Law and Human Behavior最新文献

{"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":"Lived experiences of bias in compensation and reintegration associated with false admissions of guilt.","authors":"Mary Catlin,Talley Bettens,Allison D Redlich,Kyle C Scherr","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000588","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000588","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVESome exonerees receive compensation and aid after being exonerated of their wrongful convictions, and some do not. Looking beyond differences in state statutes, we examined possible reasons for biases in receiving compensation (via statutes or civil claims) and other reintegration services. More specifically, we examined how two unique types of false admission of guilt (i.e., false confessions and false guilty pleas) could be associated with biased outcomes in compensation procurement and reintegration outcomes.HYPOTHESESAlthough we did not have formal hypotheses for this qualitative study, based on the cumulative disadvantage framework (Scherr, Redlich, & Kassin, 2020), we anticipated that both types of false admission of guilt would negatively bias exonerees' experience post-exoneration. More specifically, we expected that exonerees whose cases involved at least one type of false admission of guilt would have a more difficult time obtaining compensation and would experience more negative post-exoneration outcomes, compared with exonerees in general.METHODWe conducted in-depth interviews with three samples: (a) exonerees (n = 19), (b) attorneys who had assisted exonerees with post-exoneration compensation claims (n = 15), and (c) innocence advocates who had worked with exonerees (n = 9).RESULTSAcross all samples, interviewees indicated that both forms of false admission of guilt are associated with biases that may influence exonerees' compensation and reintegration efforts. Specifically, interviews revealed that (a) false admissions are associated with disadvantages to exonerees' compensation and reintegration efforts, as predicted by the cumulative disadvantage framework; (b) under specific circumstances, false admissions are associated with advantages benefiting compensation attempts; and (c) false admissions can be nonapplicable (i.e., irrelevant) to reintegration efforts.CONCLUSIONSTogether, our findings provide a more nuanced understanding of the role false confessions and false guilty pleas may play post-exoneration. This understanding, derived from those individuals directly involved in the compensation and reintegration processes, is an important step in beginning to right the injustices experienced by those wrongfully convicted. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142490930","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 structured assessment of violence risk in youth demonstrates measurement invariance between Black and White justice-referred youths.","authors":"Jonathan R Cohn,Rachael T Perrault,David C Cicero,Gina M Vincent","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000586","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000586","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEIdentification and implementation of effective methods for reducing racial/ethnic bias and disparities in legal settings are paramount in the United States and other countries. One procedure originally thought to reduce bias in legal decisions is the use of risk assessment instruments, which is now being heavily scrutinized. Measurement invariance, a latent trait technique, is a robust method for assessing one form of bias. Measurement invariance involves determining whether risk items in an instrument appear to be functioning the same between racial or other groups. Thus, the present study examined measurement invariance of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) between non-Latino Black and White youths to examine racial bias.HYPOTHESESWe expected the SAVRY to be invariant (lacking measurement bias) between Black and White youths.METHODThe sample included 687 Black and 361 White youths, and the study used a large, multistate data set of SAVRYs conducted by probation officers. We conducted measurement invariance testing in a series of hierarchical steps including testing configural and scalar invariance.RESULTSThe SAVRY demonstrated scalar invariance (equal thresholds for ratings from \"low\" to \"moderate\" and \"moderate\" to \"high\") for all items except one-community disorganization.CONCLUSIONSThe findings lend further credibility to the SAVRY, and the structured professional judgment approach, as a method to assess violence risk and case planning needs among youths involved in the legal system. These findings provide more confidence that significant differences in SAVRY risk level or items between Black and White youths are not based in measurement bias, with the exception of the community disorganization item. Potential fixes discussed include eliminating or deemphasizing this item in final risk level ratings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142486262","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":"Essentialism and the criminal legal system.","authors":"Madeleine Millar, Colleen M Berryessa, Cynthia Willis-Esqueda, Jason A Cantone, Deborah Goldfarb, Melissa de Vel-Palumbo, Anthony D Perillo, Terrill O Taylor, Laurie T Becker","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000576","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000576","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"597-612"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142298882","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 structured assessment of violence risk in youth demonstrates measurement invariance between Black and White justice-referred youths.","authors":"Jonathan R Cohn, Rachael T Perrault, David C Cicero, Gina M Vincent","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000586","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000586","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Identification and implementation of effective methods for reducing racial/ethnic bias and disparities in legal settings are paramount in the United States and other countries. One procedure originally thought to reduce bias in legal decisions is the use of risk assessment instruments, which is now being heavily scrutinized. Measurement invariance, a latent trait technique, is a robust method for assessing one form of bias. Measurement invariance involves determining whether risk items in an instrument appear to be functioning the same between racial or other groups. Thus, the present study examined measurement invariance of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) between non-Latino Black and White youths to examine racial bias.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We expected the SAVRY to be invariant (lacking measurement bias) between Black and White youths.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The sample included 687 Black and 361 White youths, and the study used a large, multistate data set of SAVRYs conducted by probation officers. We conducted measurement invariance testing in a series of hierarchical steps including testing configural and scalar invariance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The SAVRY demonstrated scalar invariance (equal thresholds for ratings from \"low\" to \"moderate\" and \"moderate\" to \"high\") for all items except one-community disorganization.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings lend further credibility to the SAVRY, and the structured professional judgment approach, as a method to assess violence risk and case planning needs among youths involved in the legal system. These findings provide more confidence that significant differences in SAVRY risk level or items between Black and White youths are not based in measurement bias, with the exception of the community disorganization item. Potential fixes discussed include eliminating or deemphasizing this item in final risk level ratings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"415-426"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142477953","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":"Do risk measure scores and diagnoses predict evaluator opinions in sexually violent predator cases? It depends on the evaluator.","authors":"Marcus T Boccaccini, Daniel C Murrie, Paige B Harris","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000561","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000561","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Field research increasingly reveals that forensic evaluators are not interchangeable. Instead, they tend to differ in their patterns of forensic opinions, in ways that likely reflect something about themselves, not just the persons evaluated. This study used data from sexually violent predator (SVP) evaluations to examine whether evaluator differences in making intermediate decisions (e.g., instrument scoring, assigning diagnoses) might explain their different patterns of final opinions.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>Although this study was generally exploratory and not strongly hypothesis driven, we expected that there might be evidence for a simple form of bias in which some evaluators would be more likely than others to consistently \"find\" indications of SVP status (i.e., consistently assigning higher risk scores and more SVP-relevant diagnoses) and, therefore, be more likely to find behavioral abnormality, the legal construct qualifying someone for commitment as an SVP.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The study used data from 745 SVP evaluations conducted by 10 different evaluators who were assigned cases from the same referral stream. Potential evaluator difference variables included behavioral abnormality opinions, paraphilia and antisocial personality disorder diagnoses, and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and Static-99 scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Evaluator differences explained a statistically significant (<i>p</i> < .001) amount of variance in behavioral abnormality opinions (17%), paraphilia diagnoses (7%), and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised scores (16%). Contrary to our expectation of a simple tendency for some evaluators to find all indicators of SVP status more often than others, evaluators differed in the ways that underlying diagnoses and scores corresponded with their conclusions. The overall pattern was one in which different evaluators appeared to base their final opinions on different factors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings reveal further evidence of substantial forensic evaluator differences in patterns of assigning instrument scores and reaching forensic conclusions. But these findings are the first to also reveal wide variability in their patterns of reaching forensic conclusions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"531-544"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141972109","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}