This research examines the individual-level and contextual correlates of punitive attitudes in the United States. Prior research suggests that the demographic composition and economic conditions of geographic areas influence public support for punitive policies. Yet, these findings rest on assumptions about individual perceptions of minority groups as threatening. This work builds on the threat framework by measuring the concept of `perceived threat" and examining the association between aggregate social conditions, perceived threat and punitive sentiments. Analysis of newly collected data suggests that individual perceptions of African Americans as threatening to economic resources is a strong predictor of punitive attitudes. In addition, respondents residing in areas with higher unemployment rates and places that experienced a recent increase in the size of the African American population are more punitive. The latter effect is largely mediated by perceptions of African Americans as threatening to material resources for white respondents. The results agree with racial threat perspectives on social control, but we go beyond extant research by unpacking the micro-level processes that are central to the threat hypothesis.This research draws on group threat theory (Blalock 1967, Blumer 1958) to investigate the individual-level and contextual correlates of punitive attitudes. Group threat theory posits that prejudice and inter-group hostility are largely reactions to perceived threats by subordinate groups. Dominant groups seek to preserve their advantaged social position and view encroachments on their prerogatives by minority groups as disrupting to the existing social order. Accordingly, prejudice is more prevalent where sources of threat are highest, notably when and where the minority population is relatively large and where there exists competition for limited social resources, such as jobs (Blalock 1967;Quillian 1995). Although originally envisioned as a theory of prejudice and discrimination, the threat hypothesis informs a wealth of research on formal social control and criminal punishment, including work on arrest (Eitle, D'Alessio and Stolzenberg
Marriage is central to theoretical debates over stability and change in criminal offending over the life course. Yet, unlike other social ties such as employment, marriage is distinct in that it cannot be randomly assigned in survey research to more definitively assess causal effects of marriage on offending. As a result, key questions remain as to whether different individual propensities toward marriage shape its salience as a deterrent institution. Building on these issues, the current research has three objectives. First, we use a propensity score matching approach to estimate causal effects of marriage on crime in early adulthood. Second, we assess sex differences in the effects of marriage on offending. Although both marriage and offending are highly gendered phenomena, prior work typically focuses on males. Third, we examine whether one's propensity to marry conditions the deterrent capacity of marriage. Results show that marriage suppresses offending for males, even when accounting for their likelihood to marry. Furthermore, males who are least likely to marry seem to benefit most from this institution. The influence of marriage on crime is less robust for females, where marriage reduces crime only for those with moderate propensities to marry. We discuss these findings in the context of recent debates concerning gender, criminal offending, and the life course.
This research investigates variation in hate crime offending against Arabs and Muslims across U.S. counties in the months before and after September 11, 2001. Four questions are of particular interest. First, what were the determinants of anti-Arab and Muslim hate crimes prior to 9/11? Second, in what social contexts were Arabs and Muslims at greatest risk of victimization? Third, to what extent did hate crimes against these groups increase after the terrorist attacks? And last, did the predictors of hate crimes against Arabs and Muslims change appreciably after 9/11? Findings show that hate crimes targeting Arabs and Muslims increased dramatically in the months following 9/11, although the structural determinants and geographic concentration of these crimes remained largely consistent after the attacks. Negative binomial regression results further suggest that counties with larger concentrations of Arabs and Muslims have higher incidents of such hate crimes, which likely reflects the availability of targets for this type of offending. At the same time, the likelihood of victimization for a given Arab or Muslim person is lowest in counties where the percent Arab or percent Muslim is highest, in line with a power-differential perspective on discrimination and intergroup violence. The findings imply that terrorist attacks may indeed incite retaliation and set off a wave of hate crime offending, but the location of these crimes is likely to remain consistent after a galvanizing event.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.