An Attitudinal Explanation of Biases in The Criminal Justice System An Empirical Testing of Defensive Attribution Theory

Crime & Delinquency
http://cad.sagepub.com
An Attitudinal Explanation of Biases in the Criminal Justice

System: An Empirical Testing of Defensive Attribution Theory
Sergio Herzog
Crime Delinquency 2008; 54; 457 originally published online May 14, 2008;
DOI: 10.1177/0011128707308158
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/54/3/457
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Crime & Delinquency can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://cad.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/54/3/457
Downloaded from http://cad.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009
An Attitudinal Explanation
of Biases in the Criminal
Justice System
Crime & Delinquency

Volume 54 Number 3
July 2008 457-481
2008 Sage Publications
10.1177/0011128707308158
http://cad.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
An Empirical Testing of Defensive

Attribution Theory
Sergio Herzog
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Theoretical perspectives, supported by empirical evidence, have consistently

argued that the judicial treatment of offenders by criminal justice agents is
sometimes biased by extralegal factors, such as offenders sociodemographic
characteristics. According to defensive attribution theory, individuals tend to
protect themselves against unfortunate occurrences, such as becoming crime
victims, by distorting the victims role in his or her own victimization; these
mechanisms depend on the observers perceived similarity to the victim. The
present study proposes an attitudinal perspective for explaining biases in
legal decisions of criminal justice agents, by taking into account the perceived personal similarity between the victims and offenders involved in such
situations and the observers. Respondents from an Israeli national sample
were asked to evaluate the seriousness of and to suggest the appropriate punishment for hypothetical, multidimensional crime scenarios committed by
a variety of offenders against a variety of victims. Overall, our findings
supported our hypotheses. Their theoretical and practical implications are
discussed.
Keywords:
defensive attribution theory; judicial biases; personal similarity;

seriousness of crime scenarios; Israel
rinciples of justice stipulate that during the handling and disposition of

suspects, defendants, and sentenced offenders (henceforth, offenders),
extralegal factors, such as their individual sociodemographic characteristics, should be ignored by police officers, prosecutors, judges, and also by
juries (henceforth, criminal justice agents). However, some theoretical perspectives, such as conflict and labeling theories, have consistently argued
457
458
Crime & Delinquency
that the judicial treatment of certain kinds of offenders, particularly those

belonging to disadvantaged and consequently threatening social groups
(e.g., racial and ethnic minorities, the young, and the poor), tends to be
indeed influenced, hence biased, by such extralegal factors (Hawkins, 1993;
Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998). Complementing contextual explanations of biases by criminal justice agents (see Daly & Tonry, 1997;
Sampson & Lauritsen, 1997), this study proposes an attitudinal perspective
as a useful tool for explaining biases in legal decisions by criminal justice
agents. Because all legal processes entail the application of formal rules and
procedures in the context of human decision making, the presence of an
individual discretionary component in criminal justice systems provides an
opportunity for perceiving and interpreting, cognitively and emotionally,
the same criminal acts and actors in different ways. Among other explanations, this differential perception and interpretation of offenses may depend
considerably on the perceived dissimilarity or similarity in personal characteristics between the persons involved in these actsoffenders and
victimsand the individual criminal justice agent evaluating them, leading
to a (un)consciously biased legal decision. Although the relationship between
attitudes and related behaviors does not tend to be linear or straightforward,
some criminological studies reveal clear evidence of such a link, even at the
level of individual criminal justice agents (Marciniak, 1998; Saunders &
Size, 1986; Shoham, 2000; Stith, 1990).
Within this attitudinal perspective, Shavers (1970) defensive attribution
theory (henceforth, DAT) has been used extensively by researchers to
explain peoples differential perceptions of, and attitudes to, criminal
offenses, especially violent acts committed by men against their intimate
female partners or vice versa (Dexter, Penrod, Linz, & Saunders, 1997; Feather,
1996; Locke & Richman, 1999). Like those studies, this one set out to test
DAT empirically from a criminological perspective and examine attributes
ascribed to perpetrators; unlike them, however, this study took into account
not only the great heterogeneity in criminal offenses but also in the personal
characteristics of the offenders, the victims, and their evaluators. In this
frame, DAT is suggested as a plausible explanation for biases on the
individual level of criminal justice agents.
Shavers DAT
Because people want to live in coherent and predictable social worlds
(Allport, 1954), one of the hardest things to understand in life is the occurrence
Herzog / Biases in the Criminal Justice System
459
of unexpected bad events, such as fatal accidents, natural disasters, terminal

diseases, and crime victimization. According to DAT, when confronted with
the apparently capricious victimization of a person, observers are cognitively
threatened by the realization that such unwarranted misfortunes could also
befall them. Acknowledging such an unpleasant possibility produces a negative affective state and initiates a cognitive defense mechanism to meet selfprotective needs, such as security and control over ones destiny. Shaver
(1970) argues that defensive attribution mechanisms influence our perceptions
of others unfortunate situations, such as crime victimization.
The central tenet of DAT is that people can protect themselves against
unfortunate and unpredictable occurrences by perceiving the event as
avoidable. We tend to do this by making defensive attribution distortions of
the victims role in his or her own victimization, through increased attribution of responsibility to him or her. Blaming the victim reflects an underlying self-serving motivational bias on the part of observers to a distressing
event for a number of reasons: It shields them from the possibility of random misfortune, minimizes their personal responsibility in a possible future
similar event, maintains their cognitive sense of control with regard to an
otherwise random event, and defends them from feelings of vulnerability
and mortality, by maintaining some assurance that they are not likely to
encounter a similar fate (Bell, Kuriloff, & Lottes, 1994; Thornton, 1992;
Wilson & Jonah, 1988).
DAT and Personal Similarity

