{"title":"A comment on‚ Dissociative Amnesia: A Valid Construct for Repressed Memories by Hans J. Markowitsch and Angelica Staniloiu","authors":"Israel Nachson, Angelica Staniloiu","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.2_12276","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.2_12276","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"30 S1","pages":"24-25"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143836392","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite some hope in the early 2000s and 2010s, the ‘memory wars’ are not over yet, while science and the public still need reliable answers regarding the emergence, veracity and consequences of delayed memories of sexual abuse. This special issue (inspired by a British Psychological Society working group on the same topic) is therefore another attempt at making some progress along these lines, by creating a kind of round table debate between five (groups of) ‘panellists’, resulting in five ‘mini debates’ consisting of original contributions, comments and replies. We think this adds new facets to this important debate.
{"title":"Exploring common ground in the repressed versus false memories debate","authors":"Hartmut Blank, Aileen Oeberst","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12307","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12307","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Despite some hope in the early 2000s and 2010s, the ‘memory wars’ are not over yet, while science and the public still need reliable answers regarding the emergence, veracity and consequences of delayed memories of sexual abuse. This special issue (inspired by a British Psychological Society working group on the same topic) is therefore another attempt at making some progress along these lines, by creating a kind of round table debate between five (groups of) ‘panellists’, resulting in five ‘mini debates’ consisting of original contributions, comments and replies. We think this adds new facets to this important debate.</p>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"30 S1","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143836390","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Bryan Barnes, Bryan Myers, Rachel Klainer, Kori Meyer
Purpose
Information about whether an individual volunteered to take or refused to take a polygraph test may become public knowledge, and in some instances, becomes known to jurors. While numerous studies have investigated how the public regards polygraph test accuracy, little is known about public perceptions surrounding refusal or willingness to take a polygraph test in cases where an individual's veracity is questioned.
Methods
An online survey of 302 individuals assessed beliefs about the accuracy of polygraph tests and trust in denials of guilt in hypothetical cases where a polygraph test was: (1) refused, (2) voluntarily taken with no results, (3) voluntarily taken and passed and (4) voluntarily taken and failed.
Results
Overall, the average rating of polygraph accuracy in detecting deception was 71%, and 67% for detecting truthfulness. The findings also indicate that suspect willingness to take a polygraph test significantly increases trust in their denial of guilt, while refusal to take the test is perceived similarly to a failed test. Despite scepticism about the accuracy of polygraph tests, willingness or refusal to take the test impacts whether the suspect is trusted by others.
Conclusions
For courts in which polygraph test evidence is inadmissible, jurors should not be informed about whether the defendant or any witness offered or refused a polygraph test because they are likely to judge truthfulness based on this information.
{"title":"Damned if you don't: Public perceptions of polygraph testing and suspect willingness to be tested","authors":"Bryan Barnes, Bryan Myers, Rachel Klainer, Kori Meyer","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12310","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12310","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Information about whether an individual volunteered to take or refused to take a polygraph test may become public knowledge, and in some instances, becomes known to jurors. While numerous studies have investigated how the public regards polygraph test accuracy, little is known about public perceptions surrounding refusal or willingness to take a polygraph test in cases where an individual's veracity is questioned.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>An online survey of 302 individuals assessed beliefs about the accuracy of polygraph tests and trust in denials of guilt in hypothetical cases where a polygraph test was: (1) refused, (2) voluntarily taken with no results, (3) voluntarily taken and passed and (4) voluntarily taken and failed.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Overall, the average rating of polygraph accuracy in detecting deception was 71%, and 67% for detecting truthfulness. The findings also indicate that suspect willingness to take a polygraph test significantly increases trust in their denial of guilt, while refusal to take the test is perceived similarly to a failed test. Despite scepticism about the accuracy of polygraph tests, willingness or refusal to take the test impacts whether the suspect is trusted by others.