Framed Attributions and Shaped Accounts: A Study of Dispositional Process in Juvenile Justice

Drawing from an actual case that was set for a revocation-of-probation hearing, and using an interactionist conception, this article analyzes how juvenile probation officers (JPOs) impute attributes, advocate dispositions, and offer justifying accounts for their recommendations. Controlling for case and context effects, it examines how these officers frame their attributions and shape the justifications of their recommendations to accomplish their dispositions. It was found that delinquent attributions, although they are negotiated with language appropriate to the ideals of individualized juvenile justice and rehabilitation, often parallel the decision-making process in the adult parole system. Although the proposed dispositions and their accompanying remedial intentions vary among the individual officers, it is demonstrated that once an officer is committed to a preferred disposition for a marginal case he or she will expend considerable and judicious effort in attempts to secure that disposition from the court. It is proposed that this individual JPO commitnent may represent the key to more successful juvenile justice intervention.

Why Smiles Generate Leniency

The authors investigated the social significance of human smiles, specifically the penchant for transgressors who smile to be judged more leniently than those who do not. Of particular interest was whether different types of smiles generate different degrees of leniency and what mediated the effect. Subjects judged a case of possible academic misconduct. Materials included a photograph of a female target displaying a neutral expression, felt smile, false smile, or miserable smile. Smiling targets received more leniency than nonsmiling targets, although they were not seen as less guilty. The type of smile did not significantly moderate the amount of leniency shown. Of the variables evaluated for mediating the smile-leniency effect, such as perceiving the target as more likable, submissive, or diplomatic, the one that best accounted for the effect was perceiving the target as a trustworthy person. The implication seems to be—if in trouble, smile.

Examining the Effect of Smile Intensity on Age Perceptions

Research has demonstrated the positive effects of smiles on interpersonal perceptions of attractiveness, likability, and friendliness. A possible mechanism underlying the effects of smiles is babyfacedness. Four studies were conducted with 1,235 participants. In Study 1, 646 participants were assigned to one of the six levels of smile intensity and responded to the measures of age perception and perceived babyfacedness. Compared to the neutral expression, the maximal smile reduced age estimations and this effect was mediated by perceived babyfacedness. In Study 2, 59 respondents' responses indicated that a maximal smile reduced the perception of age. In Study 3, 318 respondents estimated the age of models in different sex and levels of smile intensity. Maximal smiles reduced age estimations. In Study 4, 125 students and 87 non-students were randomly assigned to one of the three levels of smile intensity and provided age estimations. Replicating previous findings, maximal smiles reduced age estimations. Consistent results emerged from the various contexts, models, and samples, as well as in a pooled analysis.

Gender, smiling, and witness credibility in actual trials

It has been acknowledged that females exhibit more smiling behaviors than males, but there has been little attention to this gender difference in the courtroom. Although both male and female witnesses exhibit smiling behaviors, there has been no research examining the subsequent effect of gender and smiling on witness credibility. This study used naturalistic observation to examine smiling behaviors and credibility in actual witnesses testifying in court. Raters assessed the smiling behaviors and credibility (as measured by the Witness Credibility Scale) of 32 male and female witnesses testifying in trials in a mid-sized Southern city. "Credibility raters" rated the perceived likeability, trustworthiness, confidence, knowledge, and overall credibility of the witnesses using the Witness Credibility Scale. "Smile raters" noted smiling frequency and types, including speaking/expressive and listening/receptive smiles. Gender was found to affect perceived trustworthiness ratings, in which male witnesses were seen as more trustworthy than female witnesses. No significant differences were found in the smiling frequency for male and female witnesses. However, the presence of smiling was found to contribute to perceived likeability of a witness. Smiling female witnesses were found to be more likeable than smiling male and non-smiling female witnesses.

Mental illness, criminal risk factors and parole release decisions

Research has not examined whether higher rates of parole denial among inmates with mental illness (MI) are the result of the increased presence of criminal risk factors among this population. Employing a representative sample of inmates with (n  =  219) and without (n  =  184) MI receiving parole release decisions in 2007, this study tested whether the central eight risk factors for recidivism considered in parole release decisions intervened in the relationship between MI and parole release. MI was associated with possession of a substance use disorder, antisocial personality disorder and violent charges while incarcerated; however, these factors were not related to release decisions. MI was found to have neither a direct nor an indirect effect on release decisions. While results indicate that release decisions appear, to some extent, to be evidence-based, they also suggest considerable discretion is being implemented by parole board members in release decisions above and beyond consideration of criminal risk factors.

Attributions of Guilt and Punishment as Functions of Physical Attractiveness and Smiling

The authors found an interaction between sex of participant and sex of defendant in the leniency bias toward a smiling defendant. Differences occurred for male participants when levying punishment for a smiling male defendant vs. a smiling female defendant and for a smiling male defendant vs. a nonsmiling male defendant, whereas differences did not occur for female participants. The authors found moderating effects of physical attractiveness and smiling between guilt and punishment. The only significant positive relationship between guilt and punishment occurred for the defendant whom participants rated low in physical attractiveness and who was not smiling. When guilty, the smiling and unattractive defendant received less punishment than did the smiling and attractive defendant. The authors discussed complex relationships between physical attractiveness, smiling, guilt, and punishment.