Attitudes towards severity of punishment: A conjoint analytic approach

Psychology, Crime and Law

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 205-219

  Brocke, Michaela ^a   Göldenitz, Christian ^a   Holling, Heinz ^a   Bilsky, Wolfgang ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

Conjoint Analysis; Sentencing; Severity of Punishment; Within subjects Design

Indexed keywords

EID: 2642554116     PISSN: 1068316X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10683160310001614793     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Acock, A. C. and Ireland, N. K. (1983). Attribution of blame in rape cases: the impact of norm violation, gender and sex role attitude. Sex Roles, 9, 179-193.
2. Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W. and Weiber, R. (2000). Multivariate Analysemethoden. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung [Multivariate Data Analysis. An Application-oriented Introduction], 9th edn. Berlin: Springer.
3. Bateson, J. E. G., Reibstein, D. and Boulding, W. (1987). Conjoint analysis reliability and validity: a framework for future research. In M. J. Houston (Ed.), Review of Marketing (pp. 451-481). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
4. Best, J. B. and Demmin, H. S. (1982). Victim's provocativeness and victim's attractiveness as determinants of blame in rape. Psychological Reports, 51, 255-258.
5. Birnbaum, M. H. (1999). How to show that 9>221: collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychological Methods, 1, 243-349.
6. Bolt, M. and Caswell, J. (1981). Attribution of responsibility to a rape victim. Journal of Social Psychology, 114, 137-138.
7. Bridges, J. S. (1991). Perceptions of date and stranger rape: a difference in sex role expectations and rape supportive beliefs. Sex Roles, 24, 291-307.
8. Brocke, M., Bus, J., Holling, H. and Bilsky, W. (2001). Deliktmerkmale und Strafzumessung bei einem Vergewaltigungsdelikt: Vergleich einer Fragebogenstudie mit einer Conjoint-Analyse [Case Characteristics and Sanctioning of Rape: Comparing a Vignette Survey and Conjoint Analysis]. In W. Bilsky and C. Kähier (Eds.), Berufsfelder der Rechtspsychologie. Dokumentation der 9. Arbeitstagung der Fachgruppe Rechtspsychologie in der DGPs, CD-ROM. Münster: Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität.
9. Bus, J. (2001). Einfluss der Täter-Opfer-Beziehung und Einfluss von Opfervariablen auf die Strafzumessung bei einem Vergewaltigungsdelikt [Influence of the victim-offender relationship and of victim characteristics on sanctioning rape]. Unpublished diploma thesis, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster.
10. Carroll, J. S. and Payne, J. W. (1977). Crime seriousness, recidivism risk, and causal attributions in judgments of prison term by students and experts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 595-602.
11. Cattin, P. and Bliemel, F. (1978). Metric vs. nonmetric procedures of multiattribute modeling: some simulation results. Decision Sciences, 9, 472-480.
12. Deitz, S. R., Blackwell, K. T., Daley, P. C. and Bentley, B. J. (1982). Measurement of empathy toward rape victims and rapists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 372-384.
13. Durham, A. M. (1993). Public opinion regarding sentences for crime: does it exist? Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 1-11.
14. Francis, B., Soothill, K., and Dittrich, R. (2001). A new approach for ranking serious offenses. The use of paired-comparisons methodology. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 726-737.
15. Furnham, A. (1988). Lay Theories. Everyday Understanding of Problems in the Social Sciences. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
16. Furnham, A. and Boston, N. (1996). Theories of rape and the Just World. Psychologv, Crime and Law, 2, 211-229.
17. Gabriel, U. and Greve, W. (1996). Strafe muß sein!': Sanktionsbedürfnisse und strafbezogene Einstellungen: Versuch einer systematischen Annäherung ['Discipline is necessary!': needs and attitudes toward sanctioning: a systematic approach]. In C. Pfeiffer and W. Greve (Eds.), Forschungsthema 'Kriminalität' (pp. 185-214). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
18. Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103-123.
19. Green, P. E. and Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing, 54, 3-19.
20. Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M. and Wind, Y. (2001). Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects. Interfaces, 31, 56-73.
21. Hagan, J. (1989). Strafzumessungsforschung in Nord-Amerika [Research on sentencing in North America]. In C. Pfeiffer and M. E. Oswald (Eds.), Strafzumessung: Empirische Forschung und Strafrechtsdogmatik im Dialog (pp. 147-182). Stuttgart: Enke.
