595061

research-article2015
IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X15595061International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyChen and Einat

Article
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
To Punish or Not to Comparative Criminology
2017, Vol. 61(3) 347367
PunishThat Is the Question: The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
Attitudes of Criminology and sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X15595061
Criminal Justice Students in journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Israel Toward Punishment

Gila Chen1 and Tomer Einat2

Abstract
Attitudes toward punishment have long been of interest to policymakers, researchers,
and criminal justice practitioners. The current study examined the relationship
between academic education in criminology and attitudes toward punishment among
477 undergraduate students in three subgroups: police officers, correctional officers,
and criminology students who were not employed by the criminal justice system
(CJS). Our main findings concluded that (a) punitive attitudes of the correctional
officers and police officers at the beginning of their academic studies were harsher
than those of the criminology and criminal justice students who were not employed
by the CJS, (b) punitive attitudes of the correctional officers at the end of their
academic studies were less severe than their first-year counterparts, (c) fear of
crime was higher among women than among men, and (d) the strongest predictor
of punitive attitudes was a firm belief in the principles of the classical and labeling
theories (beyond group). Implications of these results are discussed.

Keywords
punishment, academic education, punitive attitudes, students

1Ashkelon Academic College, Israel

2Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

Corresponding Author:
Gila Chen, Department of Criminology, Ashkelon Academic College, 12 Ben Tzvi St., Ashkelon 78109,
Israel.
Email: chengila6@gmail.com
348 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 61(3)

Introduction
A considerable number of recent studies have examined attitudes toward punishment
and their impact on penal policies (Applegate, Cullen, & Fisher, 2002; Kelly, 2014;
Kutateladze & Crossman, 2009; Payne, Tewksbury, & Mustaine, 2010). In this rapidly
growing body of literature, researchers have identified five major factors concerning
public support of or opposition to the harsh treatment of offenders: socio-demographic
variables (King & Maruna, 2008; Maruna & King, 2009), organizational issues (Drake,
2007), instrumental (crime-related) aspects (King & Maruna, 2008), expressive fea-
tures (Kelly, 2014), and educational factors (Elffers, De Keijser, Van Koppen, & Van
Haeringen, 2007; Young, Antonio, & Wingeard, 2009).
One interesting and relatively innovative category of studies on this subject has
focused on the relationship between academic education and attitudes toward punish-
ment (OConnor Shelley, Waid, & Dobbs, 2011; Sandys, 1995; Tewksbury & Mustaine,
2008). The results of these studies indicated a correlation between academic education
and students positive attitudes toward prison reform and increased support for reha-
bilitation (Dowler, 2003; Sims & Johnston, 2004), and negative attitudes toward pun-
ishment (Barkan & Cohn, 2005; Chiricos, Welch, & Gertz, 2004) and the death penalty
(Mandracchia, Shaw, & Morgan, 2013).
Although some academic attention has been devoted to examining the link between
academic education and punitive attitudes, the connection between academic educa-
tion in criminology and criminal justice and the attitudes of criminal justice practitio-
ners toward punishment has, however, been overlooked. Furthermore, the few studies
that have focused on the relationship between academic education and attitudes toward
punishment were conducted solely in the United States (Falco, 2008; Tewksbury &
Mustaine, 2008). The relative neglect in this area of research is surprising in light of
the growing popularity of criminology and criminal justice studies and the increasing
number of academic institutions offering degrees in these subjects (Flanagan, 2000;
Lambert & Clarke, 2004). The impact of academic education on the general publics
punitive attitudes, crime prevention, and rehabilitation (Applegate, Cullen, Fisher, &
Vander Ven, 2000; Dowler, 2003; Klama & Egan, 2011; Leiber, 2000) and the (direct
or indirect) influence of criminal justice professionals on legal and criminal justice
policies, crime prevention, and offender rehabilitation (Mackey, Courtright, &
Packard, 2006) would also suggest a need for such research. Further examination of
this subject may provide critical information with ongoing implications for research-
ers, policymakers, and law enforcement agencies.

Literature Review
Numerous criminologists and social scientists have recognized the importance and the
complexity of research on the punitive attitudes of the public in general and criminal
justice professionals, in particular (Kelly, 2014; Unnever & Cullen, 2009). Gideon and
Sherman-Oren (2014) found these attitudes to have an illuminating and predictive
effect on criminal justice policies (p. 1). A systematic review of the research in this
Chen and Einat 349

field revealed a number of key predictors of the punitive attitudes of public and crimi-
nal justice practitioners.

Prior Victimization
One group of studies focused on the impact of prior victimization on punitive attitudes.
While it could be postulated that those who had been victimized by crime would express
more punitive attitudes (Costelloe, Chiricos, & Gertz, 2009; Garland, 2001), the research
clearly rejected this (Applegate etal., 2000; Barkan & Cohn, 2005; Evans & Adams,
2003). However, these findings may be due to the treatment of crime victims in the
research as a homogeneous group, when in fact their opinions about punishment may
differ based on the type of crime (Sprott & Doob, 1997) and/or due to the fact that
criminal victimization is a rather rare event, and it is statistically difficult to use an
uncommon occurrence to predict an outcome like punitiveness (Costelloe, 2004, p. 37).

Fear of Crime
A second group of studies examined the correlation between fear of crime and attitudes
toward punishment. Whereas some studies found positive and significant effects of fear
of crime on punitive attitudes (Applegate etal., 2000; Costelloe, Chiricos, Burianek,
Gertz, & Maier-Katkin, 2002; Costelloe etal., 2009; Hogan, Chiricos, & Gertz, 2005;
Johnson, 2009), others found little or no effect (Tyler & Boeckmann, 1997).

Causal Attribution of Crime

A third group of studies examined the role of causal attribution of crime (i.e., the way
in which individuals explain criminal behavior) in the development of punitive atti-
tudes (Leiber, Schwarze, Mack, & Farnworth, 2002). Some scientists have suggested
that people who perceive criminal behavior as an outcome of the offenders personal
characteristics (dispositional attributions) tend to hold more punitive viewpoints than
those who accredit such conduct to environmental, economic, and societal causes (sit-
uational attributions; Leiber & Woodrick, 1997). Other researchers have asserted that
causal attribution of crime may also be based on belief in a specific criminological
theory (such as classical, social process, labeling, subculture, structural positivism,
individual positivism, or learning theory; Evans & Adams, 2003). Sims (2003), for
example, found that a strong belief in classical, social process, or subcultural theories
correlated positively with harsher punitive attitudes, strong acceptance of structural
positivism, individual positivism, and labeling theories correlated with less punitive
attitudes, and classical theory was the strongest predictor of harsh punitive attitudes.

