OBJECTIVEWe developed and tested a chatbot for reporting information to police. We examined how chatbot communication styles impacted three outcomes: (a) report accuracy, (b) willingness to provide contact information, and (c) user trust in the chatbot system.HYPOTHESESIn police-citizen interactions, people respond more positively when police officers use a combination of power and solidarity in their communication. We expected that this would hold for citizen-reporting chatbot interactions.METHODWe conducted an online survey experiment with 950 U.S. adults who approximated the population on key demographics. Participants watched a video of a suspicious scenario and reported the incident to a chatbot. We manipulated and programmed the communication style of a generative pre-trained transformer chatbot to include elements of the power-solidarity framework from linguistics to create a 2 (power: low vs. high) × 2 (solidarity: low vs. high) design. We then compared three outcomes across conditions.RESULTSThe high power-high solidarity condition yielded the most positive responses. Relative to high power-high solidarity reports, low power-low solidarity reports were less accurate about the individual involved. Trust in the chatbot and willingness to provide contact information did not vary across conditions.CONCLUSIONFindings contributed to criminological, linguistic, and information technology literatures to show how communication styles impact user responses to and perceptions of a chatbot for reporting to police. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
我们开发并测试了一个向警方报告信息的聊天机器人。我们研究了聊天机器人的沟通方式如何影响三个结果：(a)报告准确性，(b)提供联系信息的意愿，以及(c)用户对聊天机器人系统的信任。假设在警察与公民的互动中，当警察在沟通中结合使用权力和团结时，人们会做出更积极的反应。我们预计这将适用于公民报告的聊天机器人交互。方法我们对950名美国成年人进行了一项在线调查实验，这些成年人在关键人口统计学上接近人口。参与者观看了一个可疑场景的视频，并向聊天机器人报告了这一事件。我们操纵和编程了一个生成式预训练的变形聊天机器人的通信风格，使其包括语言学中的权力-团结框架元素，以创建一个2（权力：低vs高）× 2（团结：低vs高）的设计。然后，我们比较了不同条件下的三种结果。结果高权力-高团结条件下的积极反应最多。相对于高权力-高团结的报告，低权力-低团结的报告对所涉及的个人不太准确。对聊天机器人的信任和提供联系信息的意愿在不同条件下没有变化。结论：研究结果为犯罪学、语言学和信息技术文献做出了贡献，展示了沟通风格如何影响用户对聊天机器人向警方报案的反应和看法。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。
{"title":"How chatbot communication styles impact citizen reports to police: Testing procedural justice and overaccommodation approaches in a survey experiment.","authors":"Callie Vitro,Erin M Kearns,Joel S Elson","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000613","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000613","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEWe developed and tested a chatbot for reporting information to police. We examined how chatbot communication styles impacted three outcomes: (a) report accuracy, (b) willingness to provide contact information, and (c) user trust in the chatbot system.HYPOTHESESIn police-citizen interactions, people respond more positively when police officers use a combination of power and solidarity in their communication. We expected that this would hold for citizen-reporting chatbot interactions.METHODWe conducted an online survey experiment with 950 U.S. adults who approximated the population on key demographics. Participants watched a video of a suspicious scenario and reported the incident to a chatbot. We manipulated and programmed the communication style of a generative pre-trained transformer chatbot to include elements of the power-solidarity framework from linguistics to create a 2 (power: low vs. high) × 2 (solidarity: low vs. high) design. We then compared three outcomes across conditions.RESULTSThe high power-high solidarity condition yielded the most positive responses. Relative to high power-high solidarity reports, low power-low solidarity reports were less accurate about the individual involved. Trust in the chatbot and willingness to provide contact information did not vary across conditions.CONCLUSIONFindings contributed to criminological, linguistic, and information technology literatures to show how communication styles impact user responses to and perceptions of a chatbot for reporting to police. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"121 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144087832","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":"Supplemental Material for How Chatbot Communication Styles Impact Citizen Reports to Police: Testing Procedural Justice and Overaccommodation Approaches in a Survey Experiment","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000613.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000613.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144229345","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}
Anne A A Janssen,Kees van den Bos,Kim G F van der Kraats