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>For courts in which polygraph test evidence is inadmissible, jurors should not be informed about whether the defendant or any witness offered or refused a polygraph test because they are likely to judge truthfulness based on this information.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"30 2","pages":"316-325"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12310","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144832964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Allison D. Redlich, Lydia Becker, Lucian E. Dervan, Michael P. Donnelly, Annabelle Frazier, Meredith Gallen, Oren Gazal-Ayal, Rebecca K. Helm, Brian D. Johnson, Emi MacLean, Norman L. Reimer, Miko M. Wilford, Tina M. Zottoli
Criminal legal systems around the world rely heavily on defendants foregoing their right to trial and pleading guilty. However, legal scholars, social scientists, and practitioners have identified and empirically examined numerous problems with pleas, such as the high potential for coercion, innocent defendants falsely pleading guilty, and undue incentives in exchange for accepting plea offer. In this article, leading guilty plea experts (practitioners and researchers) were asked to identify what they considered to be the most urgent questions surrounding pleas. Across nine commentaries, three primary themes emerged. First were calls for increased transparency in pleas, specific to rules of discovery and access to exculpatory information, and in uncovering the hidden nature of the plea negotiation process. Second were concepts of fairness and voluntariness, such as uncounseled pleas, particularly for misdemeanour defendants, and the dubious assumptions made by courts regarding the presumption of voluntariness. Third was the theme of fair and just outcomes, particularly false guilty pleas. Four of the commentaries focused on innocence, describing and encouraging more research on the factors that increase false guilty pleas, including excessive plea discounts, specialized sentencing offers for juvenile defendants, and ‘time-served’ offers, either to induce initial guilty pleas (pre-trial phase) or to avoid official exonerations of those wrongly convicted (post-conviction phase). Across all commentaries, experts identified areas in need of future research, both in continuing to understand the problems known to plague systems of pleas and in developing improved methods to ensure the guilty plea process is transparent, voluntary, and just.
{"title":"Urgent issues and prospects in guilty plea research and practice","authors":"Allison D. Redlich, Lydia Becker, Lucian E. Dervan, Michael P. Donnelly, Annabelle Frazier, Meredith Gallen, Oren Gazal-Ayal, Rebecca K. Helm, Brian D. Johnson, Emi MacLean, Norman L. Reimer, Miko M. Wilford, Tina M. Zottoli","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12306","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12306","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Criminal legal systems around the world rely heavily on defendants foregoing their right to trial and pleading guilty. However, legal scholars, social scientists, and practitioners have identified and empirically examined numerous problems with pleas, such as the high potential for coercion, innocent defendants falsely pleading guilty, and undue incentives in exchange for accepting plea offer. In this article, leading guilty plea experts (practitioners and researchers) were asked to identify what they considered to be the most urgent questions surrounding pleas. Across nine commentaries, three primary themes emerged. First were calls for increased transparency in pleas, specific to rules of discovery and access to exculpatory information, and in uncovering the hidden nature of the plea negotiation process. Second were concepts of fairness and voluntariness, such as uncounseled pleas, particularly for misdemeanour defendants, and the dubious assumptions made by courts regarding the presumption of voluntariness. Third was the theme of fair and just outcomes, particularly false guilty pleas. Four of the commentaries focused on innocence, describing and encouraging more research on the factors that increase false guilty pleas, including excessive plea discounts, specialized sentencing offers for juvenile defendants, and ‘time-served’ offers, either to induce initial guilty pleas (pre-trial phase) or to avoid official exonerations of those wrongly convicted (post-conviction phase). Across all commentaries, experts identified areas in need of future research, both in continuing to understand the problems known to plague systems of pleas and in developing improved methods to ensure the guilty plea process is transparent, voluntary, and just.</p>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"30 2","pages":"193-211"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12306","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144832963","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study investigates the causal relationships between self-compassion, antisocial personality, guilt, and hope, and their influence on repeat offending among female inmates involved in drug-related cases in Thailand.