22. Hair, J. F., Jr, Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. and Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
23. Hammock, G. S. and Richardson, D. R. (1997). Perceptions of rape: the influence of closeness of relationship, intoxication and sex of participant. Violence and Victims, 12, 237-246.
24. Hollin, C. R. and Howells, K. (1987). Lay explanations of delinquency: global or offence-specific? British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 203-210.
25. Holling, H., Jütting, A. and Großmann, H. (2000). Alasca. Ein universelles Programmsystem zur Entscheidungs- und Nutzenanalyse [Alasca. A Universal Program System for Decision and Utility Analysis]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
26. Johnson, R. M. (1987). Adaptive conjoint analysis. In M. Metegrano (Ed.), Sawtooth Software Conference on Perceptual Mapping, Conjoint Analysis, and Computer Interviewing (pp. 253-265). Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software.
27. Krahé, B. (1991). Social psychological issues in the study of rape. European Review of Social Psychology, 2, 279-309.
28. Krulewitz, J. E. (1982). Reactions to rape victims: effects of rape circumstances, victim's emotional response, and sex of helper. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 29, 645-654.
29. Levi, A. M. (1974). Constructive, extensive measurement of preference to predict choice between sums of outcomes. Behavioral Science, 19, 326-335.
30. McFatter, R. M. (1986). Sentencing disparity: perforce or perchance? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 150-164.
31. Ouimet, M. and Coyle, E. J. (1991). Fear of crime and sentencing punitiveness: comparing the general public and court practitioners. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 33, 149-162.
32. Payne, D. L., Lonsway, K. A. and Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). Rape myth acceptance: exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27-68.
33. Pfeiffer, C. and Oswald, M. (Eds.) (1989). Strafzumessung [Sentencing]. Stuttgart: Enke.
34. Reichert, A. (1999). Zusammenhang zwischen Ursachenzuschreibung für Kriminalität und Strafhärte: Eine empirische Untersuchung an einer Stichprobe juristischer Laien [Links between causal attributions of criminal behaviour and severity of punishment: an empirical investigation with lay persons]. Unpublished diploma thesis, Westfälische Wilhelms- Universität, Münster.
35. Reichert, A. and Bilsky, W. (2001). Kriminalität- Ursachenzuschreibung und Strafhärte: Eine Untersuchung aus der Sicht juristischer Laien [Crime- attributions and severity of punishment: studying lay persons' perspective]. In W. Bilsky and C. Kähler (Eds.), Berufsfelder der Rechtspsychologie. Dokumentation der 9. Arbeitstagung der Fachgruppe Rechtspsychologie in der DGPs, 13-15 September 2001, Münster, CD-ROM. Münster: Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität.
36. Schuller, R. A. and Wall, A.-M. (1998). The effects of defendant and complainant intoxication on mock jurors' judgments of sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 555-573.
37. Schult, D. G. and Schneider, L. J. (1991). The role of sexual provocativeness, rape history, and observer gender in perceptions of blame in sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 94-101.
38. Sczesny, S. and Krauel, K. (1996). Ergebnisse psychologischer Forschung zu Vergewaltigung und ihre Implikationen für Gerichtsverfahren [Results from research on rape and their implications for legal procedures]. Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform, 79, 338-355.
39. Steffensmeier, D. and Hebert, C. (1999). Women and men policymakers: does the judge's gender affect the sentencing of criminal defendants? Social Forces, 77, 1163-1196.
40. Stormo, K. J., Lang, A. R. and Stritzke, W. G. K. (1997). Attributions about acquaintance rape: the role of alcohol and individual differences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 279-305.
41. Szymanski, L. A., Devlin, A. S., Chrisler, J. C. and Vyse, S. A. (1993). Gender role and attitudes toward rape in male and female colleges students. Sex Roles, 29, 37-57.
42. Teichert, T. (2000). Auswirkungen von Verfahrensalternativen bei der Erhebung von Präferenzurteilen [Effects of alternative procedures on the elicitation of preference judgments]. Marketing ZFP, 2, 145-159.
43. Thurstone, L. L. (1927). The method of paired comparisons for social values. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 21, 384-400.
44. Wittink, D. R. and Cattin, P. (1981). Alternative estimation methods for conjoint analysis: a Monte Carlo study. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 101-106.
45. Workman, J. E. and Freeburg, E. W. (1999). An examination of date rape, victim dress, and perceiver variables within the context of attribution theory. Sex Roles, 41, 261-277.