OBJECTIVEBuilding on recent suggestions that there are, thus far, unnoticed levels of increased polarization and decreased perceived legitimacy of the judiciary within the Netherlands, we studied the experiences of self-represented litigants in early stages of Dutch small claims procedures. Our objective was to assess by means of qualitative interviews (a) whether litigants would mention experiences of perceived procedural justice during these court procedures and, (b) if so, what elements of perceived procedural justice they would mention, (c) how they form judgments of trust in judges, and (d) whether interviewees would mention spontaneously that in these early stages of court procedures, with limited information available, they do not know (yet) whether they perceive a judge as fair or can trust a judge handling their case.RESEARCH QUESTIONWhat role, if any, do judgments of procedural justice, trust in judges, and informational uncertainty play in early stages of civil procedures?METHODWe held 115 interviews with self-represented litigants about their experiences with prehearings in Dutch small claims procedures. We asked respondents in various ways about procedural justice and trust in judges. We coded whether litigants mentioned spontaneously that they did not have enough information to answer these questions.RESULTSRespondents mentioned procedural fairness perceptions spontaneously when asked directly about fair treatment and when interviewed about specific procedural justice components. Interestingly, almost half of the respondents indicated that they did not have an opinion about at least one procedural justice component. When asked about trust in judges, various respondents also indicated that they did not have an opinion yet.CONCLUSIONSThese results suggest that (a) perceived procedural justice matters to self-represented litigants in civil procedures, and (b) in early stages of court procedures, people may not know whether they perceive a judge as fair or can trust judges and may indicate this spontaneously in interviews. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
目的：根据最近的建议，到目前为止，在荷兰，存在着未被注意到的两极分化程度的增加和司法合法性的降低，我们研究了荷兰小额索赔程序早期阶段自我代理诉讼当事人的经验。我们的目标是通过定性访谈来评估(a)诉讼当事人是否会提到在这些法庭程序中感知到的程序正义的经历，(b)如果是，他们会提到感知到的程序正义的哪些要素，(c)他们如何形成对法官的信任判断，以及(d)受访者是否会自发地提到，在这些法庭程序的早期阶段，可用的信息有限，他们不知道他们是否认为法官公正，或者是否可以信任法官处理他们的案件。研究问题：程序公正的判决、对法官的信任和信息不确定性在民事诉讼的早期阶段发挥了什么作用？方法我们对115名自我辩护的诉讼当事人进行了访谈，了解他们在荷兰小额索赔程序中的审前经历。我们以各种方式询问受访者关于程序正义和对法官的信任。我们对诉讼当事人是否自发地提到他们没有足够的信息来回答这些问题进行编码。结果当被直接问及公平待遇和被问及具体的程序公正因素时，受访者自发地提到了程序公平的感知。有趣的是，几乎一半的受访者表示，他们对至少一个程序正义组成部分没有意见。对于“对法官的信任程度”的提问，各回答者也表示“还没有意见”。这些结果表明：(a)感知程序正义对民事诉讼中自我代理的诉讼当事人很重要；(b)在法庭程序的早期阶段，人们可能不知道他们是否认为法官是公平的，或者是否可以信任法官，并可能在访谈中自发地表明这一点。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。
{"title":"\"I do not have an opinion about that yet\": Qualitative research on perceived procedural justice of self-represented litigants in early stages of small claims procedures in the Netherlands.","authors":"Anne A A Janssen,Kees van den Bos,Kim G F van der Kraats","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000612","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000612","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEBuilding on recent suggestions that there are, thus far, unnoticed levels of increased polarization and decreased perceived legitimacy of the judiciary within the Netherlands, we studied the experiences of self-represented litigants in early stages of Dutch small claims procedures. Our objective was to assess by means of qualitative interviews (a) whether litigants would mention experiences of perceived procedural justice during these court procedures and, (b) if so, what elements of perceived procedural justice they would mention, (c) how they form judgments of trust in judges, and (d) whether interviewees would mention spontaneously that in these early stages of court procedures, with limited information available, they do not know (yet) whether they perceive a judge as fair or can trust a judge handling their case.RESEARCH QUESTIONWhat role, if any, do judgments of procedural justice, trust in judges, and informational uncertainty play in early stages of civil procedures?METHODWe held 115 interviews with self-represented litigants about their experiences with prehearings in Dutch small claims procedures. We asked respondents in various ways about procedural justice and trust in judges. We coded whether litigants mentioned spontaneously that they did not have enough information to answer these questions.RESULTSRespondents mentioned procedural fairness perceptions spontaneously when asked directly about fair treatment and when interviewed about specific procedural justice components. Interestingly, almost half of the respondents indicated that they did not have an opinion about at least one procedural justice component. When asked about trust in judges, various respondents also indicated that they did not have an opinion yet.CONCLUSIONSThese results suggest that (a) perceived procedural justice matters to self-represented litigants in civil procedures, and (b) in early stages of court procedures, people may not know whether they perceive a judge as fair or can trust judges and may indicate this spontaneously in interviews. