Figure 2 - uploaded by Benjamin Y. Cheung
Content may be subject to copyright.
Mediation diagrams predicting differences in prison sentence between genetic and environmental conditions from all three studies, and aggregate dataset, showing βs.
Source publication
Much debate exists surrounding the applicability of genetic information in the courtroom, making the psychological processes underlying how people consider this information important to explore. This article addresses how people think about different kinds of causal explanations in legal decision-making contexts. Three studies involving a total of...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... did not affect causal control, F(3, 289) = 0.60, p = .613, η p 2 = 0.01, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.02]. Condition marginally affected causal malleability, F(3, 290) = 2.15, p = .095, η p 2 = 0.02, 95% CI = [0.00, 0.06]. Participants saw greater causal malleability in the Environmental condition (M = 4.68, SE = 0.17) than in the Gene-Impulse condition (M = 4.06, SE = 0.18), p = .014, d = −0.41, 95% CI = [−0.74, −0.08], but not in the other conditions, nor do the other condi- tions differ from each other, ps > .100. became larger than the non-mediated direct effect, β = .35, as reported above, also replicating the suppression effect found in Study 1 (see Figure ...
Context 2
... analysis. 1 Despite sentencing not being affected by Condition, such results may mask informative mecha- nisms for theory building and confirmation (see Rucker, Preacher, Tormala, & Petty, 2011;Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010), especially when there are a priori expectations of underlying mechanisms. Furthermore, the traditional Baron and Kenny (1986) requirement for a significant direct effect for mediation leads to an underpowered approach for testing mediation (Edwards & Lambert, 2007;MacKinnon, Fairchild, & Fritz, 2007); therefore, we focused on the indirect effects in determining mediation. Note. Gen-Env denotes the contrast between Genetic and Environmental conditions. Panel A shows mediations through Conscious Control; Panel B shows mediations through Internal Attributions; Panel C shows mediations through Expected Reoffending. Subscripts 1, 2, 3, and A correspond to Studies 1, 2, 3, and Aggregate data, respectively. CI = confidence interval. † p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Another mediation analysis tested the double-edged nature of genes, revealing that the Genetic condition was not significantly associated with perceived recidivism compared with the Environmental condition, β = −.26, t(123) = −1.23, p = .221, 95% CI = [−0.67, 0.14], but perceived recidivism predicted lengthier prison sentences, β = .31, t(122) = 3.58, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.15, 0.47]. The indirect effect is in the predicted direction, β = −.08, 95% CI = [−0.23, 0.04]. The mediated direct effect remains non-significant, β = .13, t(122) = 0.65, p = .518, 95% CI = [−0.30, 0.56], but was nominally larger than the non-mediated direct effect, poten- tially suggesting a suppression effect (see Figure 2C). We investigate this further in subsequent ...
Context 3
... a mediation analysis revealed that the perceived recidivism is also important in explaining how the Genetic condition may affect prison sentences differently than the Environmental condition. Specifically, there was a marginal trend for the Genetic condition to elicit greater perceived recidivism than the Environmental condition, β = −. . Similar to the mediation analyses involving internal attributions, this mediation analysis demonstrates another reliable suppression effect, with the mediated direct effect, β = .34, t(229) = 2.74, p = .006, 95% CI = [0.11, 0.57], being stronger than the non-mediated direct effect, β = .21 (see Figure ...
Context 4
... analyses. Similar to Study 1, we examined the indirect effect of behavioral explanations on sentencing through perceived conscious control, focusing on the Genetic-Environment contrast. The results replicated Study 1, such that participants in the environmental condition ascribed greater conscious control to Patrick, β = .67, t (160 although it increased from the non-mediated direct effect, β = .17, suggesting a suppression effect (see Figure ...
Citations
... Nevertheless, research has characterized mental illness as a double-edged sword for sentencing. Sentencing discretion not only allows for judges or decision-makers to potentially adopt more treatment-oriented or therapeutic principles into their sentencing decisions, but also may allow them to adopt more stigmatizing views of defendants with certain disorders as more dangerous or less amenable to rehabilitation into such decisions as well (Aspinwall et al., 2012;Berryessa, 2018;Cheung & Heine, 2015). Currently, a growing number of specialty courts offer more targeted and informed decision-making for individuals that may benefit from treatment 8 (Kaplan et al., 2018). ...
