An Immovable Object? In-Group Qualifiers,Credibility,and Expert Claims on Punitive Sex Crime Policy

Abstract

Punitive policy approaches toward individuals convicted of sexual offenses (ICSOs) remain popular despite limited evidence of their effectiveness. Science communicators face substantial challenges in shifting public opinion on these issues, and prior research suggests that advocating for less punitive but more effective policies can undermine perceived expert credibility. This study reports results from a survey experiment with U.S. adults examining whether experts’ use of empathetic in-group qualifiers mitigates credibility losses and increases belief in their claims. Bayesian structural equation models indicate no systematic effects of qualifier use on credibility or belief, underscoring persistent barriers to communicating about stigmatized justice populations.

Keywords

individuals convicted of sexual offenses punitive criminal justice policy in-group qualifiers social identity theory perceived credibility

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abrams

Travaglino

G. A.

Marques

J. M.

Pinto

Levine

J. M.

(2018). Deviance credit: Tolerance of deviant ingroup leaders is mediated by their accrual of prototypicality and conferral of their right to be supported. Journal of Social Issues, 74(1), 36–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12255

Asplund

(2018). Communicating climate science: A matter of credibility: Swedish farmers’ perceptions of climate-change information. The International Journal of Climate Change, 10(1), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.18848/1835-7156/CGP/v10i01/23-38

Badillo-Goicoechea

Chang

T.-H.

Kim

LaRocca

Morris

Deng

Chiu

Bradford

Garcia

Kern

Cobb

Kreuter

Stuart

E. A.

(2021). Global trends and predictors of face mask usage during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Public Health, 21(1), Article 20992099. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12175-9

Blandón-Gitlin

Sperry

Leo

(2011). Jurors believe interrogation tactics are not likely to elicit false confessions: Will expert witness testimony inform them otherwise? Psychology, Crime & Law, 17(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160903113699

Boehme

H. M.

Adams

I. T.

Metcalfe

Leasure

Nolan

M. S.

(2024). Does scientific research change minds? Linking criminology and public perceptions of policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 23(1), 201–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12644

Bouffard

J. A.

Niebuhr

Exum

M. L.

(2017). Examining specific deterrence effects on DWI among serious offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 63(14), 1923–1945. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128716675359

Brewer

P. R.

Ley

B. L.

(2013). Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Science Communication, 35(1), 115–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012441691

Bullock

J. G

. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 496–515. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000165

Campbell

D. S.

Newheiser

A. K.

(2019). Must the show go on? The (in) ability of counterevidence to change attitudes toward crime control theater policies. Law and Human Behavior, 43(6), 568. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/0.1037/hb0000338

10.

Clements

C. B.

Brannen

D. N.

Kirkley

S. M.

Gordon

T. M.

Church

W. T.

(2006). The measurement of concern about victims: Empathy, victim advocacy and the Victim Concern Scale (VCS). Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11(2), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532505x79573

11.

Costelloe

M. T.

Chiricos

Gertz

(2009). Punitive attitudes toward criminals: Exploring the relevance of crime salience and economic insecurity. Punishment & Society, 11(1), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474508098131

12.

Deryugina

Shurchkov

(2016). The effect of information provision on public consensus about climate change. PLOS ONE, 11(4), Article e0151469e0151469. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151469

13.

Dragojlovic

(2015). Listening to outsiders: The impact of messenger nationality on transnational persuasion in the United States. International Studies Quarterly, 59(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12179

14.

Ellmers

Haslam

(2011). Social identity theory. In Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Tory Higgins

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 379–398). Sage.

15.

Esposo

S. R.

Hornsey

M. J.

Spoor

J. R

. (2013). Shooting the messenger: Outsiders critical of your group are rejected regardless of argument quality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(2), 386–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12024

16.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A.-G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149

17.

Festinger

(1964). Conflict, decision, and dissonance. Stanford University Press.

18.

Fielding

K. S.

Hornsey

M. J.

Thai

H. A.

Toh

L. L.

(2020). Using ingroup messengers and ingroup values to promote climate change policy. Climatic Change, 158(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02561-z

19.

Fix

R. L.

Newman

A. T.

Letourneau

E. J.

(2025). Messaging to promote the public’s understanding of child sexual violence as preventable, not inevitable. Child Abuse & Neglect, 169, Article 107700107700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2025.107700

20.

Flew

(1975). Thinking about thinking (Or, Do I sincerely want to be right?). Fontana.

21.

Freiberger

T. L.

Sheeran

A. M.

(2019). Evaluation of safe streets treatment option to reduce recidivism among repeat drunk driving offenders. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(9), 1368–1384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403418789473

22.