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144087833","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}
OBJECTIVEThe complexity of tax laws makes manual preparation difficult, leading more taxpayers to use software or accountants. This study presents an experimental analysis comparing taxpayer perceptions of trust and procedural justice when filing with tax experts versus using tax software. The study addressed four questions: (1) How do perceptions of human tax experts compare to tax software? (2) Do perceptions vary among different types of tax software? (3) Do trust and procedural justice predict filing decisions? (4) Can taxpayers effectively oversee tax preparation software?HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that participants would favor professional tax experts over commercial and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) software (Hypothesis 1). We also expected higher procedural justice to correlate with greater satisfaction (Hypothesis 2), self-identified knowledge to correlate with accurate expectations (Hypothesis 3), and filing decisions to be predicted by trust in the method (Hypothesis 4a) or outcome (Hypothesis 4b). We anticipated that higher trust in software would increase the likelihood of filing with software (Hypothesis 5) and that inconsistency across methods would decrease filing likelihood (Hypothesis 6).METHODIn the experiment, 146 taxpayers (64% women; 88% Hispanic; 75% White; Mage = 27.55 years) prepared their taxes using three methods: a tax professional, commercial software, and IRS software. Participants rated and ranked the trustworthiness of each method and indicated their preference.RESULTSAs predicted, participants had the most favorable perceptions of the tax expert, followed by commercial software and IRS software (Hypothesis 1). Trust in the method, not the outcome, predicted filing decisions (Hypothesis 4a). Participants with higher trust in software were more likely to file with software (Hypothesis 5). Contrary to expectations, procedural justice did not correlate with satisfaction (Hypothesis 2), and knowledge did not correlate with accurate expectations (Hypothesis 3). Consistency across methods did not predict filing (Hypothesis 6).CONCLUSIONSParticipants generally preferred human experts, but trust in software could override this preference. Future research directions and implications are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
目的税法的复杂性使人工编制变得困难，导致更多的纳税人使用软件或会计师。本研究提出了一项实验分析，比较纳税人在向税务专家报税与使用税务软件报税时对信任和程序正义的看法。该研究解决了四个问题：(1)与税务软件相比，人类税务专家的看法如何？(2)不同类型的税务软件是否存在认知差异？(3)信任和程序公正能否预测立案决定？(4)纳税人能否有效监管报税软件？假设我们假设参与者更喜欢专业税务专家而不是商业和美国国税局（IRS）软件（假设1）。我们还期望更高的程序公正与更高的满意度相关（假设2），自我认同的知识与准确的期望相关（假设3），并通过对方法（假设4a）或结果（假设4b）的信任来预测归档决策。我们预计，对软件较高的信任将增加使用软件归档的可能性（假设5），而方法之间的不一致性将降低归档的可能性（假设6）。方法选取146名纳税人(女性占64%；88%的西班牙裔;75%的白人;法师（27.55岁）用三种方法报税：税务专家、商业软件和国税局软件。参与者对每种方法的可信度进行评级和排名，并表明他们的偏好。结果正如预测的那样，参与者对税务专家的看法最有利，其次是商业软件和IRS软件（假设1）。对方法的信任，而不是对结果的信任，预测了备案决定（假设4a）。对软件信任度较高的参与者更有可能使用软件进行归档（假设5）。与预期相反，程序公正与满意度不相关（假设2），知识与准确预期不相关（假设3）。不同方法的一致性不能预测归档（假设6）。结论：参与者通常更喜欢人类专家，但对软件的信任可以超越这种偏好。展望了未来的研究方向和意义。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。
{"title":"Experts, commercial software, and the internal revenue service: American taxpayer perceptions of trust and procedural justice.","authors":"Krystia Reed,Morgan Wagner,Saeid Tizpaz-Niari,Ashutosh Trivedi","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000600","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000600","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEThe complexity of tax laws makes manual preparation difficult, leading more taxpayers to use software or accountants. This study presents an experimental analysis comparing taxpayer perceptions of trust and procedural justice when filing with tax experts versus using tax software. The study addressed four questions: (1) How do perceptions of human tax experts compare to tax software? (2) Do perceptions vary among different types of tax software? (3) Do