... Further, a defendant's mental disorder may also act as a "double-edged sword" for sentencing-meaning, based on the discretion exercised and determinations made by individual judges, a defendant's psychiatric diagnosis could lead to either to the mitigation or aggravation of one's sentencing outcomes (Aspinwall et al., 2012;Cheung & Heine, 2015;Thomaidou & Berryessa, 2023). Studies have shown that defendants with more severe diagnoses, such as psychotic disorders, are significantly more likely to receive not guilty by reason of insanity verdicts (van Es et al., 2020). ...
This is a forthcoming chapter on criminal sentencing for the second edition of the APA Handbook of Forensic Psychology. The chapter begins by describing the historical context, standards, goals, and significance of criminal sentencing in the United States (U.S.). In an effort to elucidate the key influences to and practices by which courts reach sentencing decisions, we then describe psychological and cognitive-behavioral theories relevant to sentencing decision-making. After describing these theories and principles guiding our understanding of the cognitive and computational shortcuts involved in decision-making, we review relevant sentencing research and case law. Key legal, extralegal, and extraneous factors that can influence sentencing are also described to provide a more comprehensive view of sentencing decision-making in practice. We then discuss the significance of sociocultural identities and systemic inequalities in sentencing related to past and current practices, as well as concerns regarding the future of sentencing decision-making that may increasingly rely on automation. Finally, policy issues are discussed, with a particular focus on de-biasing humans, machines, and improving overall sentencing decision-making.
... Conversely, essentialist thinking can also mitigate feelings of moral condemnation when it reduces perceptions of the defendant's agency-leading to support for more lenient or treatment-oriented punishments (Martin & Heiphetz, 2021). Providing information about a defendant's personal characteristics, such as describing a person's addiction or chemical dependency, may be indicative that there is less control over his behavior and generate more lenient views toward a defendant and more medicalized perspectives of his sentencing (Cheung & Heine, 2015;Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2011;Monterosso et al., 2005). However, individuals with high levels of essentialist thinking, particularly surrounding biological essentialism, might stigmatize substance addiction and perceive it as unchangeable and inherent to someone's "true self"-thus encouraging criminalized punishment instead of treatment-based alternatives (Richter et al., 2019;Siddiqui and Rutherford, 2022). ...
Objectives
This study examines how a defendant’s addiction, prior criminal record, race, and drug type impact public support for criminalized and medicalized sentencing approaches to illegal drug use, as well as how such support may be moderated by participants’ levels of essentialist thinking.
Methods
This study is a fully-crossed, randomized experiment with a lay public sample (N = 1208).
Results
Public support for medicalized approaches to sentencing was significantly higher for oxycodone and heroin. Support for criminalized approaches was significantly higher for crack and cocaine, and when the defendant was Hispanic, Black, or had a violent criminal record. Essentialist thinking generally predicted increased support for criminalized approaches, but increased support for medicalized approaches when addiction was known.
Conclusions
This research highlights the role of different factors in shaping public support for drug sentencing approaches, as well as suggests that public attitudes about drugs are deeply intertwined with societal narratives about race, addiction, and criminality.
... Studies reviewing real criminal cases involving genetic defenses have also found no clear impact on sentencing outcomes (Brewer 2022, McSwiggan et al. 2017. These mixed findings could be due to the fact that genetic evidence can reduce perceived control over actions while increasing expectations of reoffending, ultimately balancing out in sentencing decisions (Cheung & Heine 2015, Lui et al. 2019. ...
Antisocial behavior (ASB) refers to a set of behaviors that violate social norms and disregard the well-being and rights of others. In this review, we synthesize evidence from studies using genetically informed designs to investigate the genetic and environmental contributions to individual differences in ASB. We review evidence from studies using family data (twin and adoption studies) and measured DNA (candidate gene and genome-wide association studies) that have informed our understanding of ASB. We describe how genetically informative designs are especially suited to investigate the nature of environmental risk and the forms of gene–environment interplay. We also highlight clinical and legal implications, including how insights from genetically informed research can help inform prevention and intervention, and we discuss some challenges and opportunities within this field of research.
... However, other research has found no such mitigation effect in terms of perceptions of culpability and verdict decisions (Appelbaum et al., 2015;Cheung & Heine, 2015;Scurich & Appelbaum, 2016). Individuals' intuitions about aggravating factors, such as potential recidivism, and contrasting mitigating beliefs about lack of control can help to explain these divergent effects (Tabb et al., 2019). ...
