Validation of a Chinese Version of the Attitudes Toward Prisoners Scale

Abstract

Using a Hong Kong–sourced sample of participants, this study set out to validate the Chinese version of the Attitudes Toward Prisoners (ATP-C) Scale and evaluate its psychometric properties. To provide further evidence for the ATP-C Scale’s validity, it was then administered to three groups varying in their volunteering experience in Hong Kong. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a four-factor structure that differs from the unidimensional model proposed by the scale developers. Cronbach’s alpha values were satisfactory for all four subscales, and construct validity of the ATP-C Scale was also assessed with a second sample of participants. Implications for the assessment of attitudes toward prisoners away from a one-dimensional spectrum and further directions for cross-cultural studies on related topics are discussed.

Keywords

Attitudes Toward Prisoners Scale validation volunteering Chinese culture

Introduction

Attitudinal variables are thought to be relevant for answering some of the key questions in the criminal justice system (Barretto, Miers, & Lambie, 2018; Chui, Cheng, & Ong, 2015; Chui, Cheng, & Wong, 2013; Gottlieb, 2017; Ortet-Fabregat, Perez, & Lewis, 1993). Therefore, more emphasis has been placed on the study of attitudes toward crime and criminals in recent years. One such attitude of interest is people’s attitude toward prisoners, which has been found to be related to sentencing decisions (Carroll, Perkowitz, Lurigio, & Weaver, 1987; Hogarth, 1974; Ortet-Fabregat et al., 1993), prisoners’ rehabilitation outcomes (Glaser, 1969; Kjelsberg, Skoglund, & Rustad, 2007; Melvin, Gramling, & Gardner, 1985), and even the training of prison officers (Fielding & Fielding, 1991; Ortet-Fabregat et al., 1993; Shannon & Page, 2014). These studies tapping into attitudes toward prisoners not only are important theoretically but also have potential implications for policy making and service provision. For instance, Kjelsberg et al. (2007) have reported that the attitudes toward prisoners held by both prison officers and prisoners themselves critically influence rehabilitation, because their attitudes would determine the types of program being offered and the way that prisoners respond to these programs. In addition, the success rate of rehabilitation depends “upon the attitude held by the population into which prisoners would be released” (Kjelsberg et al., 2007, p. 2). Thus, rehabilitation programs should include elements that help promote positive attitudes toward prisoners among prison officers, prisoners, and the general public.

Indeed, in Hong Kong, it has been observed that criminal justice agencies, especially corrections, have placed the rehabilitation of offenders as their primary objective (see, for example, Adorjan & Chui, 2012; Chui, 2001, 2017; Jones & Vagg, 2007). Chui (2002), for instance, noted that since its inception, the probation system in Hong Kong has regarded its role as mainly to assist offenders in their rehabilitation and reintegration. This is a marked departure from the British system from which the Hong Kong probation services were originally adopted. The slogan, “Give rehabilitated offenders a second chance” by the Hong Kong Correctional Services, is another verification of the primacy of rehabilitation and reintegration in Hong Kong’s criminal justice system (Hong Kong Correctional Services, 2018). Therefore, a sound instrument to measure attitudes toward prisoners in the Chinese context would be a useful addition to correction efforts in Hong Kong.

To the best of our knowledge, despite a widespread application of the measurement of attitudes toward prisoners in English-speaking countries and beyond, a Chinese version of the Attitudes Toward Prisoners (ATP-C) Scale has not yet been validated. In this regard, this article’s main objective is to validate an operationalized ATP-C Scale for future use in Chinese criminal justice research.

Measuring Attitude Toward Prisoners

To facilitate research on attitudes toward prisoners, researchers needed a psychometrically sound assessment tool. Seeing this need, Melvin, Gramling, and Gardner (1985) developed the Attitudes Toward Prisoners (ATP) Scale, a 36-item scale rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale.