trust and procedural justice predict filing decisions? (4) Can taxpayers effectively oversee tax preparation software?HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that participants would favor professional tax experts over commercial and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) software (Hypothesis 1). We also expected higher procedural justice to correlate with greater satisfaction (Hypothesis 2), self-identified knowledge to correlate with accurate expectations (Hypothesis 3), and filing decisions to be predicted by trust in the method (Hypothesis 4a) or outcome (Hypothesis 4b). We anticipated that higher trust in software would increase the likelihood of filing with software (Hypothesis 5) and that inconsistency across methods would decrease filing likelihood (Hypothesis 6).METHODIn the experiment, 146 taxpayers (64% women; 88% Hispanic; 75% White; Mage = 27.55 years) prepared their taxes using three methods: a tax professional, commercial software, and IRS software. Participants rated and ranked the trustworthiness of each method and indicated their preference.RESULTSAs predicted, participants had the most favorable perceptions of the tax expert, followed by commercial software and IRS software (Hypothesis 1). Trust in the method, not the outcome, predicted filing decisions (Hypothesis 4a). Participants with higher trust in software were more likely to file with software (Hypothesis 5). Contrary to expectations, procedural justice did not correlate with satisfaction (Hypothesis 2), and knowledge did not correlate with accurate expectations (Hypothesis 3). Consistency across methods did not predict filing (Hypothesis 6).CONCLUSIONSParticipants generally preferred human experts, but trust in software could override this preference. Future research directions and implications are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144065754","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}
Kelsey E Tom,Savanna Allen,Allison R Cross,Adam D Fine
OBJECTIVEBeyond traditional in-person meetings, contemporary juvenile probation officers (JPOs) leverage modern technology to interact with youth via videoconferencing, phone calls, and text messaging. It is plausible that youth feel more-or less-supported by JPOs depending on the format of their interactions. Simultaneously, the procedural justice literature suggests that the quality of JPOs' interactions with youth may be as much or more influential on JPO-youth relationships than interaction format. Given that more positive supervisory relationships are associated with better probation outcomes, it is critical to understand what may shape youths' regard for JPOs. This study examined youths' perceived support from JPOs across four interaction formats. Then, this study examined how two supervisory experiences (interaction quality and frequency) were associated with youths' perceived support from JPOs through each interaction format.HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that youth would feel similarly supported by JPOs across all four interaction formats. Per procedural justice theory, we expected that youth who perceived better quality relationships with their JPO (i.e., more procedurally just) would be more likely to feel supported by JPOs across all interaction formats. Last, we hypothesized that youth interacted with JPOs more often digitally, rather than in person, would be more likely to feel supported.METHODYouth (N = 529) on juvenile probation were surveyed to assess their probation experiences and perceptions of JPOs.RESULTSYouth felt similarly supported by JPOs across all four formats. Youth were more likely to feel supported the more often they interacted with JPOs and were much more likely to feel supported by JPOs they viewed as more procedurally just.CONCLUSIONSThis study suggests that digital interactions are prevalent in juvenile probation supervision and well received by youth. Results highlight the potential of two supervisory practices that may help JPOs build better relationships with youth on probation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
目的：除了传统的面对面会议，当代青少年缓刑官（JPOs）利用现代技术，通过视频会议、电话和短信与青少年互动。青年人似乎觉得，根据他们相互作用的形式，他们或多或少地得到了jpo的支持。同时，程序公正文献表明，与互动形式相比，初级警务人员与青年互动的质量可能对初级警务人员与青年关系的影响同样大，甚至更大。鉴于更积极的监督关系与更好的缓刑结果相关，了解是什么影响了年轻人对jpo的看法是至关重要的。本研究通过四种互动形式考察了青年对jpo支持的感知。然后，本研究考察了两种管理经验（互动质量和频率）如何通过每种互动形式与青年感知的jpo支持相关。我们假设年轻人在所有四种互动形式中都能感受到jpo对他们的支持。根据程序公正理论，我们期望那些认为与JPO关系质量更好（即程序公正）的青年更有可能在所有互动形式中感受到JPO的支持。最后，我们假设年轻人更经常地与jpo进行数字互动，而不是面对面的互动，他们更有可能感到被支持。方法对529名缓刑少年进行问卷调查，了解他们的缓刑经历和对假释官的看法。结果youth在所有四种格式中都得到了jpo的类似支持。年轻人与jpo互动的次数越多，他们更有可能感到被支持，他们认为jpo在程序上更公正，也更有可能感到被支持。结论数字互动在青少年缓刑监督中普遍存在，并受到青少年的欢迎。结果强调了两种监督实践的潜力，这可能有助于jpo与缓刑青年建立更好的关系。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。
