Objectives: Crime control theater refers to intuitively appealing laws that appear to address crime while lacking any evidence that they actually do so (e.g., sex offender registration and residence restriction laws, which do not reduce recidivism). Despite their ineffectiveness, public support for such laws tends to be high. Hypotheses: We predicted that making people aware of these laws' failure to reduce crime would lower support for them. Method: Participants (recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk; Study 1: N ϭ 298, mean age ϭ 35.60, 47.7% self-identified as women and 75.8% as White; Study 2: N ϭ 147, mean age ϭ 35.03, 40.1% self-identified as women and 85.0% as White; Study 3: N ϭ 552, mean age ϭ 35.86, 42.9% self-identified as women and 76.4% as White) read about sex offender registration and residence restriction policies and rated their support for these laws, confidence in their opinions about them, and perceptions of their efficacy before and after reading counterevidence highlighting these laws' failure to reduce sex crimes. Results: Although exposure to counterevidence somewhat lowered support (average within-subjects d ϭ Ϫ0.69), general attitudes remained positive even at the postcounterevidence phase (average d ϭ 0.46 against the scale midpoint). This pattern held when manipulating the criminal population being targeted (sex offenders vs. white-collar offenders; Study 1), when tailoring counterevidence to people's self-stated justifications for supporting these laws (Studies 2-3), and despite favorable ratings of the counterevidence's strength and credibility. Conclusion: Support for crime control theater policies persists despite explicit knowledge that they do not reduce crime, highlighting the need for alternative methods of dissuading people from their support for these ineffective laws. Public Significance StatementDespite their popularity, sex offender registration and residence restriction laws have failed to reduce crime and carry a number of negative consequences for offenders and the general public. We found that, even directly after learning about these facts, people continued to hold positive attitudes toward sex offender laws. Thus, people's support for some laws relies on factors beyond whether these laws actually achieve their intended crime control goals.

Is altruism always morally good, or is the morality of altruism fundamentally shaped by the social opportunity costs that often accompany helping decisions? Across four studies, we reveal that in cases of realistic tradeoffs in social distance for gains in welfare where helping socially distant others necessitates not helping socially closer others with the same resources, helping is deemed as less morally acceptable. Making helping decisions at a cost to socially closer others also negatively affects judgments of relationship quality (Study 2) and in turn, decreases cooperative behavior with the helper (Study 3). Ruling out an alternative explanation of physical distance accounting for the effects in Studies 1 to 3, social distance continued to impact moral acceptability when physical distance across social targets was matched (Study 4). These findings reveal that attempts to decrease biases in helping may have previously unconsidered consequences for moral judgments, relationships, and cooperation.

No abstract