Methods
The sample comprised 646 Thai female inmates aged between 28 and 52 years from five correctional institutions in the Bangkok Metropolitan Region. Instruments included the Self-Compassion Scale, the Antisocial Personality Scale, the Guilt Scale, the Hope Scale, and the Recidivism Tendency Scale.
Results
The causal relationship analysis reveals that self-compassion directly influences guilt (β = −0.303, p < .05), but does not directly impact hope or recidivism. Antisocial personality has a direct influence on guilt (β = −0.828, p < .001) and hope (β = −0.723, p < .001), and indirectly influences repeat offending with hope acting as a mediator variable (β = 0.414). Guilt directly influences recidivism (β = −0.541, p < .05), as does hope (β = −0.573, p < .001). Among the six hypotheses tested, only one was supported by the research findings.
Discussion and Conclusion
The findings indicate that there are additional variables, not examined in this study, that could have a causal relationship influencing recidivism and warrant further investigation. Future research should emphasize the specific social and cultural contexts that impact data analysis. The results suggest that to reduce recidivism, it is important to focus on reducing impulsive and antisocial personality traits, promoting hope and guilt awareness, and fostering self-compassion.
目的本研究探讨自我同情、反社会人格、内疚、希望对泰国涉毒女犯人重复犯罪的因果关系及其影响。方法样本包括646名泰国女性囚犯，年龄在28岁至52岁之间，来自曼谷大都会区5个惩教机构。测试工具包括自我同情量表、反社会人格量表、内疚量表、希望量表和再犯倾向量表。结果因果关系分析显示，自我同情直接影响内疚（β = - 0.303, p < 0.05），但不直接影响希望和再犯。反社会人格直接影响内疚（β = - 0.828, p < .001）和希望（β = - 0.723, p < .001），间接影响重复犯罪，希望作为中介变量（β = 0.414）。内疚直接影响累犯（β = - 0.541, p < 0.05），希望也是如此（β = - 0.573, p < 0.001）。在测试的六个假设中，只有一个得到了研究结果的支持。讨论与结论研究结果表明，本研究未检查的其他变量可能与累犯有因果关系，值得进一步调查。未来的研究应强调影响数据分析的具体社会和文化背景。结果表明，减少再犯的重点是减少冲动和反社会的人格特征，提高希望和内疚意识，培养自我同情。
{"title":"Factors influencing recidivism among female inmates in drug-related cases in Thailand: Self-compassion, antisocial personality, guilt, and hope","authors":"Chanakida Thummanond, Nattakarn Jantharasiriphut","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12309","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12309","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study investigates the causal relationships between self-compassion, antisocial personality, guilt, and hope, and their influence on repeat offending among female inmates involved in drug-related cases in Thailand.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The sample comprised 646 Thai female inmates aged between 28 and 52 years from five correctional institutions in the Bangkok Metropolitan Region. Instruments included the Self-Compassion Scale, the Antisocial Personality Scale, the Guilt Scale, the Hope Scale, and the Recidivism Tendency Scale.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The causal relationship analysis reveals that self-compassion directly influences guilt (<i>β</i> = −0.303, <i>p</i> < .05), but does not directly impact hope or recidivism. Antisocial personality has a direct influence on guilt (<i>β</i> = −0.828, <i>p</i> < .001) and hope (<i>β</i> = −0.723, <i>p</i> < .001), and indirectly influences repeat offending with hope acting as a mediator variable (<i>β</i> = 0.414). Guilt directly influences recidivism (<i>β</i> = −0.541, <i>p</i> < .05), as does hope (<i>β</i> = −0.573, <i>p</i> < .001). Among the six hypotheses tested, only one was supported by the research findings.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion and Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The findings indicate that there are additional variables, not examined in this study, that could have a causal relationship influencing recidivism and warrant further investigation. Future research should emphasize the specific social and cultural contexts that impact data analysis. The results suggest that to reduce recidivism, it is important to focus on reducing impulsive and antisocial personality traits, promoting hope and guilt awareness, and fostering self-compassion.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"30 2","pages":"298-315"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144832941","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"On the benefits of sequencing case information to combat bias: A commentary on Oberlader and Verschuere (2025)","authors":"Jeff Kukucka, Adele Quigley-McBride","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12308","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12308","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"30 2","pages":"185-187"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144832681","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Anna S. Knes, Evan M. Lowder, Mindy L. Thai, Sydney M. Reuter, Autumn R. Kent
Introduction
Risk assessments represent a contemporary solution to reform bail practices. Current research suggests such tools can promote nonfinancial release. However, fewer studies have examined why judges may not regularly adhere to pretrial risk assessments and how other pretrial practices may affect risk assessment-guided decision-making.