{"title":"Does meeting in person matter? Examining youths' perceived support on juvenile probation.","authors":"Kelsey E Tom,Savanna Allen,Allison R Cross,Adam D Fine","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000606","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000606","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEBeyond traditional in-person meetings, contemporary juvenile probation officers (JPOs) leverage modern technology to interact with youth via videoconferencing, phone calls, and text messaging. It is plausible that youth feel more-or less-supported by JPOs depending on the format of their interactions. Simultaneously, the procedural justice literature suggests that the quality of JPOs' interactions with youth may be as much or more influential on JPO-youth relationships than interaction format. Given that more positive supervisory relationships are associated with better probation outcomes, it is critical to understand what may shape youths' regard for JPOs. This study examined youths' perceived support from JPOs across four interaction formats. Then, this study examined how two supervisory experiences (interaction quality and frequency) were associated with youths' perceived support from JPOs through each interaction format.HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that youth would feel similarly supported by JPOs across all four interaction formats. Per procedural justice theory, we expected that youth who perceived better quality relationships with their JPO (i.e., more procedurally just) would be more likely to feel supported by JPOs across all interaction formats. Last, we hypothesized that youth interacted with JPOs more often digitally, rather than in person, would be more likely to feel supported.METHODYouth (N = 529) on juvenile probation were surveyed to assess their probation experiences and perceptions of JPOs.RESULTSYouth felt similarly supported by JPOs across all four formats. Youth were more likely to feel supported the more often they interacted with JPOs and were much more likely to feel supported by JPOs they viewed as more procedurally just.CONCLUSIONSThis study suggests that digital interactions are prevalent in juvenile probation supervision and well received by youth. Results highlight the potential of two supervisory practices that may help JPOs build better relationships with youth on probation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143921019","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":"Supplemental Material for Does Meeting in Person Matter? Examining Youths’ Perceived Support on Juvenile Probation","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000606.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000606.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144229349","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}
Joseph Eastwood,Kirk Luther,Tianshuang Han,Valerie Arenzon,Quintan Crough,Ashley Curtis,Hannah de Almeida,Kelsey Janet Downer,Cassandre Dion Larivière,Jessica Lundy,Funmilola Ogunseye,Mark D Snow,Brent Snook
OBJECTIVEWe examined the evolution of statistical reporting practices within forensic psychology across two decades (2000-2020) to assess their adherence to recommended best practices.METHODWe conducted a comprehensive analysis of articles published in six prominent forensic psychology journals, including every empirical article published in each journal in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 (N = 813). We then evaluated the use and interpretation of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), effect sizes (ESs), confidence intervals (CIs), and Bayesian statistics for each article in the sample.RESULTSWe found a persistent reliance on NHST, with nearly all articles employing it for data analysis and interpretation. Encouragingly, the reporting of ESs and CIs has increased substantially; their interpretative use, however, remains limited. Bayesian methods were rarely used for analysis or interpretation of data.CONCLUSIONSThese findings suggest a slow uptake of reforms advocated by statistical guidelines, with forensic psychology researchers continuing to prioritize NHST over recommended approaches. Although the increase in ES and CI reporting is encouraging, the continued reliance on NHST means that both the scientific literature and important applied decision making in the forensic psychology field are impacted by the shortcomings of this statistical reporting approach (e.g., simplistic dichotomous decisions, lack of reproducibility, potential for p-hacking). We call for journals in the field to encourage further use of statistical best practices within their manuscripts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