... However, essentialism presents a double-edged sword (see, e.g., Aspinwall et al., 2012;Cheung & Heine, 2015). Although Martin and Heiphetz (2021) found that attributions of a criminal essence resulted in more punishment, this effect was mitigated when the behavior was perceived as entirely uncontrollable. ...
... However, in the case of certain labels or features (e.g., using the term "pedophile" vs. "person with sexual interest in children"), noun-first labeling can also sometimes reduce perceptions of intentionality and punitiveness (Imhoff, 2015). Accordingly, the nature of the offense may affect whether certain labels exacerbate or mitigate these perceptions held by CLS decision makers (Aspinwall et al., 2012) or members of the public (Cheung & Heine, 2015). ...
Objective: Existing literature has yet to conceptualize and consolidate research on psychological essentialism and its relation to the criminal legal system, particularly in terms of explaining how individuals with justice involvement have been and could be differentially impacted across contexts. This article explores essentialism in the criminal legal system, including its potential consequences for inequity. Method: We review research on essentialism as a psychological construct, its common applications to different social categorizations, and its trickle-down effects within the criminal legal system. Results: Empirical work suggests that biases stemming from essentialism have the potential to severely affect individuals within the criminal legal system. Beyond assigning immutable properties across social groups, essentialism can give rise to biased attributions of responsibility and blame and affect decisions and behavior within three core domains of the criminal legal system: jury decision making, sentencing decisions, and public support for punitive policies. Conclusions: We propose future policy recommendations to mitigate the adverse effects of essentialism in the criminal legal system, focusing especially on how using and adopting person-first language (focusing on people before characteristics) across society and policy can help to combat bias across criminal legal domains. Future research is needed on how to best address the adverse effects of essentialism and its biasing effects in the criminal legal system, as well as to examine the effects of essentialism in different legal contexts.
... When criminal defendants experiencing mental disorders do arrive at the sentencing stage, mental illness is weighed during the criminal sentencing processes, especially when considering an individual's blameworthiness (Batts, 2009;Corrigan, Druss, & Perlick, 2014;Tsimploulis, Niveau, Eytan, Giannakopoulos, & Sentissi, 2018). Indeed, existing work suggests that mental disorder diagnoses can function in different ways during sentencing, as either mitigating or aggravating, and that they generally yield inconsistent effects on sentencing outcomes (Aspinwall, Brown, & Tabery, 2012;Cheung & Heine, 2015;Denno, 2015;Guillen Gonzalez, Bittlinger, Erk, & Müller, 2019;Scurich & Appelbaum, 2015). ...
... On the other hand, perceptions of individuals with mental disorders as more dangerous may also influence sentencing outcomes, potentially leading to more punitive sentences aimed at incapacitating defendants to protect society (Batastini et al., 2018;Davidson & Rosky, 2015). This may be especially true for defendants who present evidence of perceived congenital disorders, such as psychosis, paraphilia, or intellectual disabilities, that may be considered less amenable to rehabilitation (Allen et al., 2019;Cheung & Heine, 2015;Heine, Dar-Nimrod, Cheung, & Proulx, 2016). According to the widely accepted Risk Needs Responsivity (RNR) model, it is important to distinguish between criminogenic risk factors, like symptoms related to antisociality, and noncriminogenic factors, such as untreated mental illness, when assessing dangerousness and appropriate sentencing (Andrews & Bonta, 2006;Skeem, Steadman, & Manchak, 2015). ...
Purpose: Sentencing practices in cases involving defendants with mental disorders are often opaque, as data on case facts and sentencing decisions are not easily accessible. Methods: This paper reports findings from a national U.S. sample of appellate court cases across 46 states (n = 710) that involved mental health evidence. We collected detailed data on judge and defendant characteristics, type and severity of mental disorders, state sociopolitical ideologies, and legal factors such as offense and plea type and criminal history. We used a mixed quantitative approach, including machine learning, to examine how these intricate factors influence sentencing outcomes. Results: A combination of linear regressions and supervised learning techniques reveals important differences in sentencing outcomes based on the type of mental disorder as well as the majority political ideology of states. We additionally show that, as compared to arguing no mental health evidence, having a mental disorder generally did not yield significant differences in sentencing. Conclusions: Both a potential lack of scientific comprehension and the influence of sociopolitical ideology may help explain why certain mental disorders are aggravating in punishment contexts. We also discuss the advantages and limitations of supervised learning and classification trees for studying judicial decisions.