Occupational Roles
Another group of researchers shed light on the relation between occupational roles and
punitive attitudes. Moon and Maxwell (2004) and Young etal. (2009) argued that
350 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 61(3)

criminal justice system (CJS) professionals hold favorable attitudes toward punish-
ment and negative attitudes toward rehabilitation. In contrast, Kjelsberg, Skoglund,
and Rustad (2007), as well as Robinson, Porporino, and Simourd (1996), demonstrated
the exact opposite: CJS practitioners held negative attitudes toward punishment and
positive attitudes toward rehabilitation. Furthermore, punitive attitudes have been
found to correlate with several occupational variables, such as timing of shifts, role
conflict, job satisfaction, and seniority in work (Krippner & Alvarez, 2007; Liebling,
2008).

Academic Education
Finally, a rather innovative group of studies examined the relationships between levels
of academic education and punitive attitudes (Mackey & Courtright, 2000). Falco
(2008) investigated the predictors of punitive attitudes among 519 criminology and
non-criminology undergraduate students. Her results indicated that advanced crimi-
nology students expressed less punitive attitudes in comparison with their first-year
counterparts and that criminology students in general had less punitive attitudes than
other students. Farnworth, Longmire, and West (1998) examined the attitudes of 683
college students toward several criminal sanctions, including the death penalty and the
war on drugs. The results indicated that seniors were consistently less likely to hold
punitive views than freshmen, suggesting the liberalizing effect of the college
experience.
As a whole, this review of the literature suggests a theoretical and empirical dispute
among social scientists regarding the origin of attitudes toward punishment. The aim
of the present research was to contribute to knowledge on the relationship between
academic education in criminal justice and criminology and attitudes toward punish-
ment. The specific objective of the research was twofold: First, to explore the attitudes
of first-year and senior undergraduate criminology and criminal justice students
toward punishment; and second, to analyze the relationship between specific stage of
academic studies and variance of punitive attitudes.

The Present Study

Over the past few decades, the Israeli CJS has shifted from rehabilitative to puni-
tive (get tough) philosophies. Nonetheless, very few studies have examined the
punitive attitudes of Israeli practitioners and non-practitioners. In fact, to the best
of our knowledge, no studies have been published that analyze the views of Israeli
police officers, correctional officers, and criminology students who are not
employed by the CJS regarding punitive versus rehabilitative policies. The results
of such research could advance our understanding of the punitive attitudes of Israeli
practitioners and non-practitioners as well as the diverse sources of such views
among these populations.
Therefore, in the current study we examined the relationships between punitive
attitudes and levels of academic education in criminology and criminal justice studies,
Chen and Einat 351

occupational role, fear of crime, prior victimization, and casual attribution of crime.
We conducted the research using three groups of criminology and criminal justice
undergraduate students in the first 2 weeks and the final week of their academic stud-
ies. The groups were comprised of correctional officers, police officers, and criminol-
ogy and criminal justice students who were not employed by the CJS.
We examined four hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Police officers and correctional officers would differ in the catego-
ries of fear of crime and prior victimization and would maintain harsher punitive
attitudes than criminology and criminal justice students who were not employed by
the CJS.
Hypothesis 2: The causal attribution of crime by police and correctional officers
would be based on theories associated with more punitive attitudes than those
espoused by criminology and criminal justice students who were not employed by
the CJS.
Hypothesis 3: First-year undergraduate criminology and criminal justice students
would maintain harsher punitive attitudes than senior criminology students and
would base their causal attribution of crime on theories associated with more puni-
tive attitudes.
Hypothesis 4: Prior victimization, fear of crime, and harsher causal attribution of
crime would positively predict more punitive attitudes.

Method
This study was based on a 3 2 comparative cross-sectional design (Dehning etal.,
2012). We compared three groups of criminology and criminal justice students, each
divided into two subgroups according to the year of study: 299 undergraduate students
(63% of the sample) at the beginning of their first year of criminology and criminal
justice studies and 178 students (37% of the sample) at the end of their last (senior)
year. The number of senior students was much lesser than that of first-year students,
and this is reflected in the sample. There are three plausible reasons for this discrep-
ancy: academic failure and subsequent discontinuation of studies; financial difficulties
leading to drop out; and inability to complete all graduation requirements in time, thus
failing to meet our criteria for participation.

Participants
We recruited 477 criminology and criminal justice students from three universities and
academic colleges in Israel (representing 37.5% of all academic programs in criminol-
ogy and criminal justice in Israel) to participate in the study. Most of the participants
(n=290;61%) were women and the rest (n=187; 39%) were men. We divided the
research participants into 3 2 groups according to occupation and level of academic
studies: 101 police officers (21.2%48 first-year students and 53 senior students);
105 correctional officers (22%66 first-year students and 39 senior students); and
352 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 61(3)

271 criminology and criminal justice students who were not employed by the CJS
(56.8%185 first-year students and 86 senior students).
The minimum educational requirement for recruitment to the Israel Police or the
Israel Prison Service is 12 years of education and a matriculation certificate. With
regard to in-service academic education, police or correctional officers who wish to
enroll in regular undergraduate studies are only permitted to register for criminology
or criminal justice studies and must have at least 7 years of experience in the service.
Israeli police officers are required to invest their professional efforts in crime preven-
tion, law enforcement, maintenance of public security and law and order, and the pre-
vention of terrorism. Israeli correctional officers are required to keep prisoners in safe
custody, provide them with their basic needs, and administer appropriate corrective
measures which will enable them to successfully reenter society on release. This list of
duties reflects the complexity of the occupational roles of these professionals (Timor,
2011). Many students of criminology and criminal justice work as professionals within
the CJS upon graduation.