Harris

A. J.

Socia

K. M.

(2016). What’s in a name? Evaluating the effects of the “sex offender” label on public opinions and beliefs. Sexual Abuse, 28(7), 660–678. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214564391

23.

Hart

P. S.

Nisbet

E. C.

(2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211416646

24.

Haslam

S. A.

(2004). Psychology in organizations. Sage.

25.

Hornsey

M. J.

Fielding

K. S

. (2017). Attitude roots and Jiu Jitsu persuasion: Understanding and overcoming the motivated rejection of science. American Psychologist, 72(5), 459. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040437

26.

Hornsey

M. J.

Fielding

K. S.

(2020). Understanding (and reducing) inaction on climate change. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12058

27.

Huebner

B. M.

Kras

K. R.

Rydberg

Bynum

T. S.

Grommon

Pleggenkuhle

(2014). The effect and implications of sex offender residence restrictions: Evidence from a two-state evaluation. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(1), 139–168.

28.

Xiao

Amanmyradova

Rabe-Hesketh

(2022). Bayesian structural equation modeling using blavaan. Retrieved January 14, 2026, from https://mc-stan.org/learn-stan/case-studies/sem.html

29.

Kane

A. A.

(2010). Unlocking knowledge transfer potential: Knowledge demonstrability and superordinate social identity. Organization Science, 21(3), 643–660. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0469

30.

Kim

Bills

M. A.

Royle

(2024). Knowledge dissemination in translational criminology: A case study in corrections. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-024-09639-4

31.

Kim

Lee

C. J.

Jeong

S. H.

(2025). Narrative persuasion by celebrity source: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Health Communication, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2025.2592871

32.

King

D. E.

Mainous III

A. G.

Carnemolla

Everett

C. J.

(2009). Adherence to healthy lifestyle habits in US adults, 1988-2006. The American Journal of Medicine, 122(6), 528–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.11.013

33.

Koch

Denner

Coutandin

(2022). A CEO but also a parent: How strategic communication of private information about the CEO affects perceptions of an organization during a crisis. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 16(4), 620–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118x.2022.2075749

34.

Koon-Magnin

(2015). Perceptions of and support for sex offender policies: Testing Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, and Baker’s findings. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(1), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.12.007

35.

Kotcher

J. E.

Myers

T. A.

Vraga

E. K.

Stenhouse

Maibach

E. W.

(2017). Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environmental Communication, 11(3), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736

36.

Kuettel

B. T.

(2025). Does framing influence public support and willingness to fund harm reduction and liberal drug policies? Evidence from a survey experiment. Journal of Crime and Justice, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2025.2596034

37.

Lawes-Wickwar

Ghio

Tang

M. Y.

Keyworth

Stanescu

Westbrook

Jenkinson

Kassianos

A. P.

Scanlan

Garnett

Laidlaw

Howlett

Carr

Stanulewicz

Guest

Watson

Sutherland

Byrne-Davis

Chater

. . . Epton

. (2021). A rapid systematic review of public responses to health messages encouraging vaccination against infectious diseases in a pandemic or epidemic. Vaccines, 9(2), 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9020072

38.

Leiserowitz

A. A.

Maibach

E. W.

Roser-Renouf

Smith

Dawson

(2013). Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6), 818–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212458272

39.

Levenson

J. S.

Brannon

Y. N.

Fortney

Baker

(2007). Public perceptions about sex offenders and community protection policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 7(1), 137–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2007.00119.x

40.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Flores

A. W.

Holsinger

A. M.

Makarios

M. D.

Latessa

E. J.

(2010). Intensive supervision programs: Does program philosophy and the principles of effective intervention matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 368–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.004

41.

Lyons

(2018). Reducing group alignment in factual disputes? The limited effects of social identity interventions. Science Communication, 40(6), 789–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018804826

42.

Magnussen

Melinder

Stridbeck

Raja

A. Q.

(2010). Beliefs about factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of judges, jurors and the general public. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1550

43.

Manchak

S. M.

Fisher

L. R.

(2019). An examination of multiple factors influencing support for sex offender policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(6), 925–947. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417715684

44.

Mancini

Shields

R. T.

Mears

D. P.

Beaver

K. M.

(2010). Sex offender residence restriction laws: Parental perceptions and public policy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 1022–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.07.004

45.

McCroskey

J. C.

Teven

J. J.

(1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464

46.

Merkle

E. C.

Fitzsimmons

Uanhoro

Goodrich

(2021). Efficient Bayesian structural equation modeling in Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 100(6), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v100.i06

47.