The DAT also suggests that blaming the victim would not be in the
observers best interest if the observer somehow resembled the victim. Such
a resemblance might enhance rather than diminish the observers sense of
threat. The DAT suggests that the degree and even the occurrence of these
DAs depend on the observers perceived similarity to the victim. The DAT
distinguishes two kinds of similarity: Situational similarity refers to the
observers belief that they could find themselves involved in a situation
comparable to that of the victim. For personal similarity to occur, observers
must perceive themselves as similar to the victim in salient personal ways,
especially in terms of demographically shared characteristics (Bell et al.,
1994; Dexter et al., 1997; Elkins, Phillips, & Konopaske, 2002; Kouabenan,
Gilibert, Medina, & Bouzon, 2001; Wilson & Jonah, 1988).
According to DAT, situational similarity to a victim creates feelings of
threat for the observer, but it is personal similarity that determines the direction or intensity of observers victim-directed attribution bias, depending on
460
Crime & Delinquency
the degree of perceived similarity between the stimulus victim and the
observer (Shaver, 1970; Thornton, 1992). In line with the tenets of social
identity theory (Tajfel, 1981, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and its more
recent elaboration, self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes,
Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), DAT formulates two attributional possibilities. On one hand, the more the observers perceive victims as similar to
themselves, the less likely are they to attribute blame for the incident to the
latter; this has been termed judgmental leniency or in-group favoritism
(Tajfel, 1981, 1982; Turner et al., 1987). Observers activate this defensive
blame avoidance bias because they wish to avoid being potentially blamed,
just as they do not blame similar victims, if a similar incident happens to
them. On the other hand, if personal similarity to the victim is perceived to
be low, greater blame will be attributed to the victim (out-group prejudice;
Tajfel, 1981, 1982; Turner et al., 1987; for DAT, see Bell et al., 1994;
Dexter et al., 1997; Elkins et al., 2002; Kouabenan et al., 2001; Locke &
Richman, 1999; Shaver, 1970)1.
Although theoretically this effect of personal similarity may occur with
diverse personal characteristics, it has been demonstrated consistently for
gender similarity (Arce, Farina, & Sobral, 1996; Baldwin & Kleinke, 1994;
Bell et al., 1994; Dexter et al., 1997; Elkins et al., 2002; Kouabenan et al.,
2001). Because women are more likely than men to become future victims
of certain criminal acts, such as wife abuse and rape, female observers are
more likely to feel more positively toward female victims, and consequently to perceive such criminal acts as significantly more serious, than
men. The latter, seeing themselves as dissimilar to female victims, are more
likely to perceive these acts less seriously. In addition, women have also
been found to assign more responsibility to male victims than to female
victims (Bell et al., 1994; Dexter et al., 1997; Feather, 1996; Locke &
Richman, 1999).
The Present Study

The existence of DA has been established empirically in a variety of
contexts (Bell et al., 1994; Dexter et al., 1997; Elkins et al., 2002; Thornton,
1992; Wilson & Jonah, 1988), including the criminological (Dexter et al.,
1997; Feather, 1996; Locke & Richman, 1999). More specifically, its particular pattern of in-group favoritism and out-group prejudice has been
found in studies conducted in many countries and using a variety of measures (Capozza & Brown, 2000).
461
The main criticism raised here of previous analyses of DATs aspect of

personal similarity is that its measurement has tended to be limited and
oversimplified. First, as stated, previous DAT studies emphasized in particular the concept of gender similarity. However, as social identity theory has
formulated, people tend to define themselves on the basis of several dimensions (e.g., race, ethnicity, age), only one of which may be gender.
Criminological research has indeed shown that often relationships between
identity dimensions, such as gender and race, rather than a single dimension, have greater influence on concrete legal decisions, such as arrests,
indictment, sentencing, and jury decisions (Daly & Tonry, 1997; Farnworth
& Teske, 1995; Steffensmeier et al., 1998). The specific role of multiple
social identities in DATs personal similarity effect has not yet been adequately explored; the present study did examine similarity in multiple
demographic factors (age, gender, and ethnicity).
Second, most previous empirical research on DAT has focused on personal dissimilarity or similarity between the observer and the victim of the
unfortunate act, while masking or even ignoring the simultaneous reference
to the perceived personal dissimilarity or similarity between the observer
and the offender responsible for the act. Unlike those studies, this one
examined both. The theoretical rationale of this study is that beyond defensive attribution biases toward personally similar victims, observers may
also engage in defensive attribution while evaluating criminal acts committed by similar offenders (e.g., by judging their actions less harshly than
criminal acts committed by dissimilar offenders, and vice versa; Feather,
1996). Moreover, criminological research on biases of criminal justice
agents has consistently established the relevance of a more complicated
triple offender-victim-observer relationship. For example, Black offenders
convicted of killing or raping White victims tend to be more seriously
treated by predominantly White judges than when convicted of killing or
raping Black victims (Radelet, 1991; Ralph, Sorensen, & Marquart, 1992;
Walsh, 1987).
Both criticisms are addressed in the present study: It specifically examines the conditions that trigger defensive attribution by taking into account
multiple factors affecting the individual perceptions of various criminal acts,
such as the perceived personal similarity between some social characteristics (age, gender, and ethnicity) of the attributors and of the victims and
offenders involved in such acts. Respondents from a large national sample
were asked to evaluate subjectively the seriousness of, and also to suggest
the most appropriate penal measure (henceforth, punishment) for, hypothetical multidimensional crime scenarios, in which the age, gender, and ethnicity
462
Crime & Delinquency
of offenders and victims varied orthogonally. Operationally, the research

goal was to assess empirically whether significant differences in seriousness
scores and punishment options assigned to the various scenarios would be
found among respondents with (dis)similar personal characteristics to those
of offenders and victims represented in them. More specifically, the main
assumption of this study was that respondents evaluations of criminal cases
would vary significantly with variation in some of their own, the offenders,
and the victims personal characteristics. Confirmation of this assumption
would carry important implications for research in DAT, primarily because
it would transform DAT into a plausible explanation for judicially individualized differential treatment of offenders based on personal dissimilarity or
similarity between criminal justice agents, offenders, and victims.2 Note that
although this study aimed to explain behaviors of law enforcement officials,
its focus was on crime seriousness judgments by the general public. The reasons for this choice are set forth later.
Hypotheses
Based on DATs tenets, the hypotheses of this study were the following:
Hypothesis 1: Observers will be significantly more likely to judge more seriously and
to choose more severe punishments for crime scenarios representing victims personally similar (to themselves) who are victimized by dissimilar offenders than scenarios
representing other combinations of both (dis)similar offenders and victims.
Hypothesis 2: Unlike the preceding hypothesis, contrary scenarios (representing dissimilar victims and similar offenders) will be considered significantly less serious, and
significantly less serious punishments will be chosen for the offenders in them, than
scenarios representing other combinations of (dis)similar offenders and victims.
Hypothesis 3: Consistent with the aforementioned studies and with their corresponding hypotheses, among the personally similar characteristics of observers,
offenders, and victims, gender similarity will exercise a significant effect on
observers reactions to both male and female offending and victimization. In this
regard, it is hypothesized that female observers will be significantly more likely to
judge more seriously and to choose more severe punishments for crime scenarios
that describe female victims who are similar to the observers, and who have been
victimized by male offenders, than scenarios that describe other combinations of
both (dis)similar offenders and victims. On the other hand, scenarios that involve
male victims and female offenders are expected to be judged as less serious, and to
yield significantly less serious punishments, than scenarios that involve other combinations of (dis)similar offenders and victims.
All significant differences in this study were calculated as p < .05.
463
Method
The present study was conducted in Israel. This choice was deemed
appropriate for two main reasons: (a) Few studies on social attitudes to
criminal offenses and biased judicial practices have been conducted outside
North America. Interestingly, the findings of the few studies of these issues
conducted in Israel (Herzog, 2003) are similar to those previously cited. (b)
Although some social characteristics of the observers, offenders, and victims are not specific to Israel (gender, age, education, income), other characteristics that have traditionally been underrepresented and even ignored
in other samples from Western countries are well represented in this population, for example, a Jewish majority (77%), and an Arab (mostly Muslim)
minority. Moreover, the countrys small population facilitates the collection
of a national sample accurately representing the various social and cultural
groups that form the public.
Theoretically, because legal biases involve concrete decisions made by
official criminal judicial agents, the latter would constitute the preferred
population on which to test the effect of DATs personal dissimilarity
or similarity between offenders, victims, and independent observers.
However, the necessary formal permission from the Israeli judicial system
could not be obtained to solicit participants who were criminal judicial
agents. Therefore, these relationships were tested among the general public.
Note that police officers, prosecutors, and judges represent distinct subsets
of the Israeli adult population, with unique legal education, experience, and
on-the-job training. Yet several studies have shown close agreement (i.e.,
consensus) in attitudes between the public at large and different types of
judicial practitioners on various criminological issues (Corbett & Simon,
1991; Landsman & Rakos, 1994; Levi & Jones, 1985; McCleary, ONeil,
Epperlein, Jones, & Gray, 1981; Sellin & Wolfgang, 1964). Accordingly,
we expected our assertion that attitudes to offenders would be influenced
by the perceived similarity between them and criminal justice practitioners
to be valid for contexts other than the legal system as well. Moreover, these
defensive attribution processes are assumed to be universal, not restricted
to members of a particular profession; they are believed to stem from
peoples socialization within their culture and not reserved to members of
a particular profession. It thus would seem appropriate to start with an
investigation of perceptions among the general population. In this regard,
this study may also help us to understand potential and actual jurors
decisions.
464
Crime & Delinquency
Unlike many of the aforementioned criminological studies testing DAT,

