{"title":"关于司法角色与考量的民意:一个潜在侧面分析。","authors":"Sarah L Desmarais,Samantha A Zottola,John Monahan","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\r\nTo inform policies and practices that reflect the values and expectations of the communities that judges serve, we fielded a national survey of public perceptions regarding judicial roles and factors that could be considered in decision making.\r\n\r\nHYPOTHESES\r\nWe had four questions: (1) What is public opinion on the importance of various judicial roles and considerations? (2) Can distinct groups of respondents be identified on the basis of their views? (3) Do the groups differ in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and beliefs? (4) If so, can they be distinguished by their characteristics and beliefs?\r\n\r\nMETHOD\r\nWe surveyed 4,861 jury-eligible adults through Qualtrics Online Panels. About half identified as men, and about two thirds as White; the mean age was 45 years. Respondents rated the importance of judicial responsibilities and considerations using 10 items adapted from a survey of trial court judges. We employed latent profile analysis to identify subgroups on the basis of their ratings and conducted univariate and multivariable analyses to examine differences across sociodemographic characteristics.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nA four-group model was the best-fitting and most interpretable solution. The largest profile (47.4%) demonstrated the highest ratings, suggesting that they valued due process, legal standards, expert knowledge, public safety, helping the accused, and community input. The second largest profile (39.5%) also valued legal standards, expert knowledge, and public safety but not public interests and community input. The next group (7.8%) generally rated all items as neither important nor unimportant, suggesting an ambivalence, lack of opinion, or limited interest in the issues. The smallest group (5.4%) rated all items as unimportant.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nFindings highlight areas of consensus and divergence and reveal distinct opinion profiles that can inform policy and practice. They also support the use of sophisticated measurement and analytic approaches that go beyond descriptive examinations of a single item or index to assess public opinion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public opinion about judicial roles and considerations: A latent profile analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah L Desmarais,Samantha A Zottola,John Monahan\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/lhb0000607\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE\\r\\nTo inform policies and practices that reflect the values and expectations of the communities that judges serve, we fielded a national survey of public perceptions regarding judicial roles and factors that could be considered in decision making.\\r\\n\\r\\nHYPOTHESES\\r\\nWe had four questions: (1) What is public opinion on the importance of various judicial roles and considerations? (2) Can distinct groups of respondents be identified on the basis of their views? (3) Do the groups differ in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and beliefs? (4) If so, can they be distinguished by their characteristics and beliefs?\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHOD\\r\\nWe surveyed 4,861 jury-eligible adults through Qualtrics Online Panels. About half identified as men, and about two thirds as White; the mean age was 45 years. Respondents rated the importance of judicial responsibilities and considerations using 10 items adapted from a survey of trial court judges. We employed latent profile analysis to identify subgroups on the basis of their ratings and conducted univariate and multivariable analyses to examine differences across sociodemographic characteristics.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nA four-group model was the best-fitting and most interpretable solution. The largest profile (47.4%) demonstrated the highest ratings, suggesting that they valued due process, legal standards, expert knowledge, public safety, helping the accused, and community input. The second largest profile (39.5%) also valued legal standards, expert knowledge, and public safety but not public interests and community input. The next group (7.8%) generally rated all items as neither important nor unimportant, suggesting an ambivalence, lack of opinion, or limited interest in the issues. The smallest group (5.4%) rated all items as unimportant.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nFindings highlight areas of consensus and divergence and reveal distinct opinion profiles that can inform policy and practice. They also support the use of sophisticated measurement and analytic approaches that go beyond descriptive examinations of a single item or index to assess public opinion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":48230,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law and Human Behavior\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law and Human Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000607\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000607","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的为了使政策和实践能够反映法官所服务的社区的价值观和期望,我们在全国范围内开展了一项关于公众对法官角色和决策中可考虑因素的看法的调查。假设我们有四个问题:(1)公众对各种司法角色和考虑因素的重要性的看法是什么?(2)是否可以根据受访者的观点来区分不同的受访者群体?(3)这些群体在社会人口学特征和信仰方面是否存在差异?(4)如果是这样,是否可以通过他们的特征和信仰来区分他们?方法我们通过qualics在线小组调查了4861名符合评审团资格的成年人。大约一半是男性,大约三分之二是白人;平均年龄为45岁。答复者根据对初审法院法官的调查改编的10个项目对司法责任和考虑因素的重要性进行了评级。我们采用潜在剖面分析,根据他们的评分来确定亚组,并进行单变量和多变量分析,以检查不同社会人口统计学特征的差异。结果sa四组模型是最佳拟合和最具解释性的解决方案。最大的形象(47.4%)显示出最高的评级,表明他们重视正当程序、法律标准、专家知识、公共安全、帮助被告和社区投入。排名第二(39.5%)的受访者也重视法律标准、专家知识和公共安全,但不重视公共利益和社区投入。下一组(7.8%)一般认为所有项目既不重要也不重要,表明矛盾心理,缺乏意见或对问题的兴趣有限。最小的群体(5.4%)认为所有项目都不重要。研究结果突出了共识和分歧的领域,揭示了不同的意见概况,可以为政策和实践提供信息。它们还支持使用复杂的测量和分析方法,这些方法超越了对单一项目或指数的描述性检查,以评估公众舆论。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
Public opinion about judicial roles and considerations: A latent profile analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To inform policies and practices that reflect the values and expectations of the communities that judges serve, we fielded a national survey of public perceptions regarding judicial roles and factors that could be considered in decision making.
HYPOTHESES
We had four questions: (1) What is public opinion on the importance of various judicial roles and considerations? (2) Can distinct groups of respondents be identified on the basis of their views? (3) Do the groups differ in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and beliefs? (4) If so, can they be distinguished by their characteristics and beliefs?
METHOD
We surveyed 4,861 jury-eligible adults through Qualtrics Online Panels. About half identified as men, and about two thirds as White; the mean age was 45 years. Respondents rated the importance of judicial responsibilities and considerations using 10 items adapted from a survey of trial court judges. We employed latent profile analysis to identify subgroups on the basis of their ratings and conducted univariate and multivariable analyses to examine differences across sociodemographic characteristics.
RESULTS
A four-group model was the best-fitting and most interpretable solution. The largest profile (47.4%) demonstrated the highest ratings, suggesting that they valued due process, legal standards, expert knowledge, public safety, helping the accused, and community input. The second largest profile (39.5%) also valued legal standards, expert knowledge, and public safety but not public interests and community input. The next group (7.8%) generally rated all items as neither important nor unimportant, suggesting an ambivalence, lack of opinion, or limited interest in the issues. The smallest group (5.4%) rated all items as unimportant.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings highlight areas of consensus and divergence and reveal distinct opinion profiles that can inform policy and practice. They also support the use of sophisticated measurement and analytic approaches that go beyond descriptive examinations of a single item or index to assess public opinion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.