Measures
A socio-demographic questionnaire was used to obtain data concerning age, gender,
family status, and ethnicity of participants.
Fear of criminal victimization was measured using Chiricos etal.s (2004) Fear of
Criminal Victimization scale. On this questionnaire, students were asked to indicate
their level of fear regarding six crimes (e.g., having their car stolen or being raped or
sexually assaulted) on a scale of 0 (not fearful at all) to 10 (very fearful). For each
respondent, the sum of the scores on the six crimes was used to obtain a total fear-of-
crime score (range = 0-60). An internal consistency coefficient of .92 has been reported
for this instrument (Chiricos etal., 2004). In the present study, the internal consistency
was .89.
Prior victimization was measured using Cullen, Clark, Cullen, and Matherss
(1985) Victimization scale. The scale is composed of six items (e.g., someone break-
ing into their house/apartment/dorm) aimed at establishing the number of times the
participant had been a victim of each type of crime over the past 12 months. In the
current study, each item was coded dichotomously as 0 (I was not a victim) or 1 (I was
a victim). A total victimization score was obtained from the sum of the items (range =
0-6).
Causal attribution of crime was measured using Simss (2003) Causal Attribution
scale. The scale is comprised of 27 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). To analyze the participants attitudes toward
the causes of criminal behavior, they were presented with various statements (e.g.,
People commit crime because they live in bad neighborhoods that are run down and
disorganized), which represent seven theoretical perspectives of crime causation
(social process; structural positivism; individual positivism; labeling theory; classical
theory; subcultural theory; and learning theory). Each theory reflects and signifies a
harsh or lenient approach toward criminals.
Chen and Einat 353

We conducted factor analysis with Varimax rotation and an eigenvalue greater than
1 on the 27 items of the scale. Each of the factors calculated was based on the theoreti-
cal logic and guidelines reviewed above. Two scalessubcultural theory and learning
theorywere removed due to their low alphas, leaving five factors which explained
47.99% of variance. The internal consistencies found were as follows: = .73 for
structural positivism, = .62 for individual positivism, = .59 for social process the-
ory, = .69 for classical theory, and = .54 for labeling theory (the low alpha levels in
this last scale may be due to the low number of items [3] associated with it).
Punitive attitudes were measured using Courtright and Mackeys (2004) Punitive
Attitudes scale. In this questionnaire, participants were asked to indicate their level of
agreement with each of the 15 statements (e.g., We are too soft on people convicted
of crime) on a 6-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6
(strongly agree). The total score was composed of the sum of scores on all items, rang-
ing from 15 to 90. Higher scores on this scale indicated harsher punitive attitudes. An
internal consistency of = .85 has been reported for the scale (Courtright & Mackey,
2004). In the present study, the internal consistency was = .88.

Procedure
The current research was first approved by the institutional review boards of the crimi-
nology departments of the relevant academic institutions. We then approached stu-
dents (during class time) and informed them of the purpose of the study. We explained
that their participation was completely voluntary and their responses would be anony-
mous and assured them that participation, withdrawal, or non-participation in the proj-
ect would incur no special privileges (monetary or otherwise tangible), benefits, or
sanctions.
Research assistants distributed the questionnaires in two stages. In Stage 1, they
distributed 300 questionnaires in class to first-year students in the first month of their
first academic year (November 2011). Only one student declined to participate, leav-
ing a sample of 299 first-year students. In Stage 2, they distributed 180 questionnaires
in class to students during the final month of their senior year of study (May 2012).
Two students declined to participate, leaving a sample of 178 seniors. The final sample
thus consisted of 477 criminology students. We chose to distribute the questionnaires
in two mandatory courses in the criminology programs: a first-year course in criminol-
ogy theories and a final-year course in social deviance.

Data Analysis
The analytic approach was threefold. First, we performed non-parametric (chi-square)
procedures for socio-demographic differences (gender and family status) between
groups and ANOVA for age differences. Second, we conducted univariate ANCOVAs
and a MANCOVA to examine differences in punitive attitudes, fear of crime, prior
victimization, and causal attribution of crime according to group and year of study,
controlling statistically for gender and age. Third, we ran two multiple hierarchical
354 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 61(3)

regressions to predict punitive attitudes: one for police and correctional officers, and
the other for criminology students who were not employed by the CJS. Year of study,
gender, group, and age were entered in the first step, and causal attribution of crime
was entered in the second step.
Data regarding causal attribution were available for all participants, and data
regarding punitive attitudes were available for 99% of the participants. Gender and
year of study were available for all participants, and age was available for 93% of the
participants. As these major study variables were available for almost all participants,
we used pair-wise deletion strategy when possible and list-wise deletion in other cases.
Fear of crime and prior victimization were available for 75% of the participants and
were thus analyzed separately.

Results
Participants Socio-Demographic Characteristics
The majority of participants were Jewish (94%; n = 444) and single (68%; n = 325). The
correctional officers were older than the other participants. Their mean age was 31.66
(SD = 3.60) compared with the police officers (27.81; SD = 5.38) and the criminology
students who were not employed by the CJS (24.21; SD = 3.85). Women comprised of
the majority of the criminology students who were not employed by the CJS (86.0%;
n = 233), 46.5% (n = 47) of the police officers, and 9.5% (n = 10) of the correctional
officers. No significant demographic differences were found between first-year and
senior students regarding gender, marital status, or ethnicity. Significant differences
were, however, detected regarding age, F(1, 439) = 29.96, p < .001, 2 = .064, whereby
the senior students (M = 28.15, SD = 4.82) were older than the first-year students (M =
25.45, SD = 5.02). As noted, in performing the data analysis, we controlled for age and
gender. Table 1 shows the socio-demographic characteristics of the sample.

Interrelationships of the Study Variables

Examination of the correlations between the study variables (fear of crime, prior vic-
timization, punitive attitudes, and causal attribution of crime) and age and gender (1 =
men, 0 = women) revealed several significant results. First, fear of crime was higher
among women than among men: t(475) = 6.76, p < .001; M = 35.36 (15.49) versus M
= 23.93 (16.68). Second, belief in classical theories of criminology (which is associ-
ated with more punitive attitudes) was higher among men than among women: t(475)
= 6.10, p < .001; M = 3.51 (0.90) versus M = 3.01 (0.87). Third, punitive attitudes
were harsher among men than among women: t(347.11) = 6.00, p < .001; M = 59.08
(12.05) versus M = 52.68 (10.19). Finally, older participants believed more in classical
theories (r = .23, p < .001) and less in individual positivism (which is associated with
less punitive attitudes; r = .22, p < .001). Correspondingly, positive relationships
were revealed between age and punitive attitudes (r = .18, p < .001). Consequently, we
controlled for gender and age in the data analysis.
Chen and Einat 355

Table 1. Participants Socio-Demographic Characteristics (N = 477).

