No abstract

It is commonly accepted that Black and White Americans hold divergent views about the criminal justice system. Furthermore, many accept the view that U.S. public opinion is unflinchingly punitive where issues of criminal justice policy are concerned, with this punitiveness among White Americans deriving to a significant degree from anti-Black prejudice. Using a series of survey-based experiments and large, nationally representative samples of White and African American respondents, we subject the questions of Black-White polarization, unyielding punitiveness, and the influence of racial prejudice to close scrutiny. Our results, first, confirm large Black-White differences in opinion with Blacks consistently less punitive than Whites. These differences are substantially a result of beliefs about the extent of racial bias in the criminal justice system. Second, the framing experiments suggest that responses to the death penalty are very different than responses to drug-related crimes like crack or powder cocaine use, with the former exhibiting far less malleability than the latter. Third, racial prejudice is a consistently large influence on White public opinion and a weaker, but sometimes important influence among Blacks as well. Implications for discourse on race and crime are also discussed.

Customers are influenced not only by how much they trust a company and its representatives but also by how much they trust the broader context in which the market exchange is taking place. In this article, the authors test two rival sociological perspectives regarding the influence of customer trust in the broader context. One perspective proposes that trust in the context replaces trust in individual firms and their representatives. This view suggests that firm/representative trust is not always critical, especially for customers with high trust in the context. An alternative perspective is that trust in the context fosters and legitimates trust in firms and their representatives. This view implies that firm/ representative trust is a necessary mediator of the influence of trust in the context. The authors test predictions based on both perspectives, using empirical results from two studies implemented in two countries.The results from both studies support the proposition that trust in firms and their representatives is a necessary mediator of trust in the broader context.

This study examines the role of consumer technology paradoxes within the context of self-service technology and the routes by which these paradoxes influence customer satisfaction evaluation. Analysis of survey data from online banking customers indicates that three paradoxes operate in this context: control/chaos, fulfill needs/create needs, and freedom/enslavement. The study reveals further that the effects of these paradoxes on customer satisfaction are mediated by consumer performance ambiguity and consumer trust in technology. Theoretical and managerial implications of consumer paradoxical experiences for technology-based services are discussed.

Previous research on the sources of punitive attitudes has largely focused on the cognitive and demographic factors associated with the desire to punish criminals harshly. This study focuses on the link between affect and punitiveness by examining the relationship between anger about crime and support for punitive criminal penalties. Using national survey data from the USA, this research shows that anger about crime is a significant predictor of punitive attitudes, after controlling for other factors such as racial prejudice, fear of crime, causal attributions for criminal behavior, and political ideology. The findings indicate the need for more research on the relationship between emotions and punitiveness.

Research on procedural justice and legitimacy has expanded greatly across the social sciences in recent years. The process-based model of regulation, which links people's assessments of procedural justice and legitimacy to their compliance with the law and legal authorities, has become particularly influential in criminology and sociolegal studies. A review of the previous research on perceived legitimacy highlights two important features. First, legitimacy has been conceptualized and measured in many different ways. Second, most of the research on legitimacy has focused on only a handful of developed nations. Using survey data from Trinidad and Tobago, this article examines the conceptualization and measurement of the perceived legitimacy of the law and legal authorities. The findings indicate that some of the prominent conceptual and measurement models used in previous research are not empirically valid in the Trinidadian context. The implications of the results for conceptualization, theory, and future research are discussed.Wi th roots in philosophy, political theory, and social psychology, the idea of legitimacy occupies an important role in scholarship across the social sciences, including psychology (e

No abstract

No abstract