Aim
This study examined how long-standing and newer pretrial practices—the presence of counsel at first appearance, continued reliance on traditional bail setting practices and the use of structured guidelines—informs pretrial release decision.
Methods
We conducted a national, cross-sectional survey of 146 US criminal-legal professionals representing defence attorneys (37.2%), pretrial services officers (26.4%), prosecutors (14.0%), judges (8.3%), and other roles (14.0%). The survey involved three randomized vignette scenarios and questions on respondents' background and perceptions of risk assessments. In each vignette, participants rated their probability of a release on recognizance, detention, bail and supervision decision. Analyses incorporated a combination of t-tests, ANOVAs and multiple regressions.
Results
Findings indicated the absence of counsel at first appearance and presence of a traditional bail system led to a lower likelihood of releasing on recognizance, while the provision of structured guidelines did not alter participants' likelihood of releasing on recognizance, assigning bail or assigning significantly higher bail amounts. Participants' race, political affiliation and confidence in daily decision-making were associated with certain release decisions.
Conclusion
Our findings suggest other pretrial practices limit the consideration of risk assessment information in decision-making. To promote greater adherence to risk assessment tools, we recommend strategies to curtail discretionary use of bail when pretrial risk assessments are present.
{"title":"Multi-study examination of criminal-legal professionals' use of risk assessments in pretrial decision-making","authors":"Anna S. Knes, Evan M. Lowder, Mindy L. Thai, Sydney M. Reuter, Autumn R. Kent","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12305","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12305","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Risk assessments represent a contemporary solution to reform bail practices. Current research suggests such tools can promote nonfinancial release. However, fewer studies have examined why judges may not regularly adhere to pretrial risk assessments and how other pretrial practices may affect risk assessment-guided decision-making.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Aim</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study examined how long-standing and newer pretrial practices—the presence of counsel at first appearance, continued reliance on traditional bail setting practices and the use of structured guidelines—informs pretrial release decision.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We conducted a national, cross-sectional survey of 146 US criminal-legal professionals representing defence attorneys (37.2%), pretrial services officers (26.4%), prosecutors (14.0%), judges (8.3%), and other roles (14.0%). The survey involved three randomized vignette scenarios and questions on respondents' background and perceptions of risk assessments. In each vignette, participants rated their probability of a release on recognizance, detention, bail and supervision decision. Analyses incorporated a combination of <i>t</i>-tests, ANOVAs and multiple regressions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Findings indicated the absence of counsel at first appearance and presence of a traditional bail system led to a lower likelihood of releasing on recognizance, while the provision of structured guidelines did not alter participants' likelihood of releasing on recognizance, assigning bail or assigning significantly higher bail amounts. Participants' race, political affiliation and confidence in daily decision-making were associated with certain release decisions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our findings suggest other pretrial practices limit the consideration of risk assessment information in decision-making. To promote greater adherence to risk assessment tools, we recommend strategies to curtail discretionary use of bail when pretrial risk assessments are present.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"30 2","pages":"268-297"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12305","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144833034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article listed above, intended for publication in the Special Issue ‘Direct Replications in Legal and Criminological Psychology’ was inadvertently published in a regular issue, volume 27, issue 2. This was due to a production error by the publisher and is not attributable to the authors or guest editors. This article should be cited as shown above.