Police Correctional Criminology students

officers officers not employed by CJS
(n = 101) (n = 105) (n = 271)
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Difference F (2)
Age
19-50 27.81 (5.38) 31.66 (3.60) 24.21 (3.85) F(2, 442) =
110.92*** (.334)

n (%) n (%) n (%)

Gender
Male 54 (53.5) 95 (90.5) 38 (14.0) 2(2) = 196.53***
Female 47 (46.5) 10 (9.5) 233 (86.0)
Marital status
Single 64 (63.4) 19 (18.1) 242 (90.0) 2(2) = 181.93***
Married 34 (33.7) 83 (79.0) 25 (9.3) (for single vs.
Divorced separated 3 (3.0) 3 (2.9) 2 (0.7) married)
widowed
Ethnicity
Jewish 99 (98.0) 94 (90.4) 251 (94.0) 2(2) = 5.36
Arab 2 (2.0) 10 (9.6) 16 (6.0)

Note. CJS = criminal justice system.

***p < .001.

Group Differences in Punitive Attitudes, Fear of Crime, and Prior

Victimization by Group and Year of Study
The research results partially supported Hypothesis 1. Given that the amount of miss-
ing data differed by variable, we conducted univariate ANCOVAs for punitive atti-
tudes, fear of crime, and prior victimization, controlling for gender and age (see Table 2).
The raw means and standard deviations are presented in Table 2; the estimated mar-
ginal means and standard errors, controlling for gender and age, are presented in the
text.

Punitive attitudes. The police officers (estimated marginal M = 61.08, SE = 1.09) and
correctional officers (M = 58.46, SE = 1.47) held harsher punitive attitudes than the
criminology and criminal justice students who were not employed by the CJS (M =
51.50, SE = 0.77). Furthermore, post hoc analyses for the significant interaction
revealed that punitive attitudes among correctional officers who were at the end of
their senior year of undergraduate studies were lower (M = 55.32, SE = 2.11) than
those in their first year of studies (M = 61.61, SE = 1.62), F(1, 434) = 7.27, p = .007,
2 = .016. We did not find such differences among the police officers or the students
who were not employed by the CJS.
356
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values by Group and Year of Study: Punitive Attitudes, Fear of Crime, Prior Victimization.
Criminology students not
Police officers Correctional officers employed by CJS

First Senior First Senior First Senior

Fgroup Fyear FGroup Year
Year of study M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) (2) (2) (2)

Punitive attitudes (n = 442) 61.23 (10.77) 61.33 (11.94) 62.43 (10.72) 55.79 (11.25) 51.36 (8.03) 50.92 (12.48) F(2, 434) = 23.81*** F(1, 434) = 2.75 F(2, 434) = 3.05*
(n = 46) (n = 48) (n = 57) (n = 30) (n = 175) (n = 86) (.099) (.006) (.014)
Fear of crime (n = 337) 28.04 (18.35) 25.90 (18.14) 26.57 (16.14) 26.00 (16.25) 34.82 (14.79) 33.60 (16.38) F(2, 329) = 1.32 F(1, 329) = 0.76 F(2, 329) = 0.04
(n = 47) (n = 48) (n = 51) (n = 28) (n = 108) (n = 55) (.008) (.002) (.001)
Prior victimized (n = 352) 0.57 (0.50) 0.35 (0.48) 0.35 (0.48) 0.39 (0.50) 0.36 (0.48) 0.32 (0.47) F(2, 318) = 2.41 F(1, 318) = 1.11 F(2, 318) = 1.66
(n = 47) (n = 46) (n = 48) (n = 28) (n = 104) (n = 53) (.015) (.003) (.010)

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Chen and Einat 357

Fear of crime. Fear of crime did not differ by group, year of study, or their interaction.
It was found to be a function of gender, F(1, 324) = 16.06, p < .001, 2 = .047, with
women scoring significantly higher (M = 34.45, SE = 2.08, n = 195) than men (M =
23.89, SE = 1.61, n = 142).

Prior victimization. Sixty-one percent (n = 291) of the participants reported that they
had not been victims of crime in the past 12 months. Hence, prior victimization did not
fluctuate by group, year of study, or their interaction.

Group Differences in Casual Attribution of Crime by Group and Year of

Study
The findings partially supported Hypotheses 2 and 3 (see Table 3). Concerning group
differences, the MANCOVA revealed the following differences: Fgroup(10, 864) =
12.26, p < .001, 2 = .124; year of studies: Fyear(5, 433) = 2.52, p = .029, 2 = .028; and
their interaction: FGroup Year(10, 864) = 4.05, p < .001, 2 = .045 .

Structural positivism. The score for structural positivism (i.e., less punitive) was higher
among the correctional officers (estimated marginal mean M = 3.31, SE = 0.09) and
criminology and criminal justice students who were not employed by the CJS (M =
3.12, SE = 0.05) than among the police officers (M = 2.93, SE = 0.07). The scores
among the senior students were higher (M = 3.20, SE = 0.06) than those in their first
year of studies (M = 3.04, SE = 0.05), beyond group. The interaction of group and year
of studies was not found to be significant.

Individual positivism. Scores for individual positivism (i.e., less punitive) were higher
among the correctional officers (M = 3.12, SE = 0.07) and criminology and criminal
justice students who were not employed by the CJS (M = 3.11, SE = 0.04) than the
police officers (M = 2.92, SE = 0.05). Analysis of the significant interaction revealed
that the scores among correctional officers who were in their senior year of studies
(M = 3.30, SE = 0.10) were higher than those among their first year of studies (M =
2.93, SE = 0.08); F(1, 437) = 11.57, p < .001, 2 = .026. No such difference by year
was found among the police officers or criminal justice students who were not
employed by the CJS.

Classical theory. The highest score regarding classical (i.e., more punitive) theory was
found among the police officers (M = 3.82, SE = 0.05), followed by the correctional
officers (M = 3.49, SE = 0.11), and finally the criminology and criminal justice stu-
dents (M = 2.91, SE = 0.06). Analysis of the significant interaction revealed that the
scores among the criminology and criminal justice students in their senior year of
studies (M = 3.07, SE = 0.09) were higher than those among their first year of studies
(M = 2.75, SE = 0.07); F(1, 437) = 9.25, p = .002, 2 = .021. No difference by year of
study was found among the police officers or the correctional officers.
358
Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and F Values by Group and Year of Study: Casual Attribution of Crime.

