Law and Human Behavior最新文献

{"title":"Behavioral detection of emotional, high-stakes deception: Replication in a registered report.","authors":"Leanne Ten Brinke, Samantha Sprigings, Cameo Brown, Chloe Kam, Hugues Delmas","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000596","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000596","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We replicated research by ten Brinke and Porter (2012), who reported that a combination of four behavioral cues (word count, tentative words, upper face surprise, lower face happiness) could accurately discriminate deceptive murderers from genuinely distressed individuals, pleading for the return of a missing relative.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We hypothesized that each of the four behavioral cues identified in the original study would be similarly related (i.e., size, direction, significance) to veracity in a novel set of pleaders. With these cues as predictors, we also hypothesized that logistic regression models-separately testing the original and replication samples-would produce similar accuracy rates exceeding chance in discriminating genuine from deceptive pleaders.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We gathered a new sample of public appeals, including 82 genuine and 14 deceptive pleaders. After establishing ground truth, we transcribed video-recorded pleas and coded them for the presence of upper face surprise and lower face happiness. We used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count to determine word count and the proportion of tentative words in each appeal.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found support for several hypotheses. Tentative words were used significantly more by deceptive (vs. genuine) pleaders in both the original and replication samples. Deceptive pleaders used significantly fewer words in both samples, although this relationship was significant only in the original sample. Liars in both samples smiled more than truth-tellers, although this relationship was statistically significant only in the replication sample. However, predictive accuracy was poor and did not differ from chance in the replication sample.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings do not provide a tidy picture of the reliability of behavioral cues to deception. Although some behavioral cues did replicate across samples, others did not. More research will be necessary to understand the factors that produce variable findings across samples, despite using the same methods of investigation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143732418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Experiencing and subsequently reporting sexual victimization among U.S. college students with disabilities.","authors":"Lane Kirkland Gillespie, Brittany E Hayes, Tara N Richards","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000597","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000597","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We examined whether U.S. college students across multiple disability types were at an increased risk for sexual victimization (compared with students without disability) and whether disability type or registration with the accessibility office was associated with odds of reporting sexual victimization experiences to any campus-designated program/resource.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We predicted (a) students with disabilities will have higher odds of sexual victimization than students without disabilities, (b) student survivors with disabilities will have higher odds of reporting than student survivors without disabilities, and (c) student survivors with disabilities who are registered with the accessibility office will have higher odds of reporting than student survivors with disabilities who are not registered.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This study used the 2019 Association of American Universities campus climate survey data (<i>N</i> = 163,190) to examine experiences with and reporting of sexual victimization through a series of mixed-effects logistic regression models. We expected that students with disabilities would be more likely to experience and report sexual victimization and that registration with accessibility services would further increase reporting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Students across disability types were more likely than students without disabilities to experience sexual victimization. Among student survivors, students with disabilities were more likely to report their victimization to at least one program/resource than students without disabilities. Student survivors who were registered with the campus accessibility office had a higher likelihood of reporting to each program/resource examined.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings reinforce the importance of collaboration across programs/resources to ensure care to student survivors irrespective of students' points of contact. Given that student survivors with disabilities are reporting, institutions should unpack \"what's working\" and tailor strategies to encourage reporting among student survivors who are less likely to report. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143694172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Automated question type coding of forensic interviews and trial testimony in child sexual abuse cases.","authors":"Zsofia A Szojka, Suvimal Yashraj, Thomas D Lyon","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000590","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000590","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Question-type classification is widely used as a measure of interview quality. However, question-type coding is a time-consuming process when performed by manual coders. Reliable automated question-type coding approaches would facilitate the assessment of the quality of forensic interviews and court testimony involving victims of child abuse.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We expected that the reliability achieved by the automated model would be comparable to manual coders.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We examined whether a large language model (Robustly Optimized Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers Approach) trained on questions (<i>N</i> = 351,920) asked in forensic interviews (<i>n</i> = 1,435) and trial testimony (<i>n</i> = 416) involving 3- to 17-year-old alleged victims of child sexual abuse could distinguish among (a) invitations, (b) wh-questions, (c) option-posing questions, and (d) nonquestions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The model achieved high reliability (95% agreement; κ = .93). To determine whether disagreements were due to machine or manual errors, we recoded inconsistencies between the machine and manual codes. Manual coders erred more often than the machine, particularly by overlooking invitations and nonquestions. Correcting errors in the manual codes further increased the model's reliability (98% agreement; κ = .97).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Automated question-type coding can provide a time-efficient and highly accurate alternative to manual coding. We have made the trained model publicly available for use by researchers and practitioners. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143671500","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Who questions the legitimacy of law? A latent profile analysis using national data in China.","authors":"Han Wang, Mengliang Dai","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000583","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000583","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The present study aims to identify meaningful distinct subgroups of legal legitimacy, thereby addressing the need to move beyond a general legitimacy-based model.