Pragmatic American: Empirical Reality or Methodological Artifact?

• NCJ Number: 246506
• Journal: Criminology Volume: 52 Issue: 2 Dated: May 2014 Pages: 195-222
• Author(s): Justin T. Pickett; Thomas Baker
• Date Published: May 2014
• Length: 28 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: State University of New York at Albany
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Research (Applied/Empirical); Report (Study/Research); Report (Grant Sponsored)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This study empirically tested the argument that using agree/disagree or support/oppose scales to test the "hydraulic relation" hypothesis (support for punishment of criminals means less support for the rehabilitation of criminals and vice versa) is problematic without first controlling for "acquiescent" responding (i.e., the tendency to agree with or support whatever statement is made in the questionnaire).

Abstract

The study findings support the hypothesis that once acquiescence bias is minimized, the effects of attribution styles on both punitiveness and support for rehabilitation will be similar, although in the opposite directions. Examining the correlates of policy support provides for a more complete test of the pragmatism thesis, i.e., that punishment and rehabilitation are not necessarily opposing views; however, if policy support is ideological rather than pragmatic, then the two types of policy support should largely be opposite sides of the same coin, and the same factors, working in opposite directions, should drive both. Agreement with whatever policy statement is made in the questionnaire ("acquiescence") is a bias that corrupts the level of public support for either punishment or rehabilitation as having priority in criminal justice policy. This conclusion is based on research conducted in 2013 with a national sample of 826 adults (18 years of age and older) who were randomly selected from SurveyMonkey's online Audience panel. Panel members volunteer to complete surveys periodically for a small donation to charity and the potential to win $100 in weekly drawings. At the time of the current research just over 400,000 individuals, including residents of all 50 U.S. States, were members of the Audience panel. The research involved a randomly selected group of respondents receiving unidirectional batteries of questions - all positively worded - about crime attributions and policy support. This method creates the greatest potential for acquiescence bias. 7 tables and 82 references