Correctional officers General criminology

Police officers (n = 95) (n = 88) students (n = 262)

Senior First Senior First Senior FGroup Year

First (n = 47) (n = 48) (n = 57) (n = 31) (n = 176) (n = 86) Fgroup (2) Fyear (2) (2)

Year of study M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F(2, 437) F(1, 437) F(2, 437)
Structural positivism 2.85 (0.77) 2.95 (0.74) 3.04 (0.64) 3.29 (0.56) 3.18 (0.60) 3.17 (0.66) 6.90** (.031) 4.83* (.011) 1.18 (.005)
Individual positivism 2.90 (0.58) 2.90 (0.56) 2.87 (0.53) 3.21 (0.46) 3.20 (0.48) 3.07 (0.47) 5.80** (.026) 4.51* (.010) 6.53** (.029)
Social process 3.30 (0.67) 3.52 (0.53) 3.32 (0.64) 3.58 (0.55) 3.39 (0.71) 3.45 (0.56) 0.43 (.002) 8.12** (.018) 0.98 (.004)
Classical theories 3.83 (0.98) 3.84 (0.70) 3.64 (0.79) 3.42 (0.65) 2.73 (0.75) 3.05 (0.83) 36.59*** (.143) 0.28 (.001) 3.75* (.017)
Labeling theories 3.13 (0.84) 3.28 (0.68) 3.18 (0.77) 3.23 (0.60) 3.25 (0.71) 3.76 (0.67) 9.45*** (.041) 5.73* (.013) 4.06* (.018)
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Chen and Einat 359

Table 4. Multiple Regressions: Punitive Attitudes on Group, Year of Study, Gender, Age,
and Casual Attribution of Crime.

Police officers and correctional General criminology students

officers (n = 182) (n = 261)

B SE B SE

Step 1
Group 3.13 1.81 .15
Year of study 2.77 1.61 .13 0.59 1.32 .03
Gender 7.11 1.83 .31*** 1.66 1.75 .06
Age 0.13 0.17 .06 0.43 0.16 .17**
R2 = .10*** R2 = .03*
Step 2
Group 1.04 1.65 .05
Year of study 2.29 1.43 .11 0.19 1.21 .01
Gender 5.52 1.61 .24*** 1.55 1.50 .06
Age 0.09 0.15 .04 0.16 0.15 .07
Structural positivism 1.85 1.03 .12 0.92 0.92 .06
Individual positivism 0.74 1.47 .04 1.92 1.34 .09
Social process 1.03 1.34 .06 0.15 0.95 .01
Classical theories 6.34 0.86 .49*** 5.63 0.70 .46***
Labeling theories 0.22 0.98 .02 3.42 0.77 .26***
R2 = .25*** R2 = .28***
R2 = .35 R2 = .31
F(9, 172) = 10.03, p < .001 F(8, 252) = 14.21, p <.001
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Labeling theory. The highest score for labeling (i.e., less punitive) theory was found
among the criminology and criminal justice students (M = 3.55, SE = 0.05), fol-
lowed by the police officers (M = 3.18, SE = 0.08), and finally the correctional
officers (M = 3.08, SE = 0.10). Analysis of the significant interaction revealed that
the scores among the senior criminology and criminal justice students who were
not employed by the CJS (M = 3.78, SE = 0.08) were higher than those in their first
year of study (M = 3.32, SE = 0.06); F(1, 437) = 23.57, p < .001, 2 = .051. No
difference by year of study was found among the police officers or the correctional
officers.

Social process. The scores for attribution to social processes (i.e., more punitive) were
higher among senior students (M = 3.55, SE = 0.06) than among first-year students (M
= 3.34, SE = 0.05), beyond group. The group main effect and the interaction of group
by year of study were not significant.
360 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 61(3)

Prediction of Punitive Attitudes

The research results partially supported Hypothesis 4. To predict punitive attitudes by
fear of crime, prior victimization, and causal attribution of crime, two preliminary
steps were undertaken.

Fear of crime and prior victimization. As there were more missing data for the two vari-
ables of fear of crime and prior victimization than for causal attribution of crime, we
first assessed their contribution to punitive attitudes separately, beyond gender and
age, within each group. According to the results, they were not significant predictors
(police officers: fear of crime = .06, p = .59; victimization = .18, p = .09; correc-
tional officers: fear of crime = .14, p = .23; victimization = .01, p = .98; criminol-
ogy and criminal justice students who were not employed by the CJS: fear of crime
= .06, p = .51; victimization = .10, p = .19). Based on this finding and to minimize
the effect of missing data, we excluded these variables from the prediction of punitive
attitudes.

Causal attribution of crime. Given that there were no significant differences in the puni-
tive attitudes of the police officers and the correctional officers (controlling for gender
and age), we explored the prediction of punitive attitudes by causal attribution of
crime in each of these two groups. Similar patterns were detected. Therefore, we com-
bined the two groups to increase power for the purpose of the regression. Conse-
quently, we predicted punitive attitudes first for the police officers and correctional
officers and then for the criminology and criminal justice students who were not
employed by the CJS, with two multiple regressions (see Table 4). In Step 1, we
entered year of study (1 = senior, 0 = first), age, and gender (1 = men, 0 = women); in
Step 2, we entered causal attribution of crime. The regressions conducted for the police
officers and the correctional officers included an additional group variable (police
officers = 1, correctional officers = 0).
About one third (35%) of the variance in punitive attitudes among police officers
and correctional officers was explained by the research variables in which gender and
causal attribution of crime (based on classical theory) were significant. Specifically,
the punitive attitudes of male students were harsher than those of female students, and
the harshness of the punitive attitudes tended to increase along with belief in classical
theory. Among the criminology and criminal justice students who were not employed
by the CJS, the research variables explained 31% of the variance in punitive attitudes.
Causal attribution of crime (based on the classical and labeling theories) was found to
be a significant predictor: Stronger belief in the classical theory and weaker belief in
the labeling theory were related to harsher punitive attitudes. It should be noted that
the model for the whole sample was found to be significant (R2 = .38), F(9, 433) =
29.27, p < .001. Attributions of crime based on classical theory and on labeling theory
were found to be significant predictors of punitive attitudes in the sample as a whole,
beyond group and demographic variables ( = .49, p < .001 and = .13, p < .001,
respectively).
Chen and Einat 361

Discussion
In the present research, we examined the relationship between academic education in
criminology and criminal justice and attitudes toward punishment among criminology
and criminal justice students who were police officers, correctional officers, or not
employed by the CJS.

