Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Neighborhood level attributions of crime causation - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Correlational studies
        
        Rade et al. 2018: growth mindsets (incremental beliefs) predicted more positive attitudes toward ex-offenders, which in turn predicted greater public support for reentry.
        
        Weimann-Saks et al., 2019 found malleability beliefs correlated w/ severity assessment of defendant’s criminal behavior: believing in malleable nature of individuals reduced likelihood of viewing defendant’s traits as fixed, which lead to more compassionate legal assessment.
        
        Tam et al. (2013) found beliefs about the immutability of moral character associated with public’s attitudes toward punishment and rehabilitation. People with fixed beliefs made more internal attribution of criminal behavior, which in turn led to stronger punitive tendencies.
        
        Maruna & King (2009) once a criminal
      - Peleg-Koriat et al. (2020) conducted experimental study testing causal relationship between malleability beliefs and punitive attitudes, and considered psychological distance as a moderating factor. They found (Israeli small sample) an interaction b/t malleability condition and psych distance on people’s support for rehabilitative and restorative alternatives: the malleability manipulation only increased support when participants considered the issues using a high distance timeframe.
        Future research directions: study examined general attitudes toward rehabilitative and restorative alternatives to incarceration without referring to the existing stigmas toward certain groups of offenders. In future research, it would be interesting to examine the model with reference to different groups of offenders.
      - Foundational research findings: 2 assumptions that people make about malleability of personal character: personal character is fixed, nonmalleable, or character is malleable and can be changed and developed (Dweck et al. 1995).
        Malleability beliefs about individuals (i.e., belief that people’s personalities can change) are associated w/ reduced negative reactions to social adversity (Yeager et al., 2014), and a lower likelihood of making stereotypical judgments (Rydell et al., 2007),showing aggression toward others (Yeager et al., 2013), and recommending punishment and retaliation for others’ wrongdoings (Chiu, Dweck et al., 1997).
        Malleability beliefs also correlated w/ people’s tendency to attribute negative or positive behavior to dynamics of behavior, including the situational context, whereas fixedness beliefs correlated w/ people’s tendency to attribute negative or positive behavior to permanent traits (Dweck et al., 1995). Thus, different beliefs about people’s ability to change can lead to different reactions to people’s negative social behavior.
      - Changing implicit theories
        
        Implicit theories generally stable over time, although recent research on conflicts b/t groups and individuals has highlighted interventions that can induce an incremental mindset (general belief that people’s personalities change and develop) (Halperin et al., 2011). These studies have also shown that beliefs regarding the malleability of a specific group or people can be indirectly transformed by referring to beliefs about the malleability of groups or people in general (incremental mindset) (Halperin et al., 2011; Rydell et al., 2007).Therefore, there is reason to assume that altering beliefs about people’s malleability in general may be of crucial importance in the efforts to establish public support for a rehabilitative and restorative approach.
    - - Measure/concept: Many studies have measured attributional styles as opposite ends of same spectrum, with dispositional attributions on one end, situational attributions on other. Some however contend that it is possible to simultaneously attribute human behavior to individual and environmental influences (Peffley et al., 2017; Ramirez, 2015).
        
        Cullen and colleagues’ (1985) equated classical and positivist criminological theories with dispositional and situational attributions. individual expla- nations of crime contend that criminal behavior results from individual moral defects and shortcomings (Green et al., 2006; Unnever et al., 2010). In con- trast, environmental explanations consider criminal behavior to be the product of the larger society, community, and neighborhood conditions in which the individual resides. It is important to note that while these two categories are helpful for making broad comparisons and distinctions between theories, in reality some theories will not fit neatly into a single category.
      - Most extant research considers relationship b/t attributional styles and support for criminal justice (CJ) policies
  - - - Measures of behaviors: to assess the behavioral component of sex offender stigma, a social distance scale was used. Based on commonly used Bogardus (1925) social distance scales, we used questions developed by Willis and colleagues (2013) for a sex offender social distance scale. These items measured the extent to which participants would be willing to have a sex offender released from prison as a neighbor, colleague, boss, acquaintance, member of church/sports club/community group, close friend, partner in marriage/ civil union, and son-in-law. An additional three questions measured participants’ anticipatory behavior (whether they would employ, rent a house to, or introduce to their social group such an individual). A 7-point Likert-type response was used (1 = definitely no, 7 = absolutely yes)
  - - - Concentration of formerly incarcerated: Concentration of formerly incarcerated individuals undermines neighborhood stability, creates a demand on resources, contributes to fear of crime and negative affect toward the neighborhood, and may contribute to ex-prisoner recidivism (Clear, 2002; Kubrin and Stewart, 2006; Mears et al., 2008; Petersilia, 2003). This neighborhood concentration of former prisoners also may shape attitudes toward crime and criminals. -from Leverentz
    - - Neighborhoods matter in terms of where ex-offenders live, how they respond to their neighborhoods, how others in the neighborhood perceive them, and how concentrations of offenders impact the quality of life in that neighborhood for all residents. Prison inmates are not evenly drawn from, nor released to, neighborhoods; rather they are concentrated in a relatively small number of neighborhoods
        
        Relationship to recidivism: for at least some types of crime, it's higher among ex-prisoners returning to neighborhoods high in disadvantage, inequality, and resource deprivation, because of both neighborhood characteristics and individual-level traits that may be differentially distributed across neighborhoods (Kubrin and Stewart, 2006; Mears et al., 2008).
        
        Social stigma/response and belief in redeem ability: communities with widespread punitive attitudes may be less willing to receive returning prisoners back into the community, restricting their future opportunities to ‘go straight’. In contrast, communities that believe in redeemability may be more willing to rent to former prisoners, offer them jobs, and incorporate them back into the community.