typically based on samples of students (Dexter et al., 1997; Locke &
Richman, 1999), volunteers, or in the best case, local citizens (Feather,
1996), respondents in this study formed part of a very large, representative,
random national sample of the adult Israeli population (n = 1,650), enhancing considerably the generalizability of the findings.3 The most recent
Israeli telephone directories, covering all geographical regions, provided
the sampling framework, and the application of a systematic random sampling method assured identical probability of inclusion of all households
listed.4 The sample distributions showed a close fit with recent official
national data on the Israeli population.
Data were collected via anonymous questionnaires, administered by
means of a telephone survey between mid-December 2003 and mid-March
2004. A content analysis of Israels major national newspapers revealed
no outstanding crimes, offenders or victims around the time of the survey,
which might have affected respondents attitudes. Each questionnaire
included five randomly chosen (and ordered), different (and unique) hypothetical crime scenarios for evaluation, constructed by the factorial-survey
approach (detailed later; five scenarios per questionnaire 1,650 respondents: n = 8,250 unique evaluated scenarios), and a number of demographic
questions about respondents. Each telephone interview lasted between 5
and 7 minutes. The language of the questionnaire was kept as simple as
possible, and the students who served as surveyors were carefully trained
by the researcher to minimize potential biases (they asked the respondents
to evaluate explicitly all the scenarios included in their questionnaires).
These factors ultimately led to a high response rate of 63%.5 A small
number of respondents (n = 50) had pretested the questionnaire for the measures use and reliability and for any unexpected response patterns (none
were found). The questionnaire was originally written in Hebrew. Because
Israels population comprises many Arabic and Russian speakers, questionnaires were backtranslated into these languages by two Arabic- and two
Russian-speaking people. A comparison of the original questionnaire with
the translated versions revealed very close similarity.
Dependent Variables
Respondents were asked to judge each scenario appearing in his or her
questionnaire subjectively on two levels: by evaluating its perceived seriousness (on a Likert-type scale from 1 = not serious at all to 11 = very serious; Herzog, 2003; OConnell & Whelan, 1996) and by determining the
465
most appropriate punishment for it (by choosing one option from death
sentence, life imprisonment, a certain number of years in prison, and
other less serious punishments; see the appendix). The seriousness scores
and punishment options assigned to the scenarios constituted the dependent
variables of the research. Note that research has consistently reported a
high correspondence between subjective evaluations of seriousness and of
appropriate sentence severity: Higher evaluations of seriousness usually
yield more severe punishments recommended for the offenders (OConnell
& Whelan, 1996).
Because the punishment variable involves both numerical (years of
imprisonment) and categorical values (death sentence, life imprisonment, other less serious punishment), for ease of understanding, analysis, and presentation, these latter values were recoded using years of
imprisonment as the common measuring unit; similar to the seriousness
variable, the punishment variable was transformed into an interval scale.
The other less serious punishment option (the least serious category) was
scored as the lowest suggested number of years of imprisonment (0.08
years); the death sentence and life imprisonment (the most serious categories) were scored just higher than the highest suggested number of years
of imprisonment (65 and 60 years, respectively. This choice was made arbitrarily: The rationale was to provide these options with numerical values
representing severe punishments).6
The Research Design

Given the complexity of the defensive attribution process (Shaver, 1970;
Wilson & Jonah, 1988) and the importance of studying the systematic relationships between factors surrounding the crime scenarios (such as the personal details of both offenders and victims, and the personal details of the
respondents), a fully crossed factorial design method was applied in this
study. This was the first time such design had been used to analyze concepts
of personal similarity related to both DAT and legal biases of individual
criminal justice agents.
This method uses multidimensional scenarios presented in a form that
combines the benefits of controlled, randomized experimental designs and
conventional surveys (Rossi & Anderson, 1982; Rossi & Berk, 1997; Rossi,
Simpson, & Miller, 1985). By this technique, the crime scenarios in this study
were created by randomly selecting values from each of several variables
(one value per variable per scenario) until each variable had been represented
466
Crime & Delinquency
and a complete scenario was formed (for details of all the variables and
values used in this study, and included in the evaluated scenarios, and some
sample scenarios, see the appendix). For example, within a hypothetical crime
scenario, chosen randomly from a variety of possible offenses, the offenders
and victims personal characteristics, such as their gender (male or female),
ethnicity (Jewish or Arab), and age (25 or 50 years old), were chosen randomly. Across the study, the scenarios represent a random sample of all possible scenarios (the research population), employing all possible values of the
selected variables. Although (statistically) two identical scenarios might be
evaluated by different respondents, each evaluated scenario has a high probability of being unique because of the large number of stimulus combinations.7
Because of their complete randomization, a scenarios variables cannot
covary with either the respondents personal (demographic) characteristics or
with themselves. Rossi and Anderson (1982) note that by permitting multiple
variables of a crime scenario to vary randomly across scenarios, and by controlling the respondents personal characteristics, this technique allows the
simultaneous exploration of the effects of several independent and control
variables, while still providing unbiased estimates of each variables contribution to the respondents overall judgment (Rossi et al., 1985).
This advantage seems to be decisive, particularly in a study like this one.
Some variables related to the scenarios, such as some personal characteristics of offenders and victims, were expected to have a considerable influence
on respondents attitudes to them. As formulated in the third hypothesis, it
was also expected that such relationships would vary considerably by social
group and especially by gender.
Independent and Control Variables