Demographic Differences and Punitive Attitudes

The findings revealed significant differences with regard to fear of crime and punitive
attitudes according to demographics (age and gender): Women were more afraid of crime
than men; men had harsher punitive attitudes than women; and older people had harsher
punitive attitudes than their younger counterparts. These findings support the results of
earlier research which revealed positive correlations between gender and age and atti-
tudes toward punishment; men were usually more punitive than women (Applegate etal.,
2002; Unnever & Cullen, 2007) and older people were more punitive than younger peo-
ple (Jan, Ball, & Walsh, 2008; Payne, Gainey, Triplett, & Danner, 2004).

Punitive Attitudes, Fear of Crime, Prior Victimization, and Causal

Attribution of Crime
The findings of this research revealed that at the beginning of their academic studies,
police officers and correctional officers held harsher punitive attitudes than criminol-
ogy and criminal justice students who were not employed by the CJS. No group differ-
ences were found in fear of crime and prior victimization. The findings thus partially
supported our first hypothesis.
Another important finding of the research was the differences regarding beliefs in
criminological theories: The police officers embraced classical theory (i.e., a more
punitive approach) unlike the correctional officers and criminology and criminal jus-
tice students who were not employed by the CJS, regardless of stage of academic
studies. In addition, the senior students who were correctional officers subscribed
more to structural positivism and individual positivism (i.e., less punitive approaches)
than the police officers and the criminology and criminal justice students who were not
employed by the CJS. These findings were consistent with the results of previous
research (Furnham & Alison, 1994; Moon & Maxwell, 2004) and partially supported
our second hypothesis.
One possible explanation for these results lies in the stability of punitive tendencies
among the police officers in contrast to their variability among the correctional offi-
cers and criminology and criminal justice students who were not employed by the CJS.
The findings of the study revealed that occupational role may be a strong determinant
of punitive attitudes among police officers. Other studies have shown that most police
officers perceive their main professional roles as crime prevention, fighting crime, and
law enforcement (Ortet-Fabregat & Perez, 1992); thus, it may be reasonable to expect
relatively harsh punitive attitudes among police officers.
362 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 61(3)

Another possible explanation concerns the relationship between punitive attitudes

and the level or nature of contact with offenders. Both the students who were not
employed by the CJS and the police officers had very limited, if any, face-to-face
interaction with offenders, unlike the correctional officers who were responsible for
the daily operation of prison routines and therefore experienced such interactions on a
regular basis (Kelly, 2014). It seems that the more contact correctional officers have
with inmates, the less punitive they become, possibly because the intimate interaction
humanizes the prisoners. In his assessment of the sources of punitive attitudes among
prison staff, Kelly (2014) found that the most punitive staff members have relatively
less experience and minimal contact with prisoners. The least punitive personnel were
those with long service experience whose work involves direct engagement in the care
and rehabilitation of inmates. Age has often been regarded as the most significant
predictor of punitive attitudes toward inmates. Similar to our findings, past studies
also found that older officers had more positive views toward rehabilitating prisoners
than their younger counterparts (Philliber, 1987).
With regard to senior students of criminology and criminal justice who were not
employed by the CJS, the findings of this study indicated two contradictory attitudes:
support for both classical (i.e., more punitive) and labeling (i.e., less punitive) philoso-
phies. This discrepancy may suggest that these students have yet to develop a clear
approach toward punishment and are still indecisive regarding their punitive percep-
tions (see also Moon, Sundt, Cullen, & Wright, 2000). Moreover, despite their accu-
mulation of knowledge and theoretical information, the students who participated in
this research were also in the process of maturing, and past research has shown that
older people are more punitive than younger ones (Jan etal., 2008). Similarly, the cor-
rectional officers who participated in this study also expressed contradictory views
about punishment, supporting classical, structural, and individual positivism philoso-
phies. This may reflect the complexity of the occupational role of the Israeli correc-
tional officer, which requires them to implement both punitive and rehabilitative
orientations (Timor, 2011). Indeed, Leiber etal. (2002) noted that research has consis-
tently shown that people involved in corrections support both treatment and retribu-
tive responses (p. 313).

Punitive Attitudes, Higher Education, and Occupational Roles

Another key finding of this study concerned the less severe punitive attitudes of cor-
rectional officers in the final stages of their undergraduate studies compared with their
first-year counterparts, and the similarity between the first-year and senior students
who were police officers and those who were not employed by the CJS in terms of
their punitive attitudes; this partially supported our third hypothesis. While contradict-
ing some previous studies which analyzed the relationship between higher education
and attitudes toward punishment among correctional officers (Hemmens & Stohr,
2000), this finding supports research which focused on the relationship between the
educational background of police officers and their attitudes toward punishment
(Farnworth, Frazier, & Neuberger, 1988; Fielding & Fielding, 1991). Here too, it
Chen and Einat 363

seems that occupational roles, rather than level of academic education, play a much
more significant part in the formation of punitive attitudes among police officers than
among correctional officers. Viewed from a broader perspective, this finding also sug-
gests a possible link between punitive attitudes, organizational and occupational cul-
ture, and academic education in criminology and criminal justice (Brown, 1988).
As mentioned earlier, Israeli correctional officers are required to hold both rehabili-
tation and punishment perspectives (Timor, 2011; www.shabas.gov.il). It might thus
be speculated that academic studies in criminology and criminal justice, which often
focus on punitive policies and offender rehabilitation and reentry, may reinforce their
professional rehabilitation orientations and reduce their professional tendency regard-
ing punishment (Robinson, Porporino, & Simourd, 1993). Alternatively, the require-
ment that Israeli police officers invest professional efforts in crime prevention, law
enforcement, and maintenance of public security and law and order (www.police.gov.
il) may preclude any significant impact of academic education on their professional
orientations.
Finally, the findings of this research indicated that causal attribution of crime (i.e.,
the cognitive dimension) explained variance in punitive attitudes more than fear of
crime and prior victimization (i.e., the emotional dimension), thus partially supporting
our fourth hypothesis. Causal attribution of crime might derive from the individuals
belief systems regarding delinquent and general human behavior (Evans & Adams,
2003). Consequently, individuals who traditionally perceive human and criminal
behavior as an outcome of offenders personal characteristics and/or support classical
theories in criminology (Sims, 2003) can be expected to maintain harsher punitive
views than those who see such behaviors as an outcome of environmental, economi-
cal, and societal causes (Grasmick & McGill, 1994).

