Fear or Moral Indignation? Predicting Attitudes Toward Parolees¹

Abstract

Instrumental beliefs, value‐expressive beliefs, and attitudes related to parolees were investigated in 2 contexts. In Study I, students (N= 180) responded to value‐expressive measures in a mass survey and then, a month later, read 2 scenarios and completed measures of instrumental beliefs, attitudes, and intentions. Instrumental beliefs were better predictors of behavioral attitudes than were value‐expressive beliefs. In Study 2, the format of the measures was altered and all measures were administered concurrently. As in Study I, results showed that instrumental beliefs were consistent and strong predictors of attitudes toward parolees. Attitudes related to parolees appear to be based more on practical concerns (instrumental beliefs) than on moral or symbolic issues (value‐expressive beliefs).

Once a Criminal, Always a Criminal?: ‘Redeemability’ and the Psychology of Punitive Public Attitudes

“…In particular, a considerable body of research has drawn upon attribution theory, linking public opinion to individualistic as opposed to situational attributions (Carroll and Payne 1977;Carroll et al 1987;Cullen et al 1985;Davis et al 1993;Graham et al 1997;Grasmick and McGill 1994;Hawkins 1981;Hogarth 1971;Lurigio et al 1994;Maruna and King 2004;Nettler 1959;Shaver 1975;Stinchcombe et al 1980;Young 1991). The dependant variable in these studies varies from penal goals (e.g., support for rehabilitation or retribution) (Templeton and Hartnagel 2008), to support for the death penalty (e.g., Young 1991), to attitudes toward parolees (Demski and McGlynn 1999), to reactions to the O. J. Simpson trial (Graham et al 1997). For the most part, the independent variable was a measure of perceived "locus of control" (Rotter 1966) or whether respondents attributed criminal behavior to internal (person-related) or external (situation-related) factors.…”

“…Although this is a new construct, previous research on public attitudes regarding prisoners and ex-prisoners (Demski and McGlynn 1999;Helfgott 1997;Homant and Kennedy 1982;Hurwitz and Peffley 1997;Kjelsberg et al 2007;Steffensmeier and Kramer 1980) and on support for rehabilitation (Applegate et al 1997(Applegate et al , 2000Cullen et al 1983Cullen et al , 1990McCorkle 1993) suggests that members of the public likely have very divergent views on this key dimension. The relationship between belief in redeemability and punitiveness, controlling for internality/externality of attributions, is explored in our analysis below.…”

Opening the Black Box of “Not Invented Here”: Attitudes, Decision Biases, and Behavioral Consequences

“…Attitudes fulfilling the utilitarian function support the securing of positive outcomes and the prevention of negative ones from the perspective of an individual (Bohner & Dickel, 2011;Demski & McGlynn, 1999). Attitudes fulfilling the utilitarian function support the securing of positive outcomes and the prevention of negative ones from the perspective of an individual (Bohner & Dickel, 2011;Demski & McGlynn, 1999).…”

After innocence: Perceptions of individuals who have been wrongfully convicted

“…Although research has not yet examined the stigma associated with wrongful conviction, research has explored the stigmatization of actual offenders (e.g., Demski & McGlynn, 1999;Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010;LeBel, 2006;Murphy & Brown, 2000). Winnick and Bodkin (2008) surveyed 450 male prisoners regarding the stigma that they expected to experience after incarceration and their strategies for managing that stigma.…”