目的：我们研究了20年来（2000-2020年）法医心理学统计报告实践的演变，以评估他们对推荐的最佳实践的依从性。方法对2000年、2005年、2010年、2015年和2020年发表在6家著名法医心理学期刊上的实证文章进行综合分析（N = 813）。然后，我们评估了样本中每篇文章的零假设显著性检验（NHST）、效应量（ESs）、置信区间（CIs）和贝叶斯统计的使用和解释。结果我们发现对NHST的持续依赖，几乎所有的文章都使用它进行数据分析和解释。令人鼓舞的是，企业环境评估和企业信息评估的报告数量大幅增加；然而，它们的解释性用途仍然有限。贝叶斯方法很少用于数据的分析或解释。这些发现表明统计指南倡导的改革进展缓慢，法医心理学研究人员继续优先考虑NHST而不是推荐的方法。尽管ES和CI报告的增加令人鼓舞，但对NHST的持续依赖意味着科学文献和法医心理学领域的重要应用决策都受到了这种统计报告方法的缺点的影响（例如，简单的二分法决策，缺乏可重复性，p-hacking的潜力）。我们呼吁该领域的期刊鼓励在其稿件中进一步使用统计最佳实践。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。
{"title":"Statistical reporting practices within forensic psychology: Is anything changing?","authors":"Joseph Eastwood,Kirk Luther,Tianshuang Han,Valerie Arenzon,Quintan Crough,Ashley Curtis,Hannah de Almeida,Kelsey Janet Downer,Cassandre Dion Larivière,Jessica Lundy,Funmilola Ogunseye,Mark D Snow,Brent Snook","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000611","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000611","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEWe examined the evolution of statistical reporting practices within forensic psychology across two decades (2000-2020) to assess their adherence to recommended best practices.METHODWe conducted a comprehensive analysis of articles published in six prominent forensic psychology journals, including every empirical article published in each journal in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 (N = 813). We then evaluated the use and interpretation of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), effect sizes (ESs), confidence intervals (CIs), and Bayesian statistics for each article in the sample.RESULTSWe found a persistent reliance on NHST, with nearly all articles employing it for data analysis and interpretation. Encouragingly, the reporting of ESs and CIs has increased substantially; their interpretative use, however, remains limited. Bayesian methods were rarely used for analysis or interpretation of data.CONCLUSIONSThese findings suggest a slow uptake of reforms advocated by statistical guidelines, with forensic psychology researchers continuing to prioritize NHST over recommended approaches. Although the increase in ES and CI reporting is encouraging, the continued reliance on NHST means that both the scientific literature and important applied decision making in the forensic psychology field are impacted by the shortcomings of this statistical reporting approach (e.g., simplistic dichotomous decisions, lack of reproducibility, potential for p-hacking). We call for journals in the field to encourage further use of statistical best practices within their manuscripts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143914840","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}
OBJECTIVEThis research examined how the cost of incarceration to the state and type of offense affect public support for different levels of sentence reductions (10%, 25%, 50%) via policies called "second chance" mechanisms that reduce incarcerated populations as well as whether political ideology or affiliation predicts such support.HYPOTHESES(a) Across different levels of sentence reductions, participants were expected to show significantly decreased support for the use of second chance mechanisms for violent compared with nonviolent crimes (b) but also to show significantly increased support when exposed to cost information to the state, compared with not receiving that information. (c) Political ideology and affiliation were expected to moderate support across different levels of sentence reductions.METHODA 6 (offense type) × 2 (cost of incarceration to the state) experiment with a national sample of the U.S. public (N = 419) was used to assess support for using second chance mechanisms to achieve different levels of sentence reductions. Moderation analyses assessed how participants' political ideology and affiliation impacted support.RESULTSParticipants did not show significantly less support for the use of second chance mechanisms to achieve sentence reductions for violent compared with nonviolent crimes. Providing cost information did not significantly impact support for any level of sentence reduction. Across sentence reductions, political ideology significantly moderated support for the use of second chance mechanisms; being more conservative predicted decreased support for a 10% sentence reduction when cost information was also provided.CONCLUSIONSCrime type and political ideology, but not fiscal costs, appear in some way to bear on public support for sentence reductions via second chance mechanisms. Overall, evidence suggests that public support for the use of second chance mechanisms presents an opportunity to advance reforms that reduce incarcerated populations and enhance the public's perceptions of the justice system's legitimacy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