The 18 independent and control variables for this study were derived
from two sources: nine from respondents personal characteristics and nine
from the randomly assigned factorial variables within the crime scenarios
(see the appendix). Among the former, the respondents own gender (male
or female), ethnicity (Jewish or Arab in the Israeli context) and age (young
adults, younger than 37.5 years old, or mature adults, older than 37.5 years
old; more and less the variables median) constituted the first three independent variables in this study. These variables were chosen for several reasons: First, the aforementioned criminological theories usually refer to
ethnicity and age when explaining judicial biases. Second, as stated, many
previous findings have related gender to DAT processes. Third, these three
variables are particularly salient categories, usually serving as obvious
467
bases for social categorization (see social identity and self-categorization

theories).8 Among these variables, offenders and victims parallel personal
characteristicsgender (male or female), ethnicity (Jewish or Arab), and
age (young or mature adult, 25 or 50 year olds)were orthogonally introduced into the scenarios to correlate the public perceptions of the seriousness of and the punishment for the offenses with some of the observers
personal traits. They also constituted independent variables in this study.
Crime seriousness studies usually find that significantly higher seriousness scores and punishment options are given to violent offenses and
recidivist offenders than to property offenses and first-time offenders. This
is because of the greater psychological and physical consequences of the
former for their victims (Herzog, 2003; OConnell & Whelan, 1996).
Accordingly, the type of committed offense described in the scenariovarious
types of violent and property acts (violence, including examples of intimate
and acquaintance murders, intimate and acquaintance violence, partner
rape, and vehicular homicide; property, including examples of burglary,
shoplifting, and robbery)and the offenders criminal record, together
with the respondents other personal characteristics, served as additional
control variables.
Data Analysis
Tables 1 and 2 respectively present the means and standard deviations
of the (dependent) variables seriousness and punishment apportioned
by the respondents in the whole sample to each of the several conditions of
the three independent variablesdissimilarity or similarity in gender, ethnicity, and ageregarding offenders and victims, as randomly expressed in
the crime scenarios, and regarding the respondents themselves. The statistical significance for several comparisons between the different conditions
(36 independent t tests) is also included in the tables. For ease of understanding, and because of the large number of statistical tests conducted, the
summary statistics are not reported, but only the existence of significant differences across rows and columns.
The influence of the respondents, offenders, and victims personal dissimilarity or similarity (independent variables) on the seriousness scores
and punishment options (dependent variables) apportioned to the crime scenarios was also analyzed. Two multivariate OLS regression models were
used, with account taken of all the scenario variables, respondents personal
characteristics, and the relationships between the independent variables.
468
Crime & Delinquency
Table 1
Comparison of the Mean Rating (and Standard Deviations) of the
Seriousness Scores for All the Crime Scenarios, by the Respondents,
Offenders, and Victims Gender, Ethnicity, and Age
for the Whole Sample of Respondents
Comparison by Gender
Personal Similarity
Kind of Respondent
Kind of Offender
Kind of Victim
Similar
victim
Dissimilar
victim
Total
Female Respondents
Male Respondents
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
8.67
(2.58)
8.61
(2.27)
8.64
(2.52)
9.78*
(1.95)
8.86*
(2.48)
9.48*
(2.27)
9.50
(2.18)
8.76*
(2.57)
9.16
(2.39)
8.61
(2.61)
9.50*
(2.06)
9.19
(2.31)
8.65
(2.54)
8.36*
(2.49)
8.55*
(2.53)
8.63
(2.57)
9.19*
(2.25)
8.93*
(2.42)
*p < .05.
Comparison by Ethnicity
Personal Similarity
Kind of Respondent
Kind of Offender
Kind of Victim
Similar
victim
Dissimilar
victim
Total
Jewish Respondents
Arab Respondents
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
8.94
(2.33)
8.70
(2.50)
8.82
(2.21)
9.35*
(2.18)
9.25*
(2.39)
9.31*
(2.38)
9.14
(2.34)
9.04
(2.34)
9.09
(2.29)
8.42
(2.28)
6.52*
(3.62)
7.49
(3.25)
9.32*
(2.28)
8.45*
(2.49)
8.91*
(2.41)
8.89
(2.25)
7.51*
(3.19)
8.19*
(2.78)
*p < .05.
Comparison by Age
Personal Similarity
Kind of Respondent
Kind of Offender
Kind of Victim
Similar
Victim
Dissimilar
Victim
Total
Younger Respondents
Mature Respondents
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
9.03
(2.44)
8.54*
(2.63)
8.82
(2.43)
9.00
(2.22)
8.88
(2.41)
8.94
(2.37)
9.01
(2.37)
8.67*
(2.40)
8.86
(2.36)
9.10
(2.54)
8.33*
(2.88)
8.76
(2.64)
9.35
(2.41)
8.95*
(2.74)
9.15*
(2.51)
9.19
(2.57)
8.60*
(2.53)
8.94
(2.48)
*p < .05.
469
Table 2
Comparison of the Mean Rating (and Standard Deviation) of the
Punishment Options for the Crime Scenarios, by the Respondents,
Offenders and Victims Gender, Ethnicity and Age,
for the Whole Sample of Respondents
Comparison by Gender
Personal Similarity
Kind of Respondent
Kind of Offender
Kind of Victim
Similar
victim
Dissimilar
victim
Total
Female Respondents
Male Respondents
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
12.78
(20.81)
10.84
(21.21)
12.47
(21.07)
21.67*
(24.23)
13.24*
(20.07)
18.97
(23.21)
19.42
(23.72)
12.58*
(20.73)
15.77
(22.60)
13.42
(20.36)
18.83*
(22.98)
15.93
(22.23)
13.64
(20.90)
10.25*
(18.84)
11.94*
(20.26)
13.54
(20.66)
14.50*
(22.26)
12.11*
(21.56)
*p < .05.
Comparison by Ethnicity
Personal Similarity
Kind of Respondent
Jewish Respondents
Arab Respondents
Kind of Offender
Kind of Victim
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
Similar
victim
Dissimilar
victim
Total
15.65
(24.62)
10.98*
(18.04)
13.74
(22.15)
20.04*
(24.44)
14.46*
(20.54)
17.82*
(23.15)
17.63
(23.26)
12.69*
(22.03)
15.61
(22.55)
7.49
(13.42)
5.63*
(9.35)
6.66
(20.54)
20.37*
(24.41)
13.68*
(20.80)
16.68*
(17.75)
14.28
(19.49)
10.33
(19.71)
12.29*
(20.02)
*p < .05.
Comparison by Age
Personal Similarity
Kind of Respondent
Younger Respondents
Mature Respondents
Kind of Offender
Kind of Victim
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
Similar
Offender
Dissimilar
Offender
Total
Similar
victim
Dissimilar
victim
Total
20.92
(25.29)
13.36*
(20.69)
17.03
(23.31)
15.03*
(21.42)
16.88*
(22.60)
16.76
(22.56)
17.70
(23.47)
14.27*
(20.99)
16.26
(22.47)
15.29
(20.77)
10.83*
(18.03)
13.46
(21.21)
20.19*
(24.62)
14.16*
(20.78)
17.13*
(22.27)
18.16
(19.79)
12.12*
(22.78)
15.57
(21.61)
*p < .05.
470
Crime & Delinquency
Table 3 presents the unstandardized regression coefficients and standard