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We hypothesized (1) we would find distinct profiles for legal legitimacy, (2) perceived procedural justice would predict the identified profiles, and (3) profiles with low normative alignment or duty to obey scores would be associated with disadvantaged groups.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This study utilized a subset of survey items from the Chinese General Social Survey 2015 to measure legal legitimacy. Eight survey items, selected based on theoretical considerations, underwent a confirmatory factor analysis to assess their suitability for loading onto the two dimensions of legal legitimacy. A latent profile analysis was then performed on the scores obtained from the eight items to identify distinct profiles of legal legitimacy. Multinomial logistic regression models were estimated to examine the associations between the identified profiles, procedural justice, and sociodemographic characteristics. The analyses were conducted on a large sample of Chinese citizens (<i>N</i> = 3,475, 47.8% males; <i>M</i>_age = 50.3 years, <i>SD</i> = 16.8).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified four distinct profiles of legal legitimacy, namely contented conformist, relatively satisfied conformist, ordinary conformist, and cynical conformist. In support of the construct validity of the profiles, we found that these profiles differed on key factors of procedural justice and multiple sociodemographic variables.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings demonstrate population heterogeneity in legal legitimacy and underscore the importance of a multidimensional conceptualization. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"108-120"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142337148","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What risk assessment tools can be used with men convicted of child sexual exploitation material offenses? Recommendations from a review of current research.","authors":"L Maaike Helmus, Angela W Eke, Michael C Seto","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000594","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000594","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to review research on recidivism risk assessment tools with individuals convicted of child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) offenses and make recommendations for use in forensic, correctional, and legal settings.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>Multiple tools would be defensible to use with individuals convicted of CSEM offenses.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We discuss a minimum threshold of predictive accuracy to justify using a risk tool as an improvement on the typical level of accuracy expected from unstructured professional judgment. Beyond this minimum threshold, we offer additional considerations that researchers and practitioners can use in evaluating and selecting risk tools.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified nine risk assessment tools with predictive accuracy research on individuals convicted of CSEM offenses: Child Pornography Offender Risk Tool (CPORT), Risk Matrix 2000/Sex (RM2000/S), OASys Sexual Reoffending Predictor-Indecent Images (OSP/I), Static-99R, STABLE-2007, ACUTE-2007, Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA), Level of Service Inventory-Ontario Revision (LSI-OR), and Offender Group Reconviction Scale 3 (OGRS3).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The CPORT, RM2000/S, STABLE-2007, and ACUTE-2007 (in conjunction with the STABLE-2007) are all defensible tools to use for assessing risk of any sexual recidivism or CSEM recidivism, specifically. The OSP/I consists of a single risk factor and considers risk of CSEM recidivism among all individuals convicted of sexual offenses, not only among individuals convicted of CSEM offenses. There is some support for Static-99R and the OGRS3, but they are not recommended options at this time, for different reasons. The PCRA and LSI-OR general recidivism risk tools have some empirical support in predicting general recidivism among CSEM samples (and sexual recidivism for the PCRA), with limitations noted. The use of multiple tools may have value in assessing risk and structuring management in CSEM cases; however, how they are best combined for these samples is still unclear. We expect research in this area to increase rapidly. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"71-88"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143415988","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The American Psychology-Law Society scientific review paper on police-induced confessions (2.0).","authors":"Lindsay C Malloy, Jennifer T Perillo","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000601","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000601","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Law and Human Behavior's</i> inaugural issue of 2025 begins with the publication of an official Scientific Review Paper (SRP) of the American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS; Division 41 of the American Psychological Association). The article, \"Police-Induced Confessions, 2.0: Risk Factors and Recommendations\" (Kassin et al., 2025), was approved by a unanimous vote of the eligible AP-LS Executive Committee members in November 2024, and it represents the fourth such SRP that AP-LS has approved since it was founded in 1969-one on eyewitness identifications (Wells et al., 1998) and its update (Wells et al., 2020), and the initial SRP on police-induced confessions (Kassin et al., 2010). We are grateful to the authors of this exceptional piece, led by Saul Kassin, for bringing together decades of research, theory, and law to provide a nuanced understanding of this complex topic in an accessible manner for academics and practitioners around the world. In this brief Introduction, we, as the chair of the SRP Committee (Malloy) and the associate editor who handled the article for <i>Law and Human Behavior</i> (Perillo), describe the extensive efforts to develop, vet, and approve this article as an official SRP of AP-LS. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"49 1","pages":"5-6"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143671510","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Law and Human Behavior: Status update and new initiatives.","authors":"David DeMatteo, Jennifer Cox, Jennifer Perillo, Amanda Bergold, Christopher M King, Liana C Peter-Hagene, Diane Sivasubramaniam","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000603","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000603","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We are grateful to prior Editorial Teams for being such outstanding stewards of <i>Law and Human Behavior</i>, and we are committed to maintaining the journal's high standards. We also appreciate the many contributions of the Editorial Board, ad hoc reviewers, Student Editorial Board reviewers, and participants in the Reviewer Mentoring Program for contributing their time and expertise to this journal. It takes the collective efforts of many people, including the American Psychology-Law Society Executive Committee and the publication staff at the American Psychological Association, for this journal to run efficiently and publish outstanding scholarship. We are excited to work on our initiatives, and we welcome any feedback or questions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"49 