Using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), they discovered that all items loaded significantly on a single dimension, reflecting people’s general positive or negative attitudes toward prisoners. Later validation studies also confirmed the unidimensional nature of the scale (Kerce, Magnusson, & Rudolph, 1994; Kjelsberg et al., 2007; Ortet-Fabregat et al., 1993). Because both positive items (e.g., only a few prisoners are really dangerous) and negative items (e.g., most prisoners are stupid) belong to the same factor, negative items would be reverse-scored before all items were added up. Then, a constant of 36 would be subtracted from the total, giving a possible range of scores from 0 to 144 (Melvin et al., 1985).

Subsequent studies demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity of the ATP Scale. For instance, Melvin et al. (1985) reported high split-half (r = .84-.92) and test–retest (r = .82) reliability when they first constructed the scale. They also confirmed the scale’s validity using the method of contrasted group. Later studies also reported Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .88 (Kjelsberg et al., 2007) to .95 (Ortet-Fabregat et al., 1993), which lent further support for the scale’s reliability.

Due to its good psychometric properties, the ATP Scale has been used widely in the study of attitudes toward prisoners in empirical studies (Barnett, Brodsky, & Davis, 2004; Ireland & Quinn, 2007; Kerce et al., 1994; Kjelsberg et al., 2007; Morgan, Beer, Fitzgerald, & Mandracchia, 2007; Na & Loftus, 1998; Ortet-Fabregat et al., 1993; Trevethan, Rastin, Bell, & Gillis, 2004). Moreover, many studies have gone beyond measuring attitudes toward prisoners per se, instead using the ATP Scale to measure attitudes toward sex offenders (Church, Wakeman, Miller, Clements, & Sun, 2008; Ferguson & Ireland, 2006; Kjelsberg & Loos, 2008; Nelson, Herlihy, & Oescher, 2002), attitudes toward juvenile sex offenders (Sahlstrom & Jeglic, 2008), attitudes toward offenders (Murphy & Brown, 2000), and attitudes toward offender patients (Boothyby & Overduin, 2007; Moore et al., 2002).

Although the ATP Scale is a reliable and valid assessment tool that is popular among criminal justice researchers, all these studies have been conducted in Western societies. Little effort has been devoted to the validation and application of the ATP Scale in non-Western cultures, such as Hong Kong.

Attitudes Toward Prisoners in a Chinese Cultural Context

Previous studies have all confirmed the unidimensional factor structure proposed by Melvin et al. (1985). However, because the scale was originally developed and validated in a Western environment, it is uncertain whether this factor structure is applicable in a Chinese cultural context. There is evidence that Westerners’ crime-related attitudes could be quite different from those held by the Chinese (Brody & Luo, 2009). For example, due to their emphasis on interpersonal relationships (i.e., guanxi), the Chinese often regard crimes such as fraud as socially acceptable ways to maintain good guanxi with peers or bosses. This suggests that the set of cultural and ethical beliefs held by the Chinese could be so different from that of Westerners that a direct application of Western findings in Chinese culture would be inappropriate.

One related study worth mentioning is Na and Loftus’ (1998) investigation of university students’ attitudes toward prisoners in Korea, a country which has many cultural similarities to China. They found that Koreans tended to hate the act of crime but not the offenders. Also, Koreans were more likely than Americans to be sympathetic toward prisoners. This is yet another piece of evidence that Westerners’ attitudinal dimensions (i.e., a simple division between positive and negative attitudes toward prisoners) might not be the same as attitudes in other cultures, particularly Asian cultures. Elements such as sympathy might also be included as factors underlying people’s attitudes in other cultures. Although it is tempting to generalize Korea’s case to the Chinese context, we should note that there are still cross-regional differences that cannot be ignored. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct research to explore the model underlying attitudes toward prisoners unique to the Chinese culture.

The Chinese dialectical way of thinking is also revealed in past studies measuring Chinese punitive attitudes and views of crime control. Cao and Cullen (2001), for instance, in comparing Chinese and American college students’ views of crime and punishment, noted significant differences between the two groups. The Chinese sample was more supportive of social programs to reduce crime as opposed to more state control, such as the hiring of more police officers. They were also more endorsing of the rehabilitation of offenders (see also Lambert & Jiang, 2006). However, they were more likely to approve of the death penalty for serious crimes and believed that prisons ought to be painful places for their wrongdoing. Greater Chinese support for capital punishment (compared with Americans) was found by subsequent studies as well (e.g., Jiang, Lambert, & Wang, 2007a; Wu, Sun, & Wu, 2011).

