Credibility assessments of alibi accounts: the role of cultural intergroup bias

The role of ethnicity in the admission process of male juvenile released offenders: Examining risk and readiness to change in the Israeli Shushan centers

INTRODUCTION

Disparities in evaluating readiness to change and recidivism risk across diverse cultural groups can profoundly affect rehabilitation program efficacy. This study examines readiness to change and recidivism risk disparities between Israeli-Arabs and Israeli-Jews entering a re-entry program by the Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority postrelease.

METHOD

The University of Rhode Island Change Assessment Scale questionnaire gauged readiness to change, whereas the Ohio Youth Assessment System-Residential tool assessed recidivism risk. The sample included 151 participants: 98 Israeli-Arabs and 53 Israeli-Jews. Mean differences in change readiness and recidivism risk were statistically assessed through t tests.

RESULTS

Significant differences emerged in change readiness levels between Israeli-Arabs and Jews upon rehabilitation program entry, with Israeli-Jews exhibiting higher readiness. Additionally, a noteworthy divergence in recidivism risk was noted, indicating elevated average risk for Israeli-Jews.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings underscore the vital need for cultural sensitivity during admission. Bias potential in assessing risk for Arab participants emphasizes the necessity of a comprehensive culturally sensitive approach. While focusing on admission, the Risk-Need-Responsivity model application could enhance risk evaluation and guide culturally tailored treatments.

Adult's veracity judgments of Black and White children's statements: the role of perceiver and target race and prejudice-related concerns

Introduction

Seldom has work investigated systematic biases in adults' truth and lie judgments of children's reports. Research demonstrates that adults tend to exhibit a bias toward believing a child is telling the truth, but it is unknown whether this truth bias applies equally to all children. Given the pervasiveness of racial prejudice and anti-Black racism in the United States, the current study examined whether adults are more or less likely to believe a child is telling the truth based on the race of the child (Black or White), the race of the adult perceiver (Black or White), and the perceiver's concerns regarding appearing unprejudiced.

Methods

Using an online data-collection platform, 593 Black and White American adults reviewed fictitious vignettes in which a child denied committing a misbehavior at school (e.g., damaging a laptop). The race of the child in the vignette was manipulated using an AI-generated photo of either a Black child or a White child. After reading each story, participants provided a categorical veracity judgment by indicating whether they believed the child in the story was lying (and therefore committed the misdeed) or telling the truth (and was innocent), as well as rated how honest or deceptive the child was being on a continuous scale. Participants also completed questionnaires assessing their internal (personal) and external (normative) motivations to respond in non-prejudiced ways.

Results and discussion

Results indicated that systematic racial biases occur in adults' veracity judgments of children's statements. Both Black and White participants exhibited a truth bias in their veracity judgments of Black children, but not when evaluating the deceptiveness of White children. Consistent with the prejudice-related concerns hypothesis, the observed truth bias toward Black children was moderated by individual differences in participants' desire to respond without prejudice and whether those motivations stem from external or internal sources. The current findings present novel evidence regarding racial bias and prejudice-related concerns as potential barriers to making veracity judgments of children's statements and, ultimately, successful lie detection.

Public attitudes toward COVID-19 misbehaviors: Perceived seriousness of the misbehavior and perceived severity of the appropriate punishment

Purpose

This interdisciplinary study explores attitudes toward health-related misbehaviors from a criminological point of view by comparing attitudes toward COVID-19 misbehaviors to the attitudes toward reckless behaviors related to driving and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) patients' sexual behavior and identifying the predictors of attitudes toward COVID-19 misbehaviors.

Methods

An online factorial survey included 679 respondents aged 18-89  years. The participants read various scenarios related to the violation of COVID-19 restrictions, reckless sexual behavior among HIV patients, and reckless driving. The participants evaluated the seriousness of each behavior and the appropriate severity of the punishment in each scenario. Within the scenarios about COVID-19 misbehaviors, we manipulated such variables as the type of COVID-19 misbehavior and violators' gender, ethnicity, and religiosity. Additionally, participants answered questions about their demographic characteristics, vaccination, fear of COVID-19, and perceived contribution of COVID-19 misbehaviors to COVID-19-related morbidity.

Results

The results indicated that participants perceived COVID-19 misbehaviors as less serious (Mean = 8.11, S.D. = 2.49) and deserving a less severe punishment (Mean = 7.57, S.D. = 2.59) than reckless driving (Mean = 9.36, S.D. = 1.25; Mean = 9.09, S.D. = 1.30; respectively). Additionally, the key factor predicting public opinion regarding COVID-19-related misbehaviors was the perceived contribution of these misbehaviors to virus-related morbidity. The perceived contribution to morbidity explained 52% of the variance in the seriousness of misbehavior and 53% of the severity of appropriate punishment.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that it is critical to advocate for and reinforce the public's understanding of the association between the increase in morbidity and the violation of restrictions preventing the transmission of viruses. Our findings also support the notion that the definitions of "crime" and "deviance" are not inherent or intrinsic but are created by the social context.

Differences in attitudes toward terrorists: Type of terrorist act, terrorist ethnicity, and observer gender and cultural background

To explore the interrelationship between terrorist acts, terrorist ethnicity, and observer gender and cultural background in Israel, we recruited 211 participants aged 19–75 years. The majority were male (63%). As for the ethnic and religious cultural background, 40% were Jewish, 40% Druze, and 20% Muslim. The participants answered questions about their demographic characteristics, read three scenarios of terrorist acts, addressed attitudes toward terrorists, and suggested the length of imprisonment. We manipulated the type of act (shooting and killing/burning religious institutions/throwing stones at cars) and terrorist ethnicity (Arab/ Jewish). The results indicate significant main effects of the manipulated variables regarding attitudes toward terrorists. Also, Muslim Arab participants expressed more negative attitudes in cases of Jewish terrorists than Arab terrorists, whereas Jewish participants expressed more negative attitudes toward Arab terrorists than Jewish terrorists. Druze participants did not differentiate between Arab and Jewish terrorists. Furthermore, in cases of Arab perpetrators, Jewish participants suggested imprisonment terms 2.4 times longer than in cases of Jewish perpetrators. The discussion addresses the findings in the context of social identity theory and dual social identification. Regarding practical implications, the findings imply the need for education and training on ethnic bias among policymakers and practitioners.