PAW-sitive for Whom? Examining the Treatment Acceptability of Prison-Animal Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although prison-based animal programs (PAPs) are not routinely available in rehabilitation plans at correctional facilities, they may represent a viable treatment option given the growing evidence showing that interacting with animals develops vocational skills, decreases behavioral infractions, and fosters social skills and psychological wellbeing for prisoners. However, little is known about the general public’s attitudes towards PAPs, especially in relation to other treatment options. Understanding attitudes towards PAPs is relevant because these programs often depend on donations, coordination with non-profit agencies, and adoption fees from animal shelters to operate. This study examines whether individuals consider PAPs an acceptable treatment option for prisoners, and whether those decisions are influenced by prisoner characteristics. Using survey methodology with convenience sampling, 250 participants read vignettes that manipulated the characteristics of the prisoner by gender (male or female), ethnicity (Caucasian, African American, Indigenous/Native American), and crime (misdemeanor, murder, or sexual assault), and then evaluated the treatment acceptability of four treatment options (dog visitation, dog training and vocational programs, psychological counseling, or no treatment). While participants rated counseling most acceptable and no treatment least acceptable, opinions about PAPs varied. We found a gender × crime interaction, whereby participants rated PAPs more acceptable for prisoners who committed minor crimes, especially if they were female. We also found an ethnicity × crime interaction, whereby participants rated PAPs more acceptable for prisoners who committed minor crimes, especially if Indigenous or Caucasian. Our results highlight the presence of implicit bias in participant’s ratings of treatment acceptability. We discuss implications for rehabilitation programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".