No abstract

Legal socialization researchers have largely ignored the importance of emotion in the legal socialization process and engagement in crime. The purpose of the current study was to argue the potential importance of moral emotions (e.g., guilt) in legal socialization and take a preliminary step to integrate an emotion component into an existing model.The current study investigated whether the moral emotion of guilt, using both proneness and anticipatory measures, would predict rule-violating behavior (RVB) as part of the integrated cognitive legal socialization model. The study used survey data from 474 participants who were part of a longitudinal study of adolescent rule-violating behavior. Results showed that guilt proneness functioned as a predictor of RVB in parallel with legal reasoning, while anticipatory guilt served as a mediator in parallel with normative attitude mediators. Enforcement status (i.e., feeling people should be punished for committing RVB) mediated the relation between guilt proneness and RVB, while normative status (i.e., approval for engaging in RVB) and anticipatory guilt mediated the relation between legal reasoning and RVB. These findings help to advance legal socialization by demonstrating the unique contribution of emotion in legal socialization theory and provide a foundation for future research in this area. The implications for the role of emotion in both the integrated cognitive legal socialization

A computerized fermentation system was developed for use in a research environment. Major goals in the design and construction of the system were flexibility and versatility. Direct digital control is employed for all low-level and high-level control loops. A microminicomputer hierarchical configuration is used to implement this control structure. The microcomputer is also utilized to simplify the interface with the fermentor, both at the hardware and minicomputer software levels. This computerized fermentation system provides accurate data acquisition, excellent control, and flexibility in the fermentation operation.

Objective: White and non-White adolescents report different experiences in the legal system. This disparity impacts their evaluations of, and attitudes toward, legal authorities such that non-White and older adolescents tend to perceive the legal system more negatively. Yet, many researchers assume that the process of legal socialization, which involves internalizing norms and information about the law and the legal system, is universal for all ages and races. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that legal socialization models would change over the course of adolescent development and would differ by race. Method: We used data from two longitudinal studies to examine racial differences in the integrated legal socialization model in early, middle, and late adolescence. Study 1 included 140 young adolescents (59% White, 41% non-White), and Study 2 included 296 midadolescents (82% White, 18% non-White) followed into late adolescence/emerging adulthood. Results: Study 1 identified differences in the integrated legal socialization model for young White and non-White adolescents. Normative status predicted rule-violating behavior for White participants, whereas no predictors or mediators related to rule-violating behavior for non-White participants. In Study 2, legal and moral reasoning during midadolescence became relevant in the model for both groups. Enforcement status predicted rule-violating behavior for non-White youth, whereas normative status continued to predict rule-violating behavior for White youth. In late adolescence/emerging adulthood, differences in the model shifted toward the relation between reasoning and legal attitudes. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that legal socialization is a developmental process occurring and changing throughout adolescence and that this developmental process differs for White and non-White youth. Public Significance StatementThe findings of this study indicate that legal socialization may not be a "one-size-fits-all" process across youth of different racial backgrounds. It is important that researchers explore the different cognitive processes that occur in adolescence, in addition to youths' differing experiences with the law, to better understand legal socialization for youth of color. Practitioners and policy makers should also take a tailored and more sensitive approach when implementing delinquency-reduction techniques and programs for youth of different racial backgrounds.

Objectives: To determine whether prosocial rule-breaking exists as a separate construct from antisocial rule-breaking and to develop a valid rule-breaking scale with prosocial and antisocial subscales. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that (a) rule-breaking would have prosocial and antisocial subfactors; (b) the prosocial rule-breaking subscale would positively associate with prosocial intentions, empathy, moral identity, and guilt proneness, whereas the antisocial rule-breaking subscale would negatively associate with these same factors; and (c) the two subscales would predict prosocial and antisocial cheating behaviors, respectively. Method: We developed the Prosocial and Antisocial Rule-Breaking (PARB) scale using a sample of 497 undergraduates (Study 1) and 257 Amazon Mechanical Turk workers (Study 2). Participants completed all surveys (Studies 1 and 2) and took part in a between-subjects experiment (Study 2) in which cheating behavior was measured in two conditions—when cheating helps others (prosocial) or oneself (antisocial). Results: The final PARB scale demonstrated the expected factor structure (comparative fit index = .96, Tucker–Lewis index = .93, root-mean-square error of approximation = .064; χ² = 177, df = 88, p < .001), with the prosocial (α = .81) and antisocial (α = .93) subscales showing good reliability. Prosocial rule-breaking was positively associated with prosocial intentions, empathy, and guilt proneness, whereas antisocial rule-breaking was negatively associated with these same factors. Each additional point in prosocial rule-breaking PARB score predicted a 37% increased likelihood of participating in protest behavior in an exploratory investigation (p = .025) and predicted a 268% increase in actual prosocial cheating behavior (p < .001) but did not predict antisocial cheating behavior (p = .293). Conversely, each additional point in antisocial rule-breaking PARB score did not predict protest participation (p = .410) but did predict a 69% increase in actual antisocial cheating behavior (p = .025). Conclusions: These findings suggest that our current understanding of rule-breaking is limited, as many types of rule-breaking are prosocially motivated and are not necessarily antisocial.