Crime control theater refers to policies enacted as a response to a moral panic, based on folk beliefs about crime; such policies are perceived as more effective than they really are. AMBER Alerts are one example of crime control theater. Beliefs that AMBER Alerts can protect children might lead people to develop counterfactual scenarios in which they think "if only" an AMBER Alert had been issued (or issued earlier) the abducted child could have been rescued. This study evaluated the influence of case characteristics conducive to generating counterfactual statements (e.g., abnormality, controllability) and juror education on mock jurors' decision making in a trial involving parents who are suing a law enforcement agency for negligence following the agency's alleged failure to rescue their abducted child. Manipulations that promoted counterfactual thinking led mock jurors to be more certain of the defendant's liability, award greater damages to the parents, and perceive the agency as more responsible for the child's death (but this varied by sample type). Conversely, educating jurors on the limitations of the AMBER Alert system resulted in lower certainty of the agency's responsibility and nullified the effect of AMBER Alert issuance on damage awards. The effects of abnormality and controllability on participants' decisions were mediated by generating counterfactual statements. Findings indicate that counterfactual thinking might influence individuals' support for crime control theater policies. Specifically, individuals exposed to aversive events (e.g., abduction and death of a child) might be motivated to support policies (e.g., AMBER Alerts) that could have prevented the aversive event.

Political orientation influences support for free speech, with liberals often reporting greater support for free speech than conservatives. We hypothesized that this effect should be moderated by cultural context: individualist cultures value individual self-expression and self-determination, and collectivist cultures value group harmony and conformity. These different foci should differently influence liberals and conservatives’ support for free speech within these cultures. Two studies evaluated the joint influence of political orientation and cultural context on support for free speech. Study 1, using a multilevel analysis of data from 37 U.S. states (n = 1,001), showed that conservatives report stronger support for free speech in collectivist states, whereas there were no differences between conservatives and liberals in support for free speech in individualist states. Study 2 (n = 90) confirmed this pattern by priming independent and interdependent self-construals in liberals and conservatives. Results demonstrate the importance of cultural context for free speech. Findings suggest that in the U.S. support for free speech might be embraced for different reasons: conservatives’ support for free speech appears to be motivated by a focus on collectively held values favoring free speech, while liberals’ support for free speech might be motivated by a focus on individualist self-expression.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract