (Sears, 1986).
4. Official data indicate that 98% of Israeli households are connected to the phone system,
and the percentage of people not listed in the directories is fairly low.
5. The response rate was calculated on the basis of valid household numbers, excluding
businesses, fax connections, and so forth. To boost response rates, respondents who could not
be reached initially were contacted again. A household was replaced after three unsuccessful
attempts.
6. To increase the uniformity of the evaluative task, respondents were instructed to base
their responses on their subjective evaluation of the described scenario rather than on any personal legal knowledge they may have had (Herzog, 2003).
7. The decisions regarding the number of variables to include in each scenario and the
number of scenarios to present to each respondent were pretested and guided by methodological considerations, such as the use of a telephone survey, interview length, full understanding
of the scenarios, and allowing sufficient observations for each research condition to achieve
sufficient statistical power for the data analyses.
8. Tajfel (1981) stressed the importance of assimilation; individuals do not create their
own categories but assimilate the categories that are culturally available.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Arce, R., Farina, F. & Sobral, J. (1996). From juror to jury decisions making. In G. Davies
et al. (Eds.), Psychology, law and criminal justice (pp. 337-343). New York: Walter de
Gruyter.
Baldwin, M. R., & Kleinke, C. L. (1994). Effects of severity of accident, intent, and alcoholism is a disease excuse on judgments of a drunk driver. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 24, 2097-2109.
Bell, S. T., Kuriloff, P. J., & Lottes, I. (1994). Understanding attributions of blame in stranger
rape and date rape situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(19), 1719-1734.
Capozza, D., & Brown, R. (2000). Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research.
London: Sage.
Corbett, C., & Simon, F. (1991). Police and public perceptions of the seriousness of traffic
offenses. British Journal of Criminology, 31, 153-164.
Daly, K., & Tonry, M. (1997). Gender, race and sentencing. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 22, pp. 201-242). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dexter, H. R., Penrod, S., Linz, D., & Saunders, D. (1997). Attributing responsibility to female
victims after exposure to sexually violent films. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
27(24), 2149-2171.
480
Elkins, T. J., Phillips, J. S., & Konopaske, R. (2002). Gender-related biases in evaluations of
sex discrimination allegations: Is perceived threat the key? Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(2), 280-292.
Farnworth, M., & Teske, Jr., R. H. C. (1995). Gender differences in felony court processing:
Three hypotheses of disparity. Women and Criminal Justice, 6(2), 23-44.
Feather, N. T. (1996). Domestic violence, gender, and perceptions of justice. Sex Roles,
35(7/8), 507-519.
Hawkins, K. (1993). The uses of discretion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Herzog, S. (2003). Does the ethnicity of offenders in crime scenarios affect public perceptions
of crime seriousness? A randomized survey experiment in Israel. Social Forces, 82(2),
757-781.
Hox, J. J., Kreft, I. G. G., & Hermkins, P. L. (1991). The analysis of factorial surveys.
Sociological Methods and Research, 19, 493-510.
Kouabenan, D. R., Gilibert, D., Medina, M., & Bouzon, F. (2001). Hierarchical position,
gender, accident severity, and causal attribution. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
31(3), 553-575.
Landsman, S., & Rakos, R. (1994). A preliminary inquiry into the effect of potentially biasing
information on judges and jurors in civil litigation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12,
113-126.
Levi, M., & Jones, S. (1985). Public and police perceptions of crime seriousness in England
and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 25(3), 234-250.
Locke, L. M., & Richman, C. L. (1999). Attitudes toward domestic violence: Race and gender
issues. Sex Roles, 40(3-4), 227-247.
Marciniak, L. M. (1998). Adolescent attitudes toward victim precipitation of rape. Violence
and Victims, 13(3), 287-300.
McCleary, R., ONeil, M., Epperlein, T., Jones, C., & Gray, R. (1981). Effects of legal education
and work experience on perceptions of crime seriousness. Social Problems, 28, 276-289.
Neale, J., & Liebert, R. (1986). Science and behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
OConnell, M., & Whelan, A. (1996). Taking wrongs seriously: Public perceptions of crime
seriousness. British Journal of Criminology, 36(2), 299-318.
Osbeck, L., Moghaddam, F. M., & Perreault, S. (1997). Similarity and attraction among majority
and minority groups in a multicultural context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
21(1), 113-123.
Radelet, M. (1991). Racial characteristics and the imposition of the death penalty. American
Sociological Review, 46, 918-927.
Ralph, P. H., Sorensen, M., & Marquart, J. W. (1992). A comparison of death-sentenced and
incarcerated murderers in pre-Furman Texas. Justice Quarterly, 9, 185-209.
Rossi, P., & Anderson, A. (1982). The factorial survey approach: An introduction. In P. Rossi
& S. Nock (Eds.), Measuring social judgments: The factorial survey approach (pp. 1-39).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rossi, P., & Berk, R. (1997). Just punishments: Federal guidelines and public views compared.
New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Rossi, P., Simpson, J., & Miller, J. (1985). Beyond crime seriousness: Fitting the punishment
to the crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1(1), 59-89.
Rushton, J. P. (1989). Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 12, 503-559.
Sampson, R. J., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1997). Racial and ethnic disparities in crime and criminal
justice in the United States. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Ethnicity, crime and immigration:
481
Comparative and cross-national perspectives (Vol. 21, pp. 311-374). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Saunders, D. G., & Size, P. B. (1986). Attitudes about woman abuse among police officers,
victims, and victim advocates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1(1), 25-42.
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base
on social psychologys view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 515-530.
Sellin, T., & Wolfgang, M. (1964). The measurement of delinquency. New York: Wiley.
Shaver, K. G. (1970). Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 101-113.
Shoham, E. (2000). The battered wifes perception of the characteristics of her encounter with
the police. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
44(2), 242-257.
Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J, & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in
criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, Black, and male. Criminology,
36, 763-797.
Stith, S. M. (1990). Police response to domestic violence: The influence of individual and
familial factors. Violence and Victims, 5(1), 37-49.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin &
S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Thornton, B. (1992). Repression and its mediating influence on the defensive attribution of
responsibility. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 44-57.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Discovering
the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Walsh, A. (1987). The sexual stratification hypothesis and sexual assault in light of the changing conceptions of race. Criminology, 25, 153-173.
Wilson, R. J., & Jonah, B. A. (1988). Assignment of responsibility and penalties for an
impaired driving incident. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(7), 564-583.
Sergio Herzog is a senior lecturer at the Institute of Criminology, at the Faculty of Law, in the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He received his bachelors degree in psychology and his
Ph.D. in criminology (direct track) from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. His research
interests lie in the areas of criminology, criminal justice systems, and social psychology.