本研究考察了国家监禁成本和犯罪类型如何影响公众对不同减刑水平（10%、25%和50%）的支持，通过所谓的“第二次机会”机制来减少被监禁人口，以及政治意识形态或隶属关系是否预测了这种支持。与非暴力犯罪相比，预期参与者对暴力犯罪使用第二次机会机制的支持明显减少(b)，但与未获得该信息相比，当向国家提供成本信息时，预期参与者对该机制的支持也明显增加。(c)预期政治意识形态和从属关系会缓和不同减刑级别的支持。方法采用6（犯罪类型）× 2（国家监禁成本）实验，以美国公众为样本（N = 419），评估使用第二次机会机制实现不同程度减刑的支持度。适度分析评估了参与者的政治意识形态和从属关系如何影响支持度。结果与非暴力犯罪相比，参与者对使用第二次机会机制实现暴力犯罪减刑的支持并没有明显减少。提供成本信息并没有显著影响对任何减刑级别的支持。在减刑过程中，政治意识形态显著调节了对使用第二次机会机制的支持；当提供成本信息时，更保守的人预测减刑10%的支持率会下降。结论犯罪类型和政治意识形态在一定程度上影响公众对通过第二次机会机制减刑的支持，而财政成本不影响。总体而言，有证据表明，公众对使用第二次机会机制的支持为推进改革提供了机会，从而减少被监禁人口，增强公众对司法系统合法性的认识。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。
{"title":"Politics in policy: An experimental examination of public views regarding sentence reductions via second chance mechanisms.","authors":"Isabella Polito,Colleen M Berryessa","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000605","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000605","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEThis research examined how the cost of incarceration to the state and type of offense affect public support for different levels of sentence reductions (10%, 25%, 50%) via policies called \"second chance\" mechanisms that reduce incarcerated populations as well as whether political ideology or affiliation predicts such support.HYPOTHESES(a) Across different levels of sentence reductions, participants were expected to show significantly decreased support for the use of second chance mechanisms for violent compared with nonviolent crimes (b) but also to show significantly increased support when exposed to cost information to the state, compared with not receiving that information. (c) Political ideology and affiliation were expected to moderate support across different levels of sentence reductions.METHODA 6 (offense type) × 2 (cost of incarceration to the state) experiment with a national sample of the U.S. public (N = 419) was used to assess support for using second chance mechanisms to achieve different levels of sentence reductions. Moderation analyses assessed how participants' political ideology and affiliation impacted support.RESULTSParticipants did not show significantly less support for the use of second chance mechanisms to achieve sentence reductions for violent compared with nonviolent crimes. Providing cost information did not significantly impact support for any level of sentence reduction. Across sentence reductions, political ideology significantly moderated support for the use of second chance mechanisms; being more conservative predicted decreased support for a 10% sentence reduction when cost information was also provided.CONCLUSIONSCrime type and political ideology, but not fiscal costs, appear in some way to bear on public support for sentence reductions via second chance mechanisms. Overall, evidence suggests that public support for the use of second chance mechanisms presents an opportunity to advance reforms that reduce incarcerated populations and enhance the public's perceptions of the justice system's legitimacy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143872031","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":"Supplemental Material for Politics in Policy: An Experimental Examination of Public Views Regarding Sentence Reductions via Second Chance Mechanisms","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000605.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000605.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144229355","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}