errors of these variables for the two regression models, for the whole sample of respondents. As is seen, the categorical, independent and control
variables were transformed into dummy variables. A potential response bias
in respondents judgments existed here because each of them responded to
five different scenarios, and they were treated in this study as units of analysis (Hox, Kreft, & Hermkins, 1991). The regression analyses were accordingly also conducted using Hierarchical Linear Models software, which
takes this possible problem into consideration. These latter analyses yielded
findings that were similar to the former; to save space, only the OLS
models are presented.
Results
From Table 1, we learn first that regardless of the personal similarity
between observers, offenders, and victims, male and Arab observers
awarded all the evaluated scenarios significantly lower seriousness scores
than female and Jewish respondents; no such significant difference was
found in the comparison between younger and mature adult respondents.
Second, the observers mostly gave relatively higher seriousness scores
to crime scenarios depicting an offender personally dissimilar, or a victim
personally similar, to themselves than they gave to scenarios depicting a
similar offender or a dissimilar victim. Except for the case of young respondents, these differences reached statistical significance in the other conditions. In the exceptional case of male respondents, these significant
differences were reversed in their direction. Third, concerning the specific
research hypotheses, Table 1 shows that in most research conditions, the
significantly highest seriousness means (and the relatively smallest standard deviations) were obtained from scenarios with an offender dissimilar
and a victim similar to the observers, whereas the significantly lowest
means were usually obtained from the opposite scenarios. Note that this
significant gap in seriousness scores was most evident for Arab respondents. Again, this trend was reversed in the case of male respondents. Note
that because of the high number of t tests conducted in this and the next
table, some significant effects were perhaps because of chance.
Similar trends to those described for the seriousness (first dependent)
variable in the three levels of analyses (Table 1) were found for the punishment (second dependent) variable chosen by the respondents for the various crime scenarios. This pattern is expected, considering that the correlation
471
Table 3
Unstandardized Coefficients (and Standard Errors) for the
Seriousness of and Punishment for Crime Scenarios, by Scenario
Variables, Respondents Personal Details and Interrelationships
Between Dissimilarity or Similarity Between Respondents, Offenders
and Victims, for the Whole Sample of Respondents
Values
Dependent Variable
Variables
Offenders gender
Victims gender
Offenders ethnicity
Victims ethnicity
Offenders age
Victims age
Degree of
offenses harm
Criminal offense
Offenders
criminal record
Respondents gender
Respondents age
Respondents education
Respondents income
0 = male; 1 = female
0 = Jewish; 1 = Arab
0 = Jewish; 1 = Arab
0 = 25 years old;
1 = 50 years old
0 = 25 years old;
1 = 50 years old
0 = severe; 1 = light
0 = violence; 1 = property
0 = not stated; 1 = yes
Interval
Interval
0 = less than 5,
000 NIS; 1 = more
Respondents ethnicity 0 = Jewish; 1 = Arab
Respondents
0 = secular; 1 = traditional
religiosity
or religious
Respondents
0 = natives or veterans;
status in the country 1 = immigrants
Respondents
0 = married; 1 = other
familial status
Respondents
0 = full-time job;
occupational status 1 = other
Interrelationship for
Female: Dissimilar
Offender Similar Victim
respondents gender
Female: Similar
Offender Dissimilar Victim
(dummy variable)a
Male: Dissimilar
Male: Similar
Interrelationship for
Jewish: Dissimilar
Seriousness
Punishment
.27 (.06)*
.25 (.20)*
.12 (.08)
.17 (.13)
.05 (.13)
1.51 (1.97)*
2.47 (1.84)*
1.09 (1.63)
.96 (1.25)
.97 (1.22)
.04 (.13)
1.07 (1.60)
.68 (.06)** 10.63 (1.01)**

1.35 (.12)**
.86 (.11 )**
.16.40 (1.16)**
11.29 (.99)**
.22 (.06)*
.00 (.00)
.04 (.01)**
.03 (.12)
1.90 (1.75)*
.10 (.04)*
.37 (.20)**
.71 (1.12)
.46 (.08)**
.45 (.07)**
3.89 (1.62)**
2.21 (1.06)*
.52 (.12)**
2.17 (1.11)**
.29 (.07)**
1.89 (1.18)*
.10 (.06)
.64 (.32)**
.50 (1.05)
9.35 (2.67)**
.27 (.33)*
2.25 (3.11)**
.14 (.27)
1.85 (2.51)*
.50 (.25)**
6.56 (2.30)**
.25 (.17)*
7.01 (1.62)**
(continued)
472
Crime & Delinquency
Table 3 (continued)
Variables
Values
Dependent Variable
Seriousness
Punishment
respondents ethnicity Jewish: Similar