In explaining the apparent paradox that Chinese people believe in the malleability of wrongdoers and support of the death penalty, Jiang and Wang (2008) point out a distinction between the majority and minority in Chinese thought. Confucianism proposes that the vast majority of humankind is good and that lawbreakers can be reformed through moral education (see also Chen, 2004). However, harsh punishment, including sentencing an offender to death, is reserved for the truly serious criminals, those who cannot be corrected. The death penalty is seen as a way of educating and providing general deterrence to the public (Jiang et al., 2007a; Jiang & Wang, 2008). Indeed, Jiang, Lambert, and Nathan (2009) found that instrumental perspectives, namely, deterrence, crime severity, order maintenance, and incapacitation, were better predictors of pro-death penalty attitudes for Chinese citizens than retribution, which was the main reason for support of capital punishment for Americans (Jiang et al., 2007a).

Further evidence of the Chinese dialectical way of thinking can be found in their endorsement of combining both formal and informal criminal justice controls to combat crime (Jiang, Lambert, & Jenkins, 2010; Jiang, Lambert, & Wang, 2007b). Formal controls are defined as legal controls imposed by law and enforced by law enforcement agencies, such as the police and courts. Informal controls are moral rules that encourage people to be law abiding and are performed by unofficial control groups such as the family and community. Jiang et al. (2010) pointed out that while many Western scholars regard formal and informal crime controls as dichotomous, the Chinese combine both approaches in its “total-society strategy” (p. 278) to maintain law and order. Chen (2004) observed that this strategy stems from a long Chinese history that relied mainly on informal controls. Despite China’s modernization and further reliance on more formal criminal justice controls, these informal mechanisms still continued to ensure community support for legal controls.

Aims of the Study

The purpose of this study is twofold: first, to assess the psychometric properties of the ATP Scale, and second, to investigate whether the unidimensional factor structure proposed by previous researchers is applicable to the Hong Kong Chinese cultural context. As discussed above, culture can alter people’s attitudes toward prisoners. Thus, assessment tools that are valid and reliable in the West might not accurately represent Chinese attitudes toward prisoners. Accordingly, the first aim of this study is to assess the psychometric properties of the ATP Scale and determine whether it can be readily applied in Chinese society.

Na and Loftus’s (1998) study observed that cultural variation might produce a factor structure different from the model proposed by the scale developer. To test this hypothesis, the current investigation ran a factor analysis using data collected from a Hong Kong Chinese sample. This has the potential not only to improve our understanding of attitudes toward prisoners in a Chinese culture but also to facilitate further cross-cultural research on criminal justice.

Method

Participants

A total of 157 college students (72 males, 84 females, and one who did not specify gender) were recruited for this study. The sample consisted of social work majors at a university in Hong Kong. Participants ranged in age from age 18 to 48 years (M = 21.91 years, SD = 4.05 years).

After first confirming the psychometric properties of the scale, a second set of participants (n = 162) were recruited to further validate the scale using the contrasted group method. Each participant was assigned to one of three groups based upon their participation in voluntary work experience with offenders in the past 12 months. Details of each are as follows:

Nonvolunteers

Fifty-four participants (11 males and 43 females) who did not have any volunteering experience within the past 12 months were recruited through a university in Hong Kong, with the assistance of professors and student organizations. They ranged in age from 18 to 51 years (M = 22.46 years, SD = 5.04 years). Eighty-seven percent reported that they had attained postsecondary schooling. Seventy-six percent (n = 31) indicated that they had no religious beliefs, with 39% (n = 21) self-reporting as Christians. Two nonvolunteers reported that they had religious beliefs but did not specify which.

