Police Shooting Statistics and Public Support for Police Reforms

IF 3.2 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Experimental Political Science Pub Date : 2023-09-15 DOI:10.1017/xps.2023.30

Kaylyn Jackson Schiff, Tom S. Clark, Adam N. Glynn, Michael Leo Owens, Anna Gunderson, Eric Dobbie

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Does providing information about police shootings influence policing reform preferences? We conducted an online survey experiment in 2021 among approximately 2,600 residents of 10 large US cities. It incorporated original data we collected on police shootings of civilians. After respondents estimated the number of police shootings in their cities in 2020, we randomized subjects into three treatment groups and a control group. Treatments included some form of factual information about the police shootings in respondents’ cities (e.g., the actual total number). Afterward, respondents were asked their opinions about five policing reform proposals. Police shooting statistics did not move policing reform preferences. Support for policing reforms is primarily associated with partisanship and ideology, coupled with race. Our findings illuminate key sources of policing reform preferences among the public and reveal potential limits of information-driven, numeric-based initiatives to influence policing in the US.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

警察射击统计和公众对警察改革的支持

提供警察枪击信息是否影响警务改革偏好?我们在2021年对美国10个大城市的约2600名居民进行了一项在线调查实验。它包含了我们收集到的警察射杀平民的原始数据。在受访者估计了2020年他们所在城市的警察枪击事件数量后，我们将受试者随机分为三个治疗组和一个对照组。处理方法包括某种形式的关于被调查者所在城市的警察枪击事件的事实信息(例如，实际总数)。之后，受访者被问及他们对五项警务改革建议的看法。警察开枪的统计数字并没有改变警务改革的偏好。对警务改革的支持主要与党派和意识形态有关，再加上种族因素。我们的研究结果阐明了公众对警务改革偏好的主要来源，并揭示了信息驱动、基于数字的举措影响美国警务的潜在局限性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Experimental Political Science Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.

期刊最新文献

Combating Hateful Attitudes and Online Browsing Behavior: The Case of Antisemitism Inaccurate forecasting of a randomized controlled trial Discussion and Fairness in a Laboratory Voting Experiment – ADDENDUM Testing the Effect of Information on Discerning the Veracity of News in Real Time (How) Do Information Campaigns Influence Migration Decisions?