OBJECTIVETo inform policies and practices that reflect the values and expectations of the communities that judges serve, we fielded a national survey of public perceptions regarding judicial roles and factors that could be considered in decision making.HYPOTHESESWe had four questions: (1) What is public opinion on the importance of various judicial roles and considerations? (2) Can distinct groups of respondents be identified on the basis of their views? (3) Do the groups differ in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and beliefs? (4) If so, can they be distinguished by their characteristics and beliefs?METHODWe surveyed 4,861 jury-eligible adults through Qualtrics Online Panels. About half identified as men, and about two thirds as White; the mean age was 45 years. Respondents rated the importance of judicial responsibilities and considerations using 10 items adapted from a survey of trial court judges. We employed latent profile analysis to identify subgroups on the basis of their ratings and conducted univariate and multivariable analyses to examine differences across sociodemographic characteristics.RESULTSA four-group model was the best-fitting and most interpretable solution. The largest profile (47.4%) demonstrated the highest ratings, suggesting that they valued due process, legal standards, expert knowledge, public safety, helping the accused, and community input. The second largest profile (39.5%) also valued legal standards, expert knowledge, and public safety but not public interests and community input. The next group (7.8%) generally rated all items as neither important nor unimportant, suggesting an ambivalence, lack of opinion, or limited interest in the issues. The smallest group (5.4%) rated all items as unimportant.CONCLUSIONSFindings highlight areas of consensus and divergence and reveal distinct opinion profiles that can inform policy and practice. They also support the use of sophisticated measurement and analytic approaches that go beyond descriptive examinations of a single item or index to assess public opinion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
目的为了使政策和实践能够反映法官所服务的社区的价值观和期望，我们在全国范围内开展了一项关于公众对法官角色和决策中可考虑因素的看法的调查。假设我们有四个问题：(1)公众对各种司法角色和考虑因素的重要性的看法是什么？(2)是否可以根据受访者的观点来区分不同的受访者群体？(3)这些群体在社会人口学特征和信仰方面是否存在差异？(4)如果是这样，是否可以通过他们的特征和信仰来区分他们？方法我们通过qualics在线小组调查了4861名符合评审团资格的成年人。大约一半是男性，大约三分之二是白人；平均年龄为45岁。答复者根据对初审法院法官的调查改编的10个项目对司法责任和考虑因素的重要性进行了评级。我们采用潜在剖面分析，根据他们的评分来确定亚组，并进行单变量和多变量分析，以检查不同社会人口统计学特征的差异。结果sa四组模型是最佳拟合和最具解释性的解决方案。最大的形象（47.4%）显示出最高的评级，表明他们重视正当程序、法律标准、专家知识、公共安全、帮助被告和社区投入。排名第二（39.5%）的受访者也重视法律标准、专家知识和公共安全，但不重视公共利益和社区投入。下一组（7.8%）一般认为所有项目既不重要也不重要，表明矛盾心理，缺乏意见或对问题的兴趣有限。最小的群体（5.4%）认为所有项目都不重要。研究结果突出了共识和分歧的领域，揭示了不同的意见概况，可以为政策和实践提供信息。它们还支持使用复杂的测量和分析方法，这些方法超越了对单一项目或指数的描述性检查，以评估公众舆论。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。
{"title":"Public opinion about judicial roles and considerations: A latent profile analysis.","authors":"Sarah L Desmarais,Samantha A Zottola,John Monahan","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000607","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000607","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVETo inform policies and practices that reflect the values and expectations of the communities that judges serve, we fielded a national survey of public perceptions regarding judicial roles and factors that could be considered in decision making.HYPOTHESESWe had four questions: (1) What is public opinion on the importance of various judicial roles and considerations? (2) Can distinct groups of respondents be identified on the basis of their views? (3) Do the groups differ in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and beliefs? (4) If so, can they be distinguished by their characteristics and beliefs?METHODWe surveyed 4,861 jury-eligible adults through Qualtrics Online Panels. About half identified as men, and about two thirds as White; the mean age was 45 years. Respondents rated the importance of judicial responsibilities and considerations using 10 items adapted from a survey of trial court judges. We employed latent profile analysis to identify subgroups on the basis of their ratings and conducted univariate and multivariable analyses to examine differences across sociodemographic characteristics.RESULTSA four-group model was the best-fitting and most interpretable solution. The largest profile (47.4%) demonstrated the highest ratings, suggesting that they valued due process, legal standards, expert knowledge, public safety, helping the accused, and community input. The second largest profile (39.5%) also valued legal standards, expert knowledge, and public safety but not public interests and community input. The next group (7.8%) generally rated all items as neither important nor unimportant, suggesting an ambivalence, lack of opinion, or limited interest in the issues. The smallest group (5.4%) rated all items as unimportant.CONCLUSIONSFindings highlight areas of consensus and divergence and reveal distinct opinion profiles that can inform policy and practice. They also support the use of sophisticated measurement and analytic approaches that go beyond descriptive examinations of a single item or index to assess public opinion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143836551","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：