Limitations
In considering the results of the current study, it is important to be aware of some limi-
tations. First, the study utilized a comparative cross-sectional design rather than a
longitudinal design, thus precluding process-related predictive conclusions and weak-
ening the argument of a causal link between academic education and attitudes toward
punishment. Second, the study suffered inherent gender bias: Most of the correctional
officers were men, and most of the criminology and criminal justice students who
were not employed by the CJS were women. Past studies have indicated that women
are less punitive than men (Applegate etal., 2002). Regardless of the controls, this bias
may have affected our results concerning punitive attitudes (Unnever & Cullen, 2007).
Third, the research participants were recruited from three different academic institu-
tions with possible differences in pedagogical techniques, training, and teaching styles.
Fourth, the current study utilized a non-probability sampling method, thus jeopardiz-
ing both internal validity (selection bias) and external validity (generalizability).
Nevertheless, it seems that the occupational role and causal attribution of crime mod-
els could be used as a theoretical-cultural framework for the understanding of punitive
attitudes, at least among Israeli academic correctional officers, police officers, and
364 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 61(3)

criminology and criminal justice undergraduate students. The future use of a random
sample may strengthen this conclusion and enable generalization to other populations.
Finally, some of the causal attribution scales included a small number of items which
resulted in low levels of internal consistency and statistical power.
In light of these limitations, we recommend that future studies use more reliable
causal attribution of crime scales, including additional items. Furthermore, future
studies should also include groups of students from other disciplines to expand our
knowledge of viewpoints on punishment among the general public.
Despite these limitations, the results of this study contribute to the existing knowl-
edge base on attitudes toward punishment in general, and the relationship between
academic education in criminology and punitive attitudes in particular. This may pro-
vide scholars, practitioners, and the general public with a better understanding of the
importance of academic education in the fields of criminology and criminal justice.
Moreover, the findings of this study may have important potential for future training
and curricula development, particularly for those who bring CJS experience to the
classroom.

Practical Perspectives
The findings of this study suggest that occupational roles and causal attribution of
crime may play a stronger role than academic education in the formalization and con-
solidation of punitive attitudes among police officers and criminology and criminal
justice undergraduate students. The significant difference in attitudes toward punish-
ment among people who have studied criminology and criminal justice seems to sup-
port both the occupational role and the causal attribution of crime models; the former
assumes great disparity among different occupational groups in their attitudes toward
punishment, and the latter presupposes a difference among various social groups in
their beliefs regarding the origin of criminal behavior and the proper punishment of
offenders. Accordingly, such differences might help explain the significant divergence
between the punitive views of correctional officers in contrast to those of police offi-
cers and criminology and criminal justice students who were not employed by the CJS.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared that they had no conflicts of interests with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References
Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., & Fisher, B. (2002). Public views toward crime and correctional
policies: Is there a gender gap? Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 89-100.
Chen and Einat 365

Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B., & Vander Ven, T. (2000). Forgiveness and fun-
damentalism: Reconsidering the relationship between correctional attitudes and religion.
Criminology, 38, 719-754.
Barkan, S., & Cohn, S. F. (2005). Why Whites favor spending more money to fight crime: The
role of racial prejudice. Social Problems, 52, 300-314.
Brown, M. K. (1988). Working the street: Police discretion and the dilemmas of reform (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Chiricos, T., Welch, K., & Gertz, M. (2004). Racial typification of crime and support for puni-
tive measures. Criminology, 42, 359-389.
Costelloe, M. (2004). The contributions of crime salience and economic insecurity to expla-
nations punitive attitudes toward crime, welfare, and immigration (Doctoral dissertation,
Florida State University). Dissertations Abstracts International. (UMI No. 3156067)
Costelloe, M. T., Chiricos, T., Burianek, J., Gertz, M., & Maier-Katkin, D. (2002). The social
correlates of punitiveness toward criminals: A comparison of the Czech Republic and
Florida. Justice System Journal, 23, 191-220.
Costelloe, M. T., Chiricos, T., & Gertz, M. (2009). Punitive attitudes toward criminals: Exploring
the relevance of crime salience and economic insecurity. Punishment & Society, 11, 25-49.
Courtright, K. E., & Mackey, D. A. (2004). Job desirability among criminal justice majors:
Exploring relationships between personal characteristics and occupational attractiveness.
Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 15, 311-326.
Cullen, F., Clark, G., Cullen, J., & Mathers, R. (1985). Attribution, salience, and attitudes
toward criminal sanctioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 305-331.
Dehning, S., Girma, E., Gasperi, S., Meyer, S., Tesfaye, M., & Siebeck, M. (2012). Comparative
cross-sectional study of empathy among first year and final year medical students in Jimma
University, Ethiopia: Steady state of the heart and opening of the eyes. BMC Medical
Education, 12, 34-46.
Dowler, K. (2003). Media consumption and public attitudes toward crime and justice: The
relationship between fear of crime, punitive attitudes, and perceived police effectiveness.
Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 10, 109-126.
Drake, D. H. (2007). Staff and order in prisons. In J. Bennett, B. Crewe, & A. Wahidin (Eds.),
Understanding prison staff (pp. 153-167). Devon, UK: Cullompton.
Elffers, H., De Keijser, J. W., Van Koppen, P. J., & Van Haeringen, L. (2007). Newspaper
juries: A field experiment concerning the effect of information on attitudes toward the
criminal justice system. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 163-182.
Evans, T. D., & Adams, M. (2003). Salvation or damnation? Religion and correctional ideology.
American Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 15-35.
Falco, D. L. (2008). Assessing students views toward punishment: A comparison of punitive-
ness among criminology and non-criminology students (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA.
Farnworth, M., Frazier, C., & Neuberger, A. (1988). Orientations to juvenile justice: Exploratory
notes from a statewide survey of juvenile justice decision makers. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 16, 477-491.
Farnworth, M., Longmire, D. R., & West, V. M. (1998). College students views on criminal
justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 9, 39-57.
Fielding, N. G., & Fielding, J. (1991). Police attitudes to crime and punishment: Certainties and
dilemmas. British Journal of Criminology, 31, 39-53.
Flanagan, T. J. (2000). Liberal education and the criminal justice major. Journal of Criminal
Justice Education, 11, 1-15.
366 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 61(3)