.13 (.18)
1.46 (1.68)*
(dummy variable)a
Arab: Dissimilar
.30 (.35)*
7.36 (3.22)**
Arab: Similar Offender
.88 (.26)**
7.95 (2.45)**
Dissimilar Victim
Interrelationship for Younger: Dissimilar
.16 (.21)
1.23 (2.01)*
respondents age
Younger: Similar Offender
.38 (.20)**
5.21 (1.84)**
Dissimilar Victim
(dummy variable)a
Mature: Dissimilar Offender
.55 (.22)**
3.89 (2.03)**
Similar Victim
Mature: Similar Offender
.52 (.25)**
5.34 (2.32)**
Dissimilar Victim
Model data
Valid n
5,402
5,399
R2
35.3**
37.8**
Constant
15.67 (.81) **
83.82 (7.52) **
df
30
30
*p < .05. **p < .01.
a. Similar Offender Similar Victim and Dissimilar Offender Dissimilar Victim are the
reference groups.
between the two dependent variables was relatively high (r = 0.42, p <.05).
These trends were also related to variation in both the respondents personal
characteristics (especially gender and ethnicity), the offenders, and victims separate dissimilarity or similarity to them, and their combination.
As noted, Tables 1 and 2 present analysis of the dissimilarity or similarity between offenders and victims in the scenarios and the respondents who
evaluated them using one personal variable at a time. Therefore, an additional, deeper analysis of these data, using a global measure of similarity
(all combinations of such personal variables), was conducted. Generally,
like the findings in Tables 1 and 2, this analysis showed that respondents
tended to allot the relatively highest mean seriousness and punishment
scores to scenarios depicting both a similar victim and a dissimilar
offender, from the respondents point of view, and the relatively lowest
means for both dependent variables to scenarios depicting the opposite
situation. To save space, this analysis is not included in the present study.
473
Table 3 presents the regression analysis of the data. In the first

modelseriousness scoresthis table shows that when both control scenario variables and respondents characteristics were controlled for most of
the relationships between respondents, offenders, and victims personal
characteristics (9 out of the 12 relationships tested; see the third section of
Table 3) showed significant coefficients, with identical signs for identical
situations of personal dissimilarity or similarity. A common positive sign
appeared for the six crime situations depicting a dissimilar offender and a
similar victim, and a common negative sign appeared for five of the six situations depicting a similar offender and a dissimilar victim. The exceptional case in the latter was again when male respondents evaluated
scenarios in which similar (male) offenders committed offenses against dissimilar (female) victims. Generally, these findings were reinforced by the
second regression model, in which the punishment scores were used as the
dependent variable. Here, all 12 variables representing relationships among
the personal characteristics showed significant coefficients, the only exception being younger respondents. Some control variables also showed significant coefficients in both models, a few having an even greater impact on
the respondents judgments than the independent variables. Table 3 also
shows that scenarios depicting violent offenses, with relatively more severe
consequences for the victim, committed by offenders with previous criminal
records, and/or evaluated by less educated, Jewish, traditional or religious,
married, and/or native-born or veteran respondents, were given significantly
higher seriousness and punishment scores than their counterpart scenarios
and respondents variables.
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to analyze Shavers DAT from a
criminological perspective while (in contrast to former studies) taking into
account the heterogeneous nature of personal dissimilarity or similarity in
several social characteristics between offenders and victims involved in
criminal situations and independent observers. This study extends previous
research on DAT by addressing several personal social characteristics
instead of only one.
In line with DATs tenets of personal similarity, the first two hypotheses
of this study received general, albeit not complete, support from the findings:
Taking into account some salient personal characteristics, such as gender,
ethnicity and age, respondents scores of seriousness and punishment
474
Crime & Delinquency
tended to vary significantly as a function of the personal dissimilarity or

similarity between them and the offenders and victims in the hypothetical
crime situations (Tables 1 and 2). Again, note that because of the high
number of significance tests conducted, some significant effects may be
because of mere chance. Moreover, the regression analyses, applied to both
seriousness and punishment variables separately, and controlling simultaneously for all the scenarios variables and respondents several personal
characteristics (Table 3), supported these findings. As stated, these findings
are compatible with the extensive literature, theoretical and empirical, on
biases of criminal justice agents (especially judges in conviction and sentencing; Daly & Tonry, 1997; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1997) and on DAT
(Bell et al., 1994; Shaver, 1970; Thornton, 1992; Wilson & Jonah, 1988).
On one hand, the findings may explain the differential treatment of offenders
(and victims) because of personal dissimilarity or similarity between them
(many of them young Black people) and criminal justice agents (many of
them adult White people). On the other hand, these studies also link personal similarity between observers and people involved in crime with differential attitudinal perceptions of such eventsblaming more or less
dissimilar or similar victims respectively. Along with these DAT studies,
the present study indicated that motivational processes, such as perceived
personal similarity, seem to play a powerful role in the attribution of seriousness to diverse criminal events and in the assignment of penalties to the
offenders involved in them. Perhaps for self-protection, each social group
(e.g., women) seems to have accused more an offender, and excused more
the victimization of a victim, belonging to the out group. As for a member
of their own, the group appears to have made favorable attributions that
tended to excuse or minimize his or her causal role in offending or to inflate
his or her victimization. The DAs appear to be rooted in the fact that social
groups seem to feel that both offenders and victims in undesirable events
deserve what happens to them (punishment and victimization) if they
belong to the out group, and vice versa, thereby justifying the value granted
to their own group.
As anticipated by the first part of the third hypothesis, bivariate and
multivariate analyses showed that gender was a powerful predictor of
respondents judgments of seriousness and punishment. This part of the
hypothesis, assuming trends of in-group favoritism and out-group prejudice for female respondents, was supported by the findings (Tables 1 and
2). These findings, reinforced by the two regression analyses (Table 3), are
in line with a DA bias explanation, supporting the interpretation that the
475
studys female respondents were able to perceive sufficient personal similarity to the women in the scenarios to judge their offending or victimization differently.
A highly exceptional trend, however, completely opposed to DATs
tenets of personal similarity, and hence to the first two hypotheses, was
found among male respondents (Tables 1 to 3). This finding may be seen as
weakening the applicability of DAT as a plausible explanation for biases
committed by judicial practitioners. The failure of mens data to support
DAT is particularly problematic as men are represented in greater proportions among people who make criminal justice decisions. Further examination of these trends is required.
However, this finding concerning men still finds support in bias in criminal justice and in social psychology literature. Women do constitute a
socially disadvantaged group, and most of the criminal system agents are
males; still, wide empirical evidence exists that female offenders are often
treated leniently in the legal system. Unlike personal similarity, the explanation for this favorable posture can be found in traditional gender-role
attitudes of men to women in patriarchal societies: It has been documented
that when groups in society possess high status and sufficient power to
protect their status, as males do, they can afford to be relatively charitable
toward out-groups, such as females, showing a kind of benevolent paternalism (Daly & Tonry, 1997; Farnworth & Teske, 1995; Sampson &
Lauritsen, 1997). As predicted by social identity theory, female observers
seem to rely more heavily than male observers on gender-based identification processes and to use DA to a greater extent (Elkins et al., 2002).
The second part of this hypothesis predicted similar findings for other
personal characteristics; this was also supported by the research findings.
First, Tables 1 and 2 show similar identification and prejudice trends for
ethnicity and age. Second, Table 3 also shows significant coefficients for
respondents other personal characteristics, such as education, religiosity,
and status in the country, considerably affecting judgments of seriousness
and punishments. These findings are also in line with social identity theory,
assuming that people typically use not one but several group identities to
define themselves, although some categories are expected to hold more
subjective importance than others. Hence, further investigation of the effect
of additional independent variables on perceptions of criminal offenses in
general, and on personal dissimilarity or similarity with offenders and victims in particular, is required.
476
Crime & Delinquency
Conclusion
Theoretical claims, such as labeling and conflict theories, and empirical
evidence consistently indicate that despite values of equity, the judicial system is sometimes biased in its treatment of individual offenders, and influenced by their personally dissimilar social characteristics. Some social
psychological theories, such as Shavers DAT, raise a similar argument.
This study shows the overall applicability of DAT tenets to explain differential perceptions of crime situations, while taking into account several
social characteristics of offenders, victims, and observers. The findings
support the general use of DAT as a possible explanation for biases in the
criminal justice system regarding offenders by individual justice agents.
In this regard, the presence of an individual discretionary component in
criminal justice systems should also entail additional responsibilities. On
one hand, the selection process of legal agents must ensure that the best
people are hired. These should be individuals with the intellectual capacity
and wisdom to make appropriate use of their discretion. Training and simulations that provide guidelines and that ascribe limits to discretionary decisions must also be provided. On the other hand, jurors are expected to be
unbiased and free of any preconceived notions of guilt or innocence. In this
regard, the present findings highlight the importance of using challenges
and voir dire process, applied both by the prosecution and by defense attorneys, to ensure the impartiality of selected jurors. Moreover, they further
emphasize the value of employing professional jurors instead of relying on
voir dire and other strategies. Scientific jury selection, which is based on
correlational techniques from the social sciences, aims at evaluating the
likelihood that potential jurors will vote for conviction or for acquittal on
the basis of the social and demographic characteristics of jury members.
The present findings bear meaningful implications when applying such
techniques.
Note that the applicability of DAT was not perfect with all the evaluated
variables: unlike many other observers, men appear to be less influenced by
motivations of personal dissimilarity or similarity when evaluating crime
situations involving men or women and are apparently more influenced by
other (perhaps traditional gender-role) motivations when evaluating
women. This finding may mean that when men are the observers, the DA
effect is overpowered by a stronger effect. Because criminal justice agents
are predominantly male, further investigation of motivations in the case of
male respondents concerning male and female offenders and victims is
required.
477
Finally, despite the effort invested in this study to overcome theoretical