... p. 461, 2021) limits the impact of psychological and psychiatric evidence to be rendered as mitigating only in the most severe cases. Research suggests that, in practice, evidence of mental health disorders can function as either mitigating or aggravating-or neither-generally yielding inconsistent effects on sentencing at both the federal and state levels (Aspinwall et al., 2012;Cheung & Heine, 2015;Denno, 2015;Guillen Gonzalez et al., 2019;Scurich & Appelbaum, 2015). ...
The present study surveyed judges to examine how they consider and apply scientific information during sentencing determinations. Judges in criminal courts are increasingly asked to assess and make decisions based on evidence surrounding psychiatric disorders, with unclear results on sentencing outcomes. We qualitatively interviewed 34 judges who have presided over criminal cases in 16 different states and also administered vignette surveys during the interviews. We asked them to make sentencing decisions for hypothetical defendants in cases presenting evidence of either no psychiatric disorder, an organic brain disorder, or past trauma, as well as to rate the importance of different goals of sentencing for each case. Results indicated that the case presenting no evidence of a mental health condition received significantly more severe sentences as compared to either psychiatric condition. Judges’ ratings of sentencing goals showed that the importance of retribution was a significant mediator of this relationship. Trauma was not deemed to be as mitigating as an organic brain disorder. These results provide unique insights into how judges assess cases and consider sentencing outcomes when presented with scientific information to explicate defendants’ behavior. We propose ways forward that may help better integrate scientific understandings of behavior into criminal justice decision-making.
... Understanding global patterns and correlates of lay heritability beliefs is important because such lay beliefs have social consequences (Dar-Nimrod and Heine, 2011;Heine et al., 2017;Keller, 2005). Research in primarily WEIRD samples (white, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic;Henrich et al., 2010) has found that overgeneralisation of genetic explanations for human traits is associated with harmful attitudes towards outgroups (Byrd and Ray, 2015;Lebowitz & Ahn, 2014); pessimism, inaction or fatalism towards health problems (Chapman et al., 2019;Dar-Nimrod et al., 2014;Wang and Coups, 2010); as well as lower attribution of individual criminal responsibility but greater expectations for recidivism (Cheung and Heine, 2015). Therefore, these lay beliefs have the potential to be socially impactful in domains across human society. ...
Lay beliefs about human trait heritability are consequential for cooperation and social cohesion, yet there has been no global characterisation of these beliefs. Participants from 30 countries ( N = 6128) reported heritability beliefs for intelligence, personality, body weight and criminality, and transnational factors that could influence these beliefs were explored using public nation-level data. Globally, mean lay beliefs differ from published heritability ( h ² ) estimated by twin studies, with a worldwide majority overestimating the heritability of personality and intelligence, and underestimating body weight and criminality. Criminality was seen as substantially less attributable to genes than other traits. People from countries with high infant mortality tended to ascribe greater heritability for most traits, relative to people from low infant mortality countries. This study provides the first systematic foray into worldwide lay heritability beliefs. Future research must incorporate diverse global perspectives to further contextualise and extend upon these findings.
... p. 461, 2021) limits the impact of psychological and psychiatric evidence to be rendered as mitigating only in the most severe cases. Research suggests that, in practice, evidence of mental health disorders can function as either mitigating or aggravating-or neithergenerally yielding inconsistent effects on sentencing at both the federal and state levels (Aspinwall et al., 2012;Cheung & Heine, 2015;Denno, 2015;Guillen Gonzalez et al., 2019;Scurich & Appelbaum, 2015). ...
The present study surveyed judges to examine how they consider and apply scientific information during sentencing determinations. Judges in criminal courts are increasingly asked to assess and decide based on evidence concerning psychiatric disorders, with unclear results on sentencing outcomes. We qualitatively interviewed 34 judges who have presided over criminal cases in 16 different states and also administered them vignette surveys during the interviews. We asked them to make sentencing decisions for hypothetical defendants presenting evidence of either no psychiatric disorder, an organic brain disorder, or past trauma, as well as to rate the importance of the goals of sentencing for each case. Results indicated that, overall, the case presenting no evidence of a mental health condition received significantly more severe sentences as compared to either psychiatric condition. The goal of retribution was a significant mediator of this relationship. Trauma was not deemed to be as mitigating as an organic brain disorder. These results provide unique quantifiable insights into the ways in which judges assess cases and consider sentencing outcomes when presented with scientific information to explicate defendants' behavior. We propose ways forward that may help better integrate scientific understandings of behavior into criminal justice decision-making.