{"title":"Correction to “Susceptibility to violent extremism and cognitive rigidity: Registered replication, corroboration and open questions for criminological research and practice” Zmigrod, L. (2022). Susceptibility to violent extremism and cognitive rigidity: Registered replication, corroboration and open questions for criminological research and practice. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 27, 170–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12225","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12304","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12304","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The article listed above, intended for publication in the Special Issue ‘Direct Replications in Legal and Criminological Psychology’ was inadvertently published in a regular issue, volume 27, issue 2. This was due to a production error by the publisher and is not attributable to the authors or guest editors. This article should be cited as shown above.</p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/lcrp.12304","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143116706","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ning Li, Shuting Yang, Xiaomin Sun, Ning Chu, Zhihong Qiao, Qinglin Zhang
Background
With the framework of the mindset theory and previous findings in adult criminal justice, this research explores how growth mindset—the belief that personal traits are malleable—affects judicial decision-making in juvenile justice.
Aims
We aim to examine the hypotheses that laypeople with growth mindset tend to endorse more rehabilitative motivations and decisions (H1) through reduced trait attribution (H2).
Materials and Methods
We measured (Study 1) and experimentally manipulated (Study 2) growth mindset to test H1 and H2 with samples of laypeople. Studies 3A and 3B used data from professional judges and prosecutors in China to test the generalizability. Study 4 replicated the measures from Studies 3A and 3B with a laypeople sample to facilitate cross-sample comparisons.
Results
Studies 1 and 2 provide correlational and causal evidence, respectively, supporting both H1 and H2. However, Studies 3A and 3B did not yield significant results among judicial experts. Study 4 re-confirmed the hypotheses in lay participants. Judges with juvenile case experience showed a weaker association between growth mindset and probation decisions compared to their less specialized peers and laypeople. A similar pattern emerged among prosecutors, though the findings were not statistically significant.
Discussion
The current research highlights growth mindset as a key belief driving public support for rehabilitative approaches in juvenile justice. Specialized judicial expertise appears to mitigate this association, suggesting a nuanced interaction between lay beliefs and judicial specialization.
Conclusion
Growth mindset of laypeople results in their reduced trait attribution and more rehabilitative judicial decisions in cases of juvenile delinquency.
{"title":"Growth mindset results in reduced trait attribution and more rehabilitative judicial decisions in cases of juvenile delinquency","authors":"Ning Li, Shuting Yang, Xiaomin Sun, Ning Chu, Zhihong Qiao, Qinglin Zhang","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12302","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lcrp.12302","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>With the framework of the mindset theory and previous findings in adult criminal justice, this research explores how growth mindset—the belief that personal traits are malleable—affects judicial decision-making in juvenile justice.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Aims</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We aim to examine the hypotheses that laypeople with growth mindset tend to endorse more rehabilitative motivations and decisions (H1) through reduced trait attribution (H2).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We measured (Study 1) and experimentally manipulated (Study 2) growth mindset to test H1 and H2 with samples of laypeople. Studies 3A and 3B used data from professional judges and prosecutors in China to test the generalizability. Study 4 replicated the measures from Studies 3A and 3B with a laypeople sample to facilitate cross-sample comparisons.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Studies 1 and 2 provide correlational and causal evidence, respectively, supporting both H1 and H2. However, Studies 3A and 3B did not yield significant results among judicial experts. Study 4 re-confirmed the hypotheses in lay participants. Judges with juvenile case experience showed a weaker association between growth mindset and probation decisions compared to their less specialized peers and laypeople. A similar pattern emerged among prosecutors, though the findings were not statistically significant.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The current research highlights growth mindset as a key belief driving public support for rehabilitative approaches in juvenile justice. Specialized judicial expertise appears to mitigate this association, suggesting a nuanced interaction between lay beliefs and judicial specialization.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Growth mindset of laypeople results in their reduced trait attribution and more rehabilitative judicial decisions in cases of juvenile delinquency.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"30 2","pages":"244-267"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144833332","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号