and methodological obstacles, its limitations need to be taken into account
in the analysis of its conclusions. As previously stated, members of the general public, instead of criminal justice agents, were sampled as independent
evaluators of the crime scenarios. Although some (aforementioned) empirical studies report close agreement in perceptions between representatives
of the general public and criminal justice agents on various criminological
and judicial issues, the latter are presumably different from the former
because of their legal training and experience, the flow of cases, and formal
(e.g., sentencing) guidelines; this may allow them to overcome some of the
biases that the average person has. This feature constitutes the main limitation of the present study, which accordingly may be considered exploratory
in this regard. Further examination of the relationship between perceived
personal similarity of individual judicial agents and individual offenders
and victims as described in crime situations is still warranted. Second,
because of the application of the factorial survey approach and other
methodological considerations (see Note 8), this research was based on
short, hypothetical scenarios depicting typical crime situations. In this context, other factors not considered in these scenarios might presumably
influence the respondents seriousness and punishment judgments: the former relationship between offender and victim, the venue of the act, whether
the victim and/or the offender had been drinking, and so on. These may
well appear in real-life cases. On the other hand, the offenders and victims
demographic information detailed in the scenarios was relatively emphasized to the respondents, leading to a demand effecthints and cues in a
research situation that may influence subjects perceptions of what is
expected of them (Neale & Liebert, 1986). Third, unlike other studies conducted in other national contexts, the ethnicity variable was operationalized
in this study as opposing Jews and Arabs. Fourth, to focus on the studys
specific research questions, the interactions between some of the respondents characteristics with similar and dissimilar offenders and victims
were not included in the present text. Fifth, respondents older and younger
than 37.5 years old (the variables median) evaluated offenses committed
only by 25- or 50-year-old offenders, instead of offenders who are closer,
or farther, from them in age. Further analysis of the questions and hypotheses raised by the present study (e.g., analyzing male and female respondents separately), using other survey techniques, in other national contexts
and with more extensive descriptions of crime situations, involving these
and other kinds of offenders and victims, and of interactions, is highly
recommended.
478
Crime & Delinquency
Appendix 1
Variables and Values:
A. Offenders gender and B. Victims gender
1. Male / 2. Female
C. Offenders ethnicity and D. Victims ethnicity
1. Jewish / 2. Arab
E. Offenders age and F. Victims age
1. 25 years old / 2. 50 years old
G. Degree of offenses harm
1. Relatively light / 2. Relatively severe
H. Criminal offense
1. Violence (including examples of intimate and acquaintance murders, intimate
and acquaintance violence, partner rape, and vehicular homicide)
2. Property (including examples of burglary, shoplifting, and robbery)
I. Offenders criminal record
1. Yes / 2. (Not stated)
Sampled scenarios:
1. Because of suspicion of romantic betrayal, a 25-year-old Jewish man
with a criminal record beat his girlfriend, a 25-year-old Jewish woman,
seriously.
2. A 50-year-old Arab man, with a criminal record, breaks into a 50-year-old
Jewish womans apartment through a window and steals jewels and money
worth NIS 10,000.
3. A 25-year-old Jewish housewife is shopping at a drugstore owned by a
50-year-old Jewish woman and she slips a watch worth NIS 200 into her
handbag and leaves the store without paying for it.
In your opinion, how serious is this act?
Not serious at all
1
2
3
Very serious
10
11
If you were the judge in this case, what would be your decision regarding the
appropriate punishment for the offender?
Sentence him/her to death / to life imprisonment / to _________ years of imprisonment/
to other less serious punishment (probation, community service, fine).
479
Notes
1. Similar tenets may be found in the similarity-attraction hypothesis (see Osbeck,
Moghaddam, & Perreault, 1997). Sociobiologists have suggested that all living organisms
have such a tendency to feel more favorable to genetically similar others and to express fear
and loathing toward genetically dissimilar organisms (see Rushton, 1989).
2. The mere presence of women on a jury was sufficient to change the conviction rate in
criminal cases against or committed by women (Arce, Farina, & Sobral, 1996).
3. Findings from student samples especially have proven not to generalize well to the population at large, particularly to the judicial system (Sears, 1986).
4. Official data indicate that 98% of Israeli households are connected to the phone system,
and the percentage of people not listed in the directories is fairly low.
5. The response rate was calculated on the basis of valid household numbers, excluding
businesses, fax connections, and so forth. To boost response rates, respondents who could not
be reached initially were contacted again. A household was replaced after three unsuccessful
attempts.
6. To increase the uniformity of the evaluative task, respondents were instructed to base
their responses on their subjective evaluation of the described scenario rather than on any personal legal knowledge they may have had (Herzog, 2003).
7. The decisions regarding the number of variables to include in each scenario and the
number of scenarios to present to each respondent were pretested and guided by methodological considerations, such as the use of a telephone survey, interview length, full understanding
of the scenarios, and allowing sufficient observations for each research condition to achieve
sufficient statistical power for the data analyses.
8. Tajfel (1981) stressed the importance of assimilation; individuals do not create their
own categories but assimilate the categories that are culturally available.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Arce, R., Farina, F. & Sobral, J. (1996). From juror to jury decisions making. In G. Davies
et al. (Eds.), Psychology, law and criminal justice (pp. 337-343). New York: Walter de
Gruyter.
Baldwin, M. R., & Kleinke, C. L. (1994). Effects of severity of accident, intent, and alcoholism is a disease excuse on judgments of a drunk driver. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 24, 2097-2109.
Bell, S. T., Kuriloff, P. J., & Lottes, I. (1994). Understanding attributions of blame in stranger
rape and date rape situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(19), 1719-1734.