... One well-studied other type of mitigating information is biological narratives, which assert that an offender's bad actions are caused by a biological abnormality (e.g., genes that foster violent behavior, mental disability). Some evidence suggests that biological narratives lead to greater certainty that mitigation is warranted than do historicist narratives [3,28,29], whereas other work suggests that biological narratives have complex implications that can lead either to mitigation or to aggravation of blame and punishment [30,31]. Clearly, given the malleability of effects involving biological narratives, it would be worthwhile to study how social influence moderates whether and how they are utilized. ...
The blameworthiness of an offender is often discussed in groups. Yet, the research literature overwhelmingly examines individuals assessing blameworthiness in isolation. To address this gap in the literature, the present study examines group deliberations about blameworthiness, with a particular focus on how group deliberations impact utilization of mitigating information about an offender’s unfortunate life history. Participants from introductory psychology courses at a U.S. university were placed in groups of two or three and each group also included a confederate who followed a script. Groups were randomly assigned to one of four conditions. In one condition (deed only), groups learned only about the offender’s heinous crimes. In the three remaining conditions, participants also received a historicist narrative regarding how the offender’s unfortunate history deformed his moral character. These conditions differed in terms of the confederate’s arguments: Neutral arguments, arguments to ignore the narrative, or arguments to give great weight to the narrative. Results showed that the historicist narrative was particularly effective at reducing outrage and increasing compassion when the confederate argued for its utilization. The reduction in outrage mediated a reduction in spiteful punitiveness toward the offender. Interestingly, the confederate who urged fellow deliberators to ignore the historicist narrative had no impact on outrage or compassion. We also examined mediation of the impact of historicist narratives on outrage and compassion. We found that when the confederate remained neutral the impact of historicist narratives on outrage and compassion was mediated via diminished perceptions of the offender’s control of self-formation. This mirrors what is typically found in prior work focused on individual judgments. In contrast, when the confederate argued that great weight should be given to the narrative, reductions in outrage were mediated via diminished perceptions of offender freedom of action. This pattern of mediation is not typically found but has been found in one previous study where participants received social encouragement to mitigate blame. Results are discussed in terms of how social influence might alter the inferences draw from historicist narratives. Suggestions for future research on social influence in the context of blame are presented.
... For example, genetic (versus behavioral) explanations for obesity led to lower implicit anti-fat attitudes and greater explicit pro-fat attitudes (Teachman et al., 2003). In addition, genetic explanations for violence or criminality have been associated with lower perceptions of culpability and preferences for less punitive consequences (Cheung & Heine, 2015;Heath et al., 2003;Monterosso et al., 2005). Therefore, we examine genetic attributions for outcomes that have been associated with greater tolerance (i.e., obesity and violence) in a racialized context to test the potential strength or persistence of racist attitudes. ...
... Finally, we examine a different outcome domain for which a genetic explanation is given-violence. In addition to increasing the generalizability of genetic narrative effects by assessing a behavioral outcome unrelated to health, the purpose of exploring violence in this study is to examine a behavioral domain in which there are strong racial stereotypes of Black criminality, but which has itself been associated with lower levels of punitiveness given genetic explanations (e.g., Cheung & Heine, 2015). ...
Recent research suggests that contemporary American society is marked by heightened hostile racial rhetoric, alongside increasing salience of White nationalists who justify an ideology of racial hierarchy with claims of biological superiority. Media coverage of such genetics research has often emphasized a deterministic (or causal) narrative by suggesting that specific genes directly increase negative outcomes and highlighting reported genetic differences between racial groups. Across two experimental studies, we examine the effect of the media’s portrayal of scientific findings linking genes with negative health and behavioral outcomes on measures of racism. We find that deterministic genetic attributions for health and behavioral outcomes can lead to more negative racial out-group attitudes. Importantly, we also investigate potential interventions in the presentation of genetic science research. Our research has implications for understanding racial attitudes and racialized ideology in contemporary American politics, as well as for framing scientific communication in intergroup contexts.