Volunteers who had served offenders

Fifty-four volunteers (10 males and 44 females) who had served offenders within the past 12 months were recruited through a nongovernmental organization that served offenders. Their age ranged from 21 to 66 years (M = 33.18 years, SD = 11.47 years). Eighty percent of this group (n = 43) had attained postsecondary schooling. As with past studies (Chui & Cheng, 2013a; Tewksbury & Dabney, 2005), most volunteers who had served offenders (81%; n = 44) reported that they were Christians. Nine had indicated that they held no religious beliefs with one self-reporting as a Buddhist.

Volunteers who had not served offenders

Fifty-four people (19 males and 35 females) who had recent volunteer experience, but who had not served any offenders within the past 12 months were recruited through another nongovernmental organization. They ranged in age from 16 to 59 years (M = 27.61 years, SD = 7.56 years). Eighty-nine percent indicated that they had attained postsecondary schooling. Less than half (44%, n = 24) reported that they were Christians. Twenty-eight indicated that they were nonreligious, with three stating that they were Buddhists.

All participants in both recruitments joined this study on a voluntary basis. After gaining their consent to participate in this study, questionnaires were delivered to them in hard copy. Response rates were about 90% and 85% for the first and second batches of data collection, respectively.

Procedure

Batch 1—Data Collection and Analytical Strategy

The first set of data were used to assess the underlying factor structure and reliability of the scale. Besides filling out the ATP-C Scale, participants provided the researchers with some background information to determine whether any demographic differences (e.g., gender difference) influenced people’s attitudes toward prisoners.

Batch 2—Data Collection and Analytical Strategy

After establishing the factor structure and the preliminary psychometric properties of the ATP-C Scale, the second set of participants was recruited to further validate the scale. First, the three groups of participants (volunteers who had/had not served offenders and nonvolunteers) would be compared on their responses to the ATP-C Scale. According to Melvin et al. (1985), groups of prisoners and people engaged in prisoner rehabilitation or prison reform should hold the most positive attitudes toward prisoners, followed by students, ordinary citizens, and correctional officers. The group with the least favorable attitude should be law enforcement officers. Thus, in the current study, it is expected that volunteers who had served offenders previously would hold more positive attitudes toward prisoners than both volunteers without such experiences and nonvolunteers.

Measures

ATP Scale

This scale consists of 36 items measuring people’s attitudes toward prisoners (Melvin et al., 1985). Responses are to be made on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items include “Prisoners are different from most people.” Melvin et al. (1985) demonstrated satisfactory split-half (r = .84-.92) and test–retest (r = .82) reliability. Their factor analysis showed that the scale was unidimensional in nature, where the single factor reflected general positive or negative attitudes toward prisoners. The scale was translated to Chinese through a forward–backward procedure.

Demographic variables

Relevant demographic characteristics were collected, including gender and age. Gender was measured as a nominal variable (male or female), and age was measured as a continuous variable.

Results

EFA

To evaluate whether the original one-factor model proposed by the scale developers (Melvin et al., 1985) could be transferred to a Chinese context, an EFA was performed on the first data set (n = 157). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were carried out to assess the appropriateness of using factor analysis on the current data set. The KMO value was 0.86, which was greater than the required value of 0.50. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was found to be significant, with a p < .001 (χ² = 2,203.8, df = 630). These statistics suggested that it was a good idea to proceed with conducting a factor analysis.

All 36 items of the full scale were subjected to a principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation. Under Kaiser’s criterion (Kaiser, 1960) of eigenvalues greater than 1, nine factors could be extracted. However, such a nine-factor structure was too complicated and could not be easily interpreted. Therefore, further analyses were performed to explore whether a satisfactory structure with fewer factors could be achieved. It was found that after adding the sixth factor, the percentage increase in total variance explained by any additional factor was small. Also, under a six-factor structure, most of the communalities of variables were high. Therefore, a six-factor solution was chosen.

Factor loadings after varimax rotation of each item are presented in Table 1. While the first four factors were easily interpretable, the last two factors contained very few variables and could not be easily labeled. Therefore, the four items of the last two factors (Items 1, 6, 20, and 30) were discarded, together with three items (Items 23, 27, and 36) that received factor loadings smaller than the cutoff (.40). Moreover, several items had double loadings. To solve this issue of cross loadings, Thurstone’s simple structure rule (Thurstone, 1954) was applied. The rule states that if the percentage difference between the loadings is greater than .05, the item can be considered primarily as belonging to the factor with the higher loading. The only item that failed to meet this criterion was Item 21; therefore, it was dropped. The initial factor loadings are presented in Table 1 and the items that were dropped are shown in bold.

