Ideological beliefs and attitudes towards offenders – Study 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although crime rates in Canada have declined for the past three decades, there continues to be public support for harsher crime policies. Whereas some researchers have studied demographic and social predictors of support for the harsh punishment of offenders, fewer have focused on the role of ideology. The main goal for this research is to investigate the relation between ideology (Right-wing authoritarianism and Social dominance orientation) and punitive attitudes towards a variety of offence types, using the Dual-Process Motivational (DPM) model as a theoretical framework. In Study 1, we will assess whether offence types group together in psychologically meaningful ways and evaluate the relations between ideology and punitive attitudes. In Study 1, 300 undergraduate participants will complete online questionnaires asking them to rate offence types based on level of seriousness, danger to society, whether the offence reflects a desire to increase social status, the proposed severity of punishment, ideological measures of RWA, SDO, general punitiveness, and the perceived role of punishment. Using the same set of measures, in Study 2 (n = 300) we will attempt to replicate and confirm the structure of attitudes towards specific offences in an MTurk sample of Canadian adults. It is hypothesized that individuals higher in RWA will be especially punitive towards offences that are more dangerous and threaten social conventions (H1); those higher in SDO will be more punitive towards offences that challenge power hierarchies (H2); and both RWA and SDO will predict punitive attitudes towards offences that reflect both (H3). Additionally, we predict that the positive relationship between RWA and punitive attitudes will be mediated by desires to restore collective security (H4), whereas the positive relationship between SDO and punitive attitudes will be mediated by a desire to restore status and power (H5). This research can contribute to the existing body of literature on attitudes towards offenders and on the role public opinions may have on determining harsh crime policies in Canada.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".