Metzger

M. J.

Hartsell

E. H.

Flanagin

A. J.

(2020). Cognitive dissonance or credibility? A comparison of two theoretical explanations for selective exposure to partisan news. Communication Research, 47(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215613136

48.

Mols

(2012). What makes a frame persuasive? Lessons from social identity theory. Evidence & Policy, 8(3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426412x654059

49.

Mols

Bell

Head

(2020). Bridging the research–policy gap: The importance of effective identity leadership and shared commitment. Evidence & Policy, 16(1), 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426418x15378681300533

50.

Motta

Callaghan

Sylvester

Lunz-Trujillo

(2023). Identifying the prevalence, correlates, and policy consequences of anti-vaccine social identity. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 11(1), 108–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2021.1932528

51.

Osgood

C. E.

Tannenbaum

P. H.

(1955). The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review, 62(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048153

52.

Pasquetto

I. V.

Jahani

Atreja

Baum

(2022). Social debunking of misinformation on WhatsApp: The case for strong and in-group ties. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(CSCW1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512964

53.

Pickett

J. T.

Mancini

Mears

D. P.

(2013). Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: Explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology, 51(3), 729–759. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12018

54.

Pyrooz

D. C.

Densley

J. A.

Sanchez

J. A

. (2024). Does the public support anti-gang policies and practices and can opinions be swayed? Experimental evidence from a National Survey of Americans. Journal of Criminal Justice, 94, 102265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102265

55.

Ramos

G. A.

Vieites

Andrade

E. B.

(2025). Breaking boundaries: The effects of counter-stereotypical sources on ingroup persuasion and outgroup dissuasion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 154(7), 2006–2026. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001762

56.

Reynolds

J. J.

Estrada-Reynolds

. (2026). Changing Views of Sex Offender Policies: A Counterevidence Based Intervention. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 48(1), 33–53.

57.

Rivers

(2006). Sample matching: Representative sampling from internet panels. Polimetrix White Paper Series.

58.

Rydberg

Dum

C. P.

Socia

K. M.

(2018). Nobody gives a#% &!: A factorial survey examining the effect of criminological evidence on opposition to sex offender residence restrictions. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(4), 541–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9335-5

59.

Rydberg

Socia

K. M.

Dum

C. P.

Cole

(2025). Shooting the messenger: How expert statements on stigmatized populations negatively impact perceived credibility. Justice Quarterly, 42(1), 64–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2023.2267633

60.

Schmucker

Lösel

(2017). Sexual offender treatment for reducing recidivism among convicted sex offenders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13(1), 1–75. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2017.8

61.

Shadish

W. R.

Cook

T. D.

Campbell

D. T

. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin and Company.

62.

Socia

K. M.

Harris

A. J.

(2016). Evaluating public perceptions of the risk presented by registered sex offenders: Evidence of crime control theater? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(4), 375. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000081

63.

Song

. (2026). Unpacking Ingroup Source Effects in Politically Polarized Issues: The Interplay of Social Identity, Moral Framing, and Credibility. Communication Studies, 77(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2025.2515032

64.

Stone

Socia

K. M.

(2019). Boy with toy or black male with gun: An analysis of online news articles covering the shooting of Tamir Rice. Race and Justice, 9(3), 330–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368716689594

65.

Stringer

R. J.

(2021). Drunk driving and deterrence: Exploring the reconceptualized deterrence hypothesis and self-reported drunk driving. Journal of Crime and Justice, 44(3), 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648x.2020.1795903

66.

Tajfel

H. E.

(1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. Academic press.

67.

Tajfel

Turner

(1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In Williams

J. A.

Worchel

(Eds.), The Social Psychology of Inter-group Relations (pp. 33–47). Wadsworth.

68.

Twyman

(2008). Getting it right: YouGov and online survey research in Britain. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 18(4), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457280802305169

69.

Vavreck

Rivers

(2008). The 2006 cooperative congressional election study. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 18, 355–366.

70.

Vehtari

Gelman

Gabry

(2017). Practical Bayesian model evaluation using leave-one-out cross-validation and WAIC. Statistics and Computing, 27(5), 1413–1432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-016-9696-4

71.

Widaman

K. F.

Reise

S. P.

(1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In Bryant

K. J.

Windle

West

S. G.

(Eds.), The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281–324). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10222-009

72.

Wurtele

S. K.

(2018). University students’ perceptions of child sexual offenders: Impact of classroom instruction. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 27(3), 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1435598

73.

YouGov. (2014). Latest findings in Economist/YouGov poll. http://today.yougov.com/news/categories/economist/

74.

Zgoba

K. M.

Mitchell

M. M.

(2023). The effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification: A meta-analysis of 25 years of findings. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 19(1), 71–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-021-09480-z