公众希望警察停车吗?通过实验研究结果数据对公众对警方酌情拦截交通的看法的影响

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Hunter M. Boehme, Sohee Jung, Irick A. Geary, Robert A. Brown, Peter Leasure
{"title":"公众希望警察停车吗?通过实验研究结果数据对公众对警方酌情拦截交通的看法的影响","authors":"Hunter M. Boehme, Sohee Jung, Irick A. Geary, Robert A. Brown, Peter Leasure","doi":"10.1007/s11292-024-09625-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objectives</h3><p>To assess whether data on traffic stop outcomes causally impacts public approval of discretionary traffic stops as a crime control strategy.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>We distributed an original online survey experiment randomly assigning respondents (<i>N</i> = 4740) into either the (1) contraband condition, (2) disparity condition, or (3) the control condition.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>In comparison to the control condition, the contraband condition significantly increased respondent support of discretionary traffic stops as a crime-fighting tool. Black respondents assigned the contraband treatment were significantly more likely to support the use of discretionary traffic stops compared to Black respondents assigned the control condition.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>Although scrutiny exists regarding the efficacy of discretionary traffic stops, public opinion may be shifted if they are provided with information on the outcomes of such stops. Police agencies should consider coupling evidence-based strategies with data on the outcomes of crime control strategies, which may also address community desire for more transparency. Minority civilians may support crime control strategies if presented with data on such strategies’ effectiveness. </p>","PeriodicalId":47684,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Criminology","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does the public want the police to stop, stopping? An experimental look at the impact of outcome data on public perceptions of police discretionary traffic stops\",\"authors\":\"Hunter M. Boehme, Sohee Jung, Irick A. Geary, Robert A. Brown, Peter Leasure\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11292-024-09625-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Objectives</h3><p>To assess whether data on traffic stop outcomes causally impacts public approval of discretionary traffic stops as a crime control strategy.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>We distributed an original online survey experiment randomly assigning respondents (<i>N</i> = 4740) into either the (1) contraband condition, (2) disparity condition, or (3) the control condition.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>In comparison to the control condition, the contraband condition significantly increased respondent support of discretionary traffic stops as a crime-fighting tool. Black respondents assigned the contraband treatment were significantly more likely to support the use of discretionary traffic stops compared to Black respondents assigned the control condition.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>Although scrutiny exists regarding the efficacy of discretionary traffic stops, public opinion may be shifted if they are provided with information on the outcomes of such stops. Police agencies should consider coupling evidence-based strategies with data on the outcomes of crime control strategies, which may also address community desire for more transparency. Minority civilians may support crime control strategies if presented with data on such strategies’ effectiveness. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47684,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Criminology\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Criminology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-024-09625-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-024-09625-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标评估有关交通拦截结果的数据是否会影响公众对酌情拦截作为犯罪控制策略的认可。方法我们发布了一项原创在线调查实验,将受访者(N = 4740)随机分配到(1)违禁品条件、(2)差异条件或(3)控制条件中。结果与控制条件相比,违禁品条件显著提高了受访者对酌情拦截作为打击犯罪工具的支持率。与采用对照条件的黑人受访者相比,采用违禁品处理条件的黑人受访者支持酌情拦截交通的可能性明显增加。结论虽然酌情拦截交通的效果受到严格审查,但如果向公众提供有关此类拦截结果的信息,公众意见可能会发生转变。警察机构应考虑将以证据为基础的策略与犯罪控制策略的结果数据结合起来,这也可以满足社区对提高透明度的愿望。如果向少数族裔平民提供有关犯罪控制策略有效性的数据,他们可能会支持这些策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Does the public want the police to stop, stopping? An experimental look at the impact of outcome data on public perceptions of police discretionary traffic stops

Does the public want the police to stop, stopping? An experimental look at the impact of outcome data on public perceptions of police discretionary traffic stops

Objectives

To assess whether data on traffic stop outcomes causally impacts public approval of discretionary traffic stops as a crime control strategy.

Methods

We distributed an original online survey experiment randomly assigning respondents (N = 4740) into either the (1) contraband condition, (2) disparity condition, or (3) the control condition.

Results

In comparison to the control condition, the contraband condition significantly increased respondent support of discretionary traffic stops as a crime-fighting tool. Black respondents assigned the contraband treatment were significantly more likely to support the use of discretionary traffic stops compared to Black respondents assigned the control condition.

Conclusions

Although scrutiny exists regarding the efficacy of discretionary traffic stops, public opinion may be shifted if they are provided with information on the outcomes of such stops. Police agencies should consider coupling evidence-based strategies with data on the outcomes of crime control strategies, which may also address community desire for more transparency. Minority civilians may support crime control strategies if presented with data on such strategies’ effectiveness.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Experimental Criminology
Journal of Experimental Criminology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Criminology focuses on high quality experimental and quasi-experimental research in the advancement of criminological theory and/or the development of evidence based crime and justice policy. The journal is also committed to the advancement of the science of systematic reviews and experimental methods in criminology and criminal justice. The journal seeks empirical papers on experimental and quasi-experimental studies, systematic reviews on substantive criminological and criminal justice issues, and methodological papers on experimentation and systematic review. The journal encourages submissions from scholars in the broad array of scientific disciplines that are concerned with criminology as well as crime and justice problems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信