Furnham, A., & Alison, L. (1994). Theories of crime, attitudes to punishment and juror bias among
police, offenders and the general public. Personality Individual Differences, 17, 35-48.
Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gideon, L., & Sherman-Oren, A. (2014). The role of social distress, political affiliation, and
education in measuring punitive attitudes: Israel as a case study. International Criminal
Justice Review, 23, 1-21.
Grasmick, H., & McGill, A. (1994). Religion, discriminatory attitudes, and the orientations of
juvenile justice personnel. Criminology, 33, 431-449.
Hemmens, C., & Stohr, M. K. (2000). The two faces of the correctional role: An exploration
of the value of the correctional role instrument. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 44, 326-349.
Hogan, M., Chiricos, T., & Gertz, M. (2005). Economic insecurity, blame and punitive atti-
tudes. Justice Quarterly, 22, 392-412.
Jan, I. F., Ball, J. D., & Walsh, A. (2008). Predicting public opinion about juvenile waivers.
Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 285-300.
Johnson, D. (2009). Anger about crime and support for punitive criminal justice policies.
Punishment & Society, 11, 51-63.
Kelly, D. (2014). Punish or reform? Predicting prison staff punitiveness. The Howard Journal
of Criminal Justice, 53, 49-68.
King, A., & Maruna, S. (2008). Is a conservative just a liberal who has been mugged? Punishment
& Society, 11, 147-169.
Kjelsberg, E., Skoglund, T., & Rustad, A. B. (2007). Attitudes toward prisoners, as reported by
prison inmates, prison employees and college students. BMC Public Health, 7, 1-9.
Klama, E. K., & Egan, V. (2011). The big-five, sense of control, mental health, and fear of
crime as contributory factors to attitudes toward punishment. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51, 613-617.
Krippner, G., & Alvarez, A. (2007). Embeddedness and the intellectual projects of economic
sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 3, 219-240.
Kutateladze, B., & Crossman, A. M. (2009). An exploratory analysis of gender differences in
punitiveness in two countries. International Criminal Justice Review, 19, 322-343.
Lambert, E., & Clarke, A. (2004). Crime, capital punishment, and knowledge: Are criminal jus-
tice majors better informed than other majors about crime and capital punishment? Social
Science Journal, 41, 53-66.
Leiber, M. J. (2000). Gender, religion, and correctional orientations among a sample of juvenile
justice personnel. Women & Criminal Justice, 11, 15-44.
Leiber, M. J., Schwarze, K., Mack, K. Y., & Farnworth, M. (2002). The effects of occupa-
tion and education on punitive orientations among juvenile justice personnel. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 30, 303-316.
Leiber, M. J., & Woodrick, A. C. (1997). Religious beliefs, attributional styles, and adherence
to correctional orientations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 495-511.
Liebling, A. (2008). Why prison staff culture matters. In J. M. Byre, D. Hummer, & F. S.
Taxman (Eds.), The culture of prison violence (pp. 105-122). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Mackey, D. A., & Courtright, K. E. (2000). Assessing punitiveness among college students: A com-
parison of criminal justice majors with other majors. The Justice Professional, 12, 423-441.
Mackey, D. A., Courtright, K. E., & Packard, S. H. (2006). Testing the rehabilitative ideal
among college students. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 153-170.
Chen and Einat 367

Mandracchia, J. T., Shaw, L. B., & Morgan, R. D. (2013). Whats with the attitude? Changing
attitudes about criminal justice issues. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 95-113.
Maruna, S., & King, A. (2009). Once a criminal, always a criminal? Redeemability and
the psychology of punitive public attitudes. European Journal of Criminal Policy and
Research, 15, 7-24.
Moon, B., & Maxwell, S. (2004). Assessing the correctional orientation of corrections officers
in South Korea. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
48, 729-743.
Moon, M., Sundt, J., Cullen, F., & Wright, J. P. (2000). Is child saving dead? Public support for
juvenile rehabilitation. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 38-60.
OConnor Shelley, T., Waid, C., & Dobbs, R. R. (2011). The influence of criminal justice major
on punitive attitudes. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22, 526-545.
Ortet-Fabregat, G., & Perez, J. (1992). An assessment of the attitudes toward crime among
professionals in the criminal justice system. British Journal of Criminology, 32, 193-207.
Payne, B. K., Gainey, R. R., Triplett, R. A., & Danner, M. J. E. (2004). What drives punitive
beliefs? Demographic characteristics and justifications for sentencing. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 32, 195-206.
Payne, B. K., Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2010). Attitudes about rehabilitating sex
offenders: Demographic, victimization, and community-level influences. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 38, 580-588.
Philliber, S. (1987). Thy brothers keeper: A review of the literature on correctional officers.
Justice Quarterly, 4, 9-37.
Robinson, D., Porporino, F. J., & Simourd, L. (1993). The influence of career orientation on
support for rehabilitation among correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 73, 162-177.
Robinson, D., Porporino, F. J., & Simourd, L. (1996). Do different occupational groups vary on
attitudes and work adjustment in corrections? Federal Probation, 60, 45-53.
Sandys, M. (1995). Attitudinal change among students in a capital punishment class: It may be
possible. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 37-55.
Sims, B. (2003). The impact of causal attribution on correctional ideology: A national study.
Criminal Justice Review, 28, 1-25.
Sims, B., & Johnston, E. (2004). Examining public opinion about crime and justice: A statewide
study. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15, 270-293.
Sprott, J. B., & Doob, A. N. (1997). Fear, victimization, and attitudes to sentencing, the courts,
and the police. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 39, 275-291.
Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2008). Correctional orientations of prison staff. The Prison
Journal, 88, 207-233.
Timor, U. (2011). Rehabilitating rehabilitation in the prisons. Glimpse Into Prison, 14, 72-85.
Tyler, T. R., & Boeckmann, R. J. (1997). Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychol-
ogy of public support for punishing rule breakers. Law & Society Review, 31, 237-265.
Unnever, J. D., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). Reassessing the racial divide in support for capital pun-
ishment: The continuing significance of race. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency,
44, 124-158.
Unnever, J. D., & Cullen, F. T. (2009). Empathetic identification and punitiveness: A middle-
range theory of individual differences. Theoretical Criminology, 13, 283-312.
Young, J. L., Antonio, M. E., & Wingeard, L. M. (2009). How staff attitude and support for
inmate treatment and rehabilitation differs by job category: An evaluation of findings from
Pennsylvanias Department of Corrections employee training curriculum reinforcing
positive behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 435-441.