Nonverbal Images of Criminality and Deviance: Existence and Consequence

Abstract

This paper reviews the literature relating physical appearance to perceptions of criminality or deviance. The content focuses on characteristics of the perceived but includes some data relative to the influence ofperceiver characteristics in the perception process. Methodological procedures are analyzed along with the subject matter of the literature reviewed. The research settings of studies range from college classrooms to juvenile reformatories. The paper concludes with a discussion of future research directions and implications of the existing research for visual identification procedures utilized in police and court settings. One suggestion which emerges from this literature review, for example, is to monitor police lineups and other identification procedures to help offset the influence of physical appearance on the identification process.

Guardians on Guardianship: Factors Affecting the Willingness to Supervise, the Ability to Detect Potential Offenders, and the Willingness to Intervene

“…Roncek (1981) explained that one of the innate judgments involved in reducing vulnerability to crime at place is the ability to distinguish potential offenders from benevolent others. The results of this study, therefore, confirm Felson's (2006) Interestingly, structural cues alone highlighted by Madriz (1997) and Shoemaker & South (1978)-such as clothing, physical appearance and ethnicity-were mentioned least often by participants as independent cues that help them determine who is and is not a potential offender. This suggests that, contrary to the conclusions espoused in the Madriz (1997) study, context-specific behavioral information is more influential than physical stereotypes in judging who is likely to be a potential offender.…”

“…Interestingly, structural cues alone highlighted by Madriz (1997) and Shoemaker and South (1978)-such as clothing, physical appearance, and ethnicity-were mentioned least often by participants as independent cues that help them determine who is and is not a potential offender. This suggests that contrary to the conclusions espoused in the Madriz study, context-specific behavioral information is more influential than physical stereotypes in judging who is likely to be a potential offender.…”

“…There is also a wealth of literature from the field of psychology that addresses this issue about the ability to identify criminals, but in contrast to the previously mentioned perspectives, this research concludes that people distinguish offenders from others based on universally-held stereotypes that transcend context-specific information. Madriz (1997) argues that there are pervasive images of who is or is not criminal, and these images are based largely on stigma, labeling and biases about the physical appearance and behavior of criminals (Shoemaker & South, 1978). Based on her interviews with women about their perception of offenders, Madriz (1997) reported that the most popular image of criminals is one of men who are poor, uneducated and come from minority groups.…”

“Change” Frames and the Mobilization of Social Capital for Formerly Incarcerated Job Seekers

“…A number of older studies indicate that because most contacts would be uncomfortable having former prisoners as co-workers, fearing their own safety and that of their coworkers, they would also be unwilling to aid them during the hiring process (Conklin 1975; Kutchinsky 1968; Simmons 1965). This is because diverse populations see offenders as outsiders, low-class, unattractive and prone to violence (Reed and Reed, 1973; Roberts 1992, 1997; Saladin et al, 1988; Shoemaker and South 1978; Simmons 1965). They also assume that those who have been convicted of crime have several priors and are very likely to commit new crimes in the future (Roberts 1997).…”

Exclusion and Extraction: Criminal Justice Contact and the Reallocation of Labor

“…their own safety and that of their coworkers, they would also be unwilling to help them during the hiring process (Conklin 1975;Kutchinsky 1968;Simmons 1965). This is because diverse populations see ofenders as outsiders, low-class, unattractive and prone to violence (Reed and Reed 1973;Roberts 1992Roberts , 1997Saladin et al 1988;Shoemaker and South 1978;Simmons 1965). They also assume that those who have been convicted of crime have several priors and are quite likely to commit new crimes in the future (Roberts 1997).…”