Sentencing goals, causal attributions, ideology, and personality.

Abstract

Disparity in sentencing of criminals has been related to a variety of individual difference variables. We propose a framework establishing resonances or coherent patterns among sentencing goals, causal attributions, ideology, and personality. Two studies are described, one with law and criminology students, the other with probation officers. Relations among the different types of variables reveal two resonances among both students and officers. One comprises various conservative and moralistic elements: a tough, punitive stance toward crime; belief in individual causality for crime; high scores on authoritarianism, dogmatism, and internal locus of control; lower moral stage; and political conservatism. The second comprises various liberal elements: rehabilitation, belief in economic and other external determinants of crime, higher moral stage, and belief in the powers and responsibilities of government to correct social problems. Implications of these results are discussed for individual differences in sentencing, attribution theory, and attempts to reduce disparity.It is generally accepted that decision makers in the criminal justice system (e.g., judges, parole boards, probation officers) have a great deal of discretion to tailor correctional resources to individual offenders. However, this discretion has apparently created the conditions for widespread disparity, in that similar cases are treated differently by different decision makers. The recent policy movement toward determinate sentencing is a response to a decade of reports of judicial sentencing disparity (e.g., Frankel, 1973;Partridge & Eldridge, 1974). For example, in his study of Canadian judges, Hogarth (1971) concluded that "one can explain more about sentencing by knowing a few things about a judge than by knowing a great deal about the facts of the case" (p. 350). Similar results were well known even 30 years earlier (Gaudet, 1938;McGuire&Holtzoff, 1940).The major purpose of this article is to develop a framework for understanding individual differences among criminal justice decision makers and the implications of these differences for sentencing decisions. Research has generated dozens of individual differences associated with criminal justice decisions and decision makers (e.g., Brodsky & Smitherman, 1983). Continued proliferation seems inevitable. The goal of this article is to cut through this complexity by establishing a manageable number of underlying dimensions, attitudes, or resonances (Alker & Poppen, 1973) that integrate many types of individual difference variables. Additionally, we propose a causal structure for these resonances that builds from more fundamental and general attitudes about society and people toward more specific attitudes about crime and sentencing.

Providing public assistance: Cognitive and motivational processes underlying liberal and conservative policy preferences.

“…One resonance, cognitive conservatism, combines support for traditional power structures and opposition to egalitarianism with personality measures of dogmatism, authoritarianism, and intolerance of ambiguity (a resonance remarkably reminiscent of the classic work on authoritarianism; Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950). The second resonance, liberal humanism, combines a liberal political orientation, egalitarian-humanism, and the principled stage of Kolhbergian moral development (e.g., Carroll et al, 1987;Eysenck, 1971;Skitka & Tetlock, 1992). 1 The close conceptual and empirical links between personality and political ideology have also been noted by other researchers (e.g., Hogan & Dickstein, 1972;Tetlock, 1984).…”

“…Theorists have organized these overlapping personality and attitudinal variables into ideological/affective/cognitive stylistic resonances (Alker & Poppen, 1973;Carroll, Perkowitz, Lurigio, & Weaver, 1987). One resonance, cognitive conservatism, combines support for traditional power structures and opposition to egalitarianism with personality measures of dogmatism, authoritarianism, and intolerance of ambiguity (a resonance remarkably reminiscent of the classic work on authoritarianism; Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950).…”

The Dark Side of Gemeinschaft: Criminality within Rural Communities

“…Such effects have been replicated in many studies with a variety of populations and across several countries. 21 A related concept to victim blaming, is Feather's work 22-26 on deservingness, which has been used to guide the design and analysis of the present study. In a series of studies, Feather examined how subjects evaluated a positive or negative action that resulted in either a positive or negative outcome.…”

Authority and Punishment: On the Ideological Basis of Punitive Attitudes towards Criminals

“…Ideology has been argued to affect people's views about criminals, their theories about the causes of crime, and their beliefs about appropriate institutional reactions to rulebreaking (Carroll et al, 1987). Carroll et al (1987) explain these associations in terms of resonances between ideological beliefs and attitudes towards crime and punishment. The conservative political right, on the one hand, believes that crime is committed by those who lack moral conscience and self-control, while harsh punishment can bring offenders back on the right track.…”

“…Carroll, Perkowitz, Lurigio, & Weaver, 1987;Gerber & Jackson, 2013;Tyler & Boeckmann, 1997). Punitive policies will be particularly appealing to people who have ideological preferences to live in highly cohesive and stable societies but who see around them weak social bonds.…”