Table 1.

Factor Loadings After Varimax Rotation of Each Item.

	Factor loadings
Items	1	2	3	4	5	6
35. Prisoners only respect raw strength.	.754
29. Prisoners are quite simply immoral.	.727
24. Prisoners are quite simply evil.	.699
19. Prisoners only think about themselves.	.658
13. To try to rehabilitate prisoners is a waste of time and money.	.623	.452
25. Prisoners are always trying to exploit others.	.603
10. Most prisoners are stupid.	.600
03. Prisoners never change.	.571	.449
22. Most prisoners are too lazy to hold an honest job.	.526
31. Prisoners are basically bad people.	.526
09. Give a prisoner a little finger and he takes the whole arm/hand.	.487
17. Prisoners generally think and act alike.	.467
12. You should not expect too much from a prisoner.	.430
27. I would never allow one of my children to go out with a previous prisoner.	.358				.340	.322
02. Only a few prisoners are really dangerous.		.698
11. Prisoners need love and encouragement just like everyone else.		.658
04. Most prisoners are themselves victims and deserve to be helped.		.658
32. Most prisoners can be rehabilitated.		.623
33. Some prisoners are pretty nice people.		.534
05. Prisoners have feelings like everyone else.	.404	.527
18. If you show a prisoner respect, he shows respect back.		.442
34. I would like to spend time with some prisoners.		.439
28. Most prisoners have the ability to love.		.435
36. If a prisoner behaves well in prison he should be released on parole.	.318	.338		.302
16. You constantly have to be on guard with a prisoner.			.690
07. I do like many prisoners.			.653
14. You never know when a prisoner is telling the truth.			.568
23. I would not have anything against being neighbors with a previous prisoner.			.399		.378
15. Prisoners are neither better nor worse than other people.				.612
26. Most prisoners have about the same values as the rest of us.				.576
08. Poor conditions in prison only make the prisoner even more bitter.				.553
21. Prisoners do listen to reason.		.378		.420	.390
06. It is not wise to trust a prisoner too much.					.624
01. Prisoners are different from most people.					.623
30. Prisoners should be kept under strict and tough discipline.						.696
20. There are some prisoners I could place my life in the hands of.						.677

Note. Bolded items were dropped from the scale.

After taking away the said items, the remaining items were subjected to another EFA. This time, we forced the analysis to extract four items from the scale. Both the total variance explained and communalities of variables were satisfactory. Taken together, the four factors could account for 49.52% of the total variance. Only Item 34 loaded on two factors above .40 and their differences were less than .05—therefore, it was dropped.

After the above statistical adjustments, a four-factor structure ATP-C Scale with 27 items was confirmed. Factor 1 consists of 13 items related to the bad character of prisoners as perceived by the participants, such as evilness and stupidity. Hence, the factor was given the name “perceived bad character.” Factor 2 also consists of seven items that describe the way participants perceived prisoners as normal, such as regarding prisoners as nice people who hold similar values with others. Thus, this factor was named “prisoners as normal.” Factor 3 consists of two items that tap into participants’ negative perception of interacting with prisoners, such as the cautious attitude one should have during the interaction. Hence, the factor was labeled “negative perception of interaction.” The last factor consists of five items measuring the empathy that participants show toward the prisoners. Therefore, the factor was labeled as “empathy.” Factor loadings of the finalized structure are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Factor Loadings of the Finalized Structure.

