{"title":"对科学的怀疑和惩罚态度","authors":"Jason Rydberg, Luke DeZago","doi":"10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study examines whether there is an association between skepticism in science and punitive attitudes, including temporal dynamics and potential for unobserved confounding. Drawing on data from the General Social Survey (GSS) repeated cross-sections (1972–2018) (<em>N</em> = 26,652) and 2006–2010 3-wave panels (<em>N</em> = 5807), study objectives were addressed using Bayesian hierarchical age-period-cohort characteristics (HAPC) and hybrid parameterized mixed effect panel logit regression models. Findings suggest that respondents who express skepticism in science are more likely to endorse harsher punishments from courts and a reduction in funding for drug rehabilitation, after controlling for relevant theoretical and empirical controls. This association increases in magnitude across respondent ages, and has been relatively stable over time. Though respondents more likely to be skeptical in science are also more punitive, the association may be partially spurious, potentially reflecting common underlying factors, rather than through a direct causal pathway. The findings underline the challenges in developing consensus on criminal justice policy reform through appeals to evidence-based practices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48272,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Justice","volume":"98 ","pages":"Article 102422"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Skepticism in science and punitive attitudes\",\"authors\":\"Jason Rydberg, Luke DeZago\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102422\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This study examines whether there is an association between skepticism in science and punitive attitudes, including temporal dynamics and potential for unobserved confounding. Drawing on data from the General Social Survey (GSS) repeated cross-sections (1972–2018) (<em>N</em> = 26,652) and 2006–2010 3-wave panels (<em>N</em> = 5807), study objectives were addressed using Bayesian hierarchical age-period-cohort characteristics (HAPC) and hybrid parameterized mixed effect panel logit regression models. Findings suggest that respondents who express skepticism in science are more likely to endorse harsher punishments from courts and a reduction in funding for drug rehabilitation, after controlling for relevant theoretical and empirical controls. This association increases in magnitude across respondent ages, and has been relatively stable over time. Though respondents more likely to be skeptical in science are also more punitive, the association may be partially spurious, potentially reflecting common underlying factors, rather than through a direct causal pathway. The findings underline the challenges in developing consensus on criminal justice policy reform through appeals to evidence-based practices.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48272,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Criminal Justice\",\"volume\":\"98 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102422\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Criminal Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235225000716\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235225000716","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
This study examines whether there is an association between skepticism in science and punitive attitudes, including temporal dynamics and potential for unobserved confounding. Drawing on data from the General Social Survey (GSS) repeated cross-sections (1972–2018) (N = 26,652) and 2006–2010 3-wave panels (N = 5807), study objectives were addressed using Bayesian hierarchical age-period-cohort characteristics (HAPC) and hybrid parameterized mixed effect panel logit regression models. Findings suggest that respondents who express skepticism in science are more likely to endorse harsher punishments from courts and a reduction in funding for drug rehabilitation, after controlling for relevant theoretical and empirical controls. This association increases in magnitude across respondent ages, and has been relatively stable over time. Though respondents more likely to be skeptical in science are also more punitive, the association may be partially spurious, potentially reflecting common underlying factors, rather than through a direct causal pathway. The findings underline the challenges in developing consensus on criminal justice policy reform through appeals to evidence-based practices.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Criminal Justice is an international journal intended to fill the present need for the dissemination of new information, ideas and methods, to both practitioners and academicians in the criminal justice area. The Journal is concerned with all aspects of the criminal justice system in terms of their relationships to each other. Although materials are presented relating to crime and the individual elements of the criminal justice system, the emphasis of the Journal is to tie together the functioning of these elements and to illustrate the effects of their interactions. Articles that reflect the application of new disciplines or analytical methodologies to the problems of criminal justice are of special interest.
Since the purpose of the Journal is to provide a forum for the dissemination of new ideas, new information, and the application of new methods to the problems and functions of the criminal justice system, the Journal emphasizes innovation and creative thought of the highest quality.