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

Increases in U.S. immigration and the growth in the Latino population highlight the importance of understanding the influence of ethnicity and legal status on participants' decision-making. Furthermore, immigration is a politically charged topic, which suggests participants' political orientation might relate to their decisions in cases involving immigrant defendants. Using the justification-suppression model of prejudice, this study investigated the influence of a defendant's ethnicity and legal status in the context of a death penalty trial. Results demonstrate that the defendant's ethnicity did not influence participants' punishment decisions, but legal status did. Specifically, participants were generally more punitive toward both undocumented and documented immigrant defendants, compared to U.S.-born defendants. Punitiveness toward documented immigrants was qualified by an interaction with participants' political orientation, such that middle-of-the-road and more liberal participants reported greater punitiveness toward a documented immigrant defendant, compared to a U.S.-born defendant, but more conservative participants reported no differences in punitiveness between documented immigrant defendants and U.S.-born defendants. This effect was mediated by participants' evaluation of mitigators and aggravators but only among more liberal and middle-of-the-road participants. Implications for policy and future directions are discussed. What is the significance of this article for the general public?In the context of a simulated death penalty trial, this study found that liberal and moderate mock jurors were more punitive toward documented immigrants compared to American citizens. Conservative mock jurors did not demonstrate this bias. This finding suggests that under certain circumstances, political orientation can bias jurors' perceptions of defendants who are immigrants. This bias would unfairly impact the right to a fair trial of defendants who are immigrants.

No abstract