Capozza, D., & Brown, R. (2000). Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research.
London: Sage.
Corbett, C., & Simon, F. (1991). Police and public perceptions of the seriousness of traffic
offenses. British Journal of Criminology, 31, 153-164.
Daly, K., & Tonry, M. (1997). Gender, race and sentencing. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 22, pp. 201-242). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dexter, H. R., Penrod, S., Linz, D., & Saunders, D. (1997). Attributing responsibility to female
victims after exposure to sexually violent films. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
27(24), 2149-2171.
480
Crime & Delinquency
Elkins, T. J., Phillips, J. S., & Konopaske, R. (2002). Gender-related biases in evaluations of
sex discrimination allegations: Is perceived threat the key? Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(2), 280-292.
Farnworth, M., & Teske, Jr., R. H. C. (1995). Gender differences in felony court processing:
Three hypotheses of disparity. Women and Criminal Justice, 6(2), 23-44.
Feather, N. T. (1996). Domestic violence, gender, and perceptions of justice. Sex Roles,
35(7/8), 507-519.
Hawkins, K. (1993). The uses of discretion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Herzog, S. (2003). Does the ethnicity of offenders in crime scenarios affect public perceptions
of crime seriousness? A randomized survey experiment in Israel. Social Forces, 82(2),
757-781.
Hox, J. J., Kreft, I. G. G., & Hermkins, P. L. (1991). The analysis of factorial surveys.
Sociological Methods and Research, 19, 493-510.
Kouabenan, D. R., Gilibert, D., Medina, M., & Bouzon, F. (2001). Hierarchical position,
gender, accident severity, and causal attribution. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
31(3), 553-575.
Landsman, S., & Rakos, R. (1994). A preliminary inquiry into the effect of potentially biasing
information on judges and jurors in civil litigation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12,
113-126.
Levi, M., & Jones, S. (1985). Public and police perceptions of crime seriousness in England
and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 25(3), 234-250.
Locke, L. M., & Richman, C. L. (1999). Attitudes toward domestic violence: Race and gender
issues. Sex Roles, 40(3-4), 227-247.
Marciniak, L. M. (1998). Adolescent attitudes toward victim precipitation of rape. Violence
and Victims, 13(3), 287-300.
McCleary, R., ONeil, M., Epperlein, T., Jones, C., & Gray, R. (1981). Effects of legal education
and work experience on perceptions of crime seriousness. Social Problems, 28, 276-289.
Neale, J., & Liebert, R. (1986). Science and behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
OConnell, M., & Whelan, A. (1996). Taking wrongs seriously: Public perceptions of crime
seriousness. British Journal of Criminology, 36(2), 299-318.
Osbeck, L., Moghaddam, F. M., & Perreault, S. (1997). Similarity and attraction among majority
and minority groups in a multicultural context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
21(1), 113-123.
Radelet, M. (1991). Racial characteristics and the imposition of the death penalty. American
Sociological Review, 46, 918-927.
Ralph, P. H., Sorensen, M., & Marquart, J. W. (1992). A comparison of death-sentenced and
incarcerated murderers in pre-Furman Texas. Justice Quarterly, 9, 185-209.
Rossi, P., & Anderson, A. (1982). The factorial survey approach: An introduction. In P. Rossi
& S. Nock (Eds.), Measuring social judgments: The factorial survey approach (pp. 1-39).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rossi, P., & Berk, R. (1997). Just punishments: Federal guidelines and public views compared.
New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Rossi, P., Simpson, J., & Miller, J. (1985). Beyond crime seriousness: Fitting the punishment
to the crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1(1), 59-89.
Rushton, J. P. (1989). Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 12, 503-559.
Sampson, R. J., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1997). Racial and ethnic disparities in crime and criminal
justice in the United States. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Ethnicity, crime and immigration:
481
Comparative and cross-national perspectives (Vol. 21, pp. 311-374). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Saunders, D. G., & Size, P. B. (1986). Attitudes about woman abuse among police officers,
victims, and victim advocates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1(1), 25-42.
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base
on social psychologys view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 515-530.
Sellin, T., & Wolfgang, M. (1964). The measurement of delinquency. New York: Wiley.
Shaver, K. G. (1970). Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 101-113.
Shoham, E. (2000). The battered wifes perception of the characteristics of her encounter with
the police. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
44(2), 242-257.
Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J, & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in
criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, Black, and male. Criminology,
36, 763-797.
Stith, S. M. (1990). Police response to domestic violence: The influence of individual and
familial factors. Violence and Victims, 5(1), 37-49.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin &
S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Thornton, B. (1992). Repression and its mediating influence on the defensive attribution of
responsibility. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 44-57.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Discovering
the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Walsh, A. (1987). The sexual stratification hypothesis and sexual assault in light of the changing conceptions of race. Criminology, 25, 153-173.
Wilson, R. J., & Jonah, B. A. (1988). Assignment of responsibility and penalties for an
impaired driving incident. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(7), 564-583.
Sergio Herzog is a senior lecturer at the Institute of Criminology, at the Faculty of Law, in the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He received his bachelors degree in psychology and his
Ph.D. in criminology (direct track) from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. His research
interests lie in the areas of criminology, criminal justice systems, and social psychology.

An Attitudinal Explanation of Biases in The Criminal Justice System An Empirical Testing of Defensive Attribution Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Attitudinal Explanation of Biases in The Criminal Justice System An Empirical Testing of Defensive Attribution Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crime & Delinquency