1","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143671505","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Police-induced confessions, 2.0: Risk factors and recommendations.","authors":"Saul M Kassin, Hayley M D Cleary, Gisli H Gudjonsson, Richard A Leo, Christian A Meissner, Allison D Redlich, Kyle C Scherr","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000593","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000593","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Wrongful conviction databases have shed light on the fact that innocent people can be induced to confess to crimes they did not commit. Drawing on police practices, core principles of psychology, and forensic studies involving multiple methodologies, this article updates the original Scientific Review Paper (Kassin et al., 2010) on the causes, consequences, and remedies for police-induced false confessions. First, we describe the situational and personal risk factors that lead innocent people to confess and the collateral consequences that follow-including the corruptive effects of confession on other evidence, the increased likelihood of conviction at trial, the increased tendency to plead guilty despite innocence, the stigma that shadows false confessors even after exoneration, and the failure of Miranda to serve as a safeguard. Next, we propose the following remedies: (1) mandate the video recording of all suspect interviews and interrogations in their entirety and from a neutral camera angle; (2) require that police have an evidence-based suspicion as a predicate for commencing interrogation; (3) impose limits on confrontational interrogations, namely with regard to detention time, presentations of false evidence, and minimization themes that imply leniency; (4) adopt a science-based model of investigative interviewing; (5) protect youthful suspects and vulnerable adults by mandating the presence of defense attorneys during interrogation, and a suitable appropriate adult where required; (6) shield lay witnesses and forensic examiners from confessions to ensure the independence of their judgments; and (7) abolish contributory clauses from compensation statutes that penalize innocent persons who were induced to confess and/or plead guilty. These recommendations should help to prevent confession-based wrongful convictions and improve the administration of justice for all concerned. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"7-53"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143392285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The state of open science in the field of psychology and law.","authors":"Melanie B Fessinger,Bradley D McAuliff,Anthony D Perillo","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000592","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000592","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEWe conducted a survey to catalog the state of open science in the field of psychology and law. We addressed four major questions: (a) How do psycholegal researchers define open science? (b) How do psycholegal researchers perceive open science? (c) How often do psycholegal researchers use various open science practices? and (d) What barriers, if any, do psycholegal researchers face or expect to face when implementing open science practices?HYPOTHESESWe did not make specific hypotheses given the exploratory and descriptive nature of the study.METHODWe surveyed 740 psychology and law researchers (45% faculty, 64% doctoral degree, 66% women, and 85% White/non-Hispanic) about their perceptions of and experiences with open science using a mixed-methods design. They defined open science in their own words, described their opinion of the movement, indicated their experiences with any open science practices in their own work (i.e., preregistration, registered reports, open materials, open data, preprints, open access, and open peer review), and identified any barriers or concerns they faced in implementing open science practices.RESULTSA majority of respondents had wholly positive (60%) or mostly positive (28%) perceptions of open science. Most respondents (58%) had participated in at least one open science practice; however, fewer than half (44%) had an account on the Open Science Framework or similar repository. The most common barriers mentioned about implementing open science practices were concerns about specific practices (42%), lacking knowledge (24%), and requiring more time, effort, or resources (16%).CONCLUSIONSLike those in other disciplines, psychology and law researchers hold generally positive perceptions of open science that do not completely align with their reported use of specific practices. Overcoming perceived barriers to open science will require education, resources, open discourse, and collaborative problem solving. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142991719","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparing predictive validity of Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory scores in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadian youth.","authors":"Michele Peterson-Badali","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000578","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000578","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>There is an increasing recognition of the necessity to establish the predictive validity of risk assessment scores within specific population subgroups, particularly those (including Indigenous peoples) who are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. I compared measures of discrimination and calibration of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) in Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth probationers in Ontario, Canada.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>Compared with non-Indigenous youth, Indigenous youth would have higher risk scores and reoffense rates. The YLS/CMI would predict reoffending and time to reoffense significantly and comparably for Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth, but there would be group difference discrimination (sensitivity, specificity) and calibration (positive predictive value, negative predictive value).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Justice ministry-supplied data on 400 Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth (330 male, 70 female) individually matched on key background variables were analyzed to provide measures of discrimination and calibration of the YLS/CMI, with 3-year recidivism as the primary outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Indigenous youth were assessed at significantly higher risk than non-Indigenous youth (<i>d</i> = .60); 70% of Indigenous youth and 46% of non-Indigenous youth reoffended (ϕ = .24). Overall measures of discrimination (area under the curve) and calibration (logistic regression) were significant and did not differ across groups. Cross-area under the curve results indicated that the YLS/CMI discriminated Indigenous recidivists from non-Indigenous nonrecidivists but differentiated Indigenous nonrecidivists from non-Indigenous recidivists at chance level. In addition, recidivism was underestimated for low-risk Indigenous youth compared with non-Indigenous youth, but specificity was also low; only 28% of Indigenous youth who did not reoffend were assessed as low risk. Results were largely consistent across male and female youth.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Examining subgroup predictive validity using multiple indices provides important information that should inform policy and practice discussions regarding fair use of risk assessment tools. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142607024","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}