	Factor loadings
Items	1	2	3	4
35. Prisoners only respect raw strength.	.762
24. Prisoners are quite simply evil.	.732
29. Prisoners are quite simply immoral.	.721
19. Prisoners only think about themselves.	.634
13. To try to rehabilitate prisoners is a waste of time and money.	.619
25. Prisoners are always trying to exploit others.	.613
03. Prisoners never change.	.581
10. Most prisoners are stupid.	.578
22. Most prisoners are too lazy to hold an honest job.	.549
17. Prisoners generally think and act alike.	.502
09. Give a prisoner a little finger and he takes the whole arm/hand.	.501
31. Prisoners are basically bad people.	.498
12. You should not expect too much from a prisoner.	.434			.
02. Only a few prisoners are really dangerous.		.715
04. Most prisoners are themselves victims and deserve to be helped.		.698
11. Prisoners need love and encouragement just like everyone else.		.614
33. Some prisoners are pretty nice people.		.605
32. Most prisoners can be rehabilitated.		.598
34. I would like to spend time with some prisoners.		.537	.530
18. If you show a prisoner respect, he shows respect back.		.491
05. Prisoners have feelings like everyone else.		.489
14. You never know when a prisoner is telling the truth.			.707
16. You constantly have to be on guard with a prisoner.			.666
08. Poor conditions in prison only make the prisoner more bitter.				.636
07. I do like many prisoners.				.561
26. Most prisoners have about the same values as the rest of us.				.495
28. Most prisoners have the ability to love.				.465
15. Prisoners are neither better nor worse than other people.				.456

Note. Bolded items were dropped from the scale.

Descriptive Statistics

Means and SDs of the ATP-C subscale scores of the whole sample (Batch 1) and split by gender are shown in Table 3. As indicated by an independent samples t test, there was no significant difference in subscale scores between the two genders except for perceived bad character, where males scored significantly lower than females; t(148) = −2.42, p < .05. In addition, age did not correlate with any of the subscale scores (see Table 4).

Table 3.

Means and Standard Deviations of the ATP-C Subscale Scores of Batch 1 Participants.

M (SD)	All(n = 157)	By gender		Significance
M (SD)	All(n = 157)	Male(n = 72)	Female(n = 84)	Significance
Perceived Bad Character	3.49 (0.521)	3.38 (0.560)	3.59 (0.469)	.017*
Prisoners as Normal	3.70 (0.520)	3.63 (0.524)	3.76 (0.517)	.139
Negative Perception of Interaction	3.04 (0.633)	2.95 (0.667)	3.10 (0.576)	.156
Empathy	3.44 (0.476)	3.41 (0.525)	3.46 (0.434)	.530

Note. One participant did not specify gender. ATP-C = Chinese version of the Attitudes Toward Prisoners.

p < .05.

Table 4.

Correlations Between Age and Subscale Scores of the ATP-C for Batch 1 Participants.

		1.	2.	3.	4.	5.
1.	Perceived Bad Character	—
2.	Prisoners as Normal	.576***	—
3.	Negative Perception of Interaction	.484***	.375***	—
4.	Empathy	.405***	.535***	.274**	—
5.	Age	−.006	.047	.131	−.020	—

Note. ATP-C = Chinese version of the Attitudes Toward Prisoners.

p < .01. ***p < .001.

Reliability Analysis

Internal reliability coefficients for the Perceived Bad Character, Prisoners as Normal, Negative Perception of Interaction, and Empathy subscales as computed by Cronbach’s alpha were .89, .81, .59, and .61, respectively. The four dimensions were significantly related to each other (see Table 4).

Construct Validity

Evidence from the Batch 2 data set

A series of analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed to determine whether there are any differences between nonvolunteers, volunteers who had served prisoners, and volunteers who had not served prisoners, with that of our ATP-C subscales. There were significant between group differences for three subscales: Perceived Bad Character, F(2, 158) = 11.26, p < .001; Prisoners as Normal, F(2, 158) = 10.74, p < .001; and Negative Perception of Interaction, F(2, 158) = 14.02, p < .001. The mean ATP-C and SD scores for the Batch 2 groups are presented Table 5.

Table 5.

Means and Standard Deviations of the ATP-C Subscale Scores of the Three Groups of (Batch 2) Participants.

M (SD)	Nonvolunteers(n = 54)	Volunteers who had not served prisoners(n = 54)	Volunteers who had served prisoners(n = 54)
Perceived Bad Character	3.47 (0.469)	3.72 (0.495)	3.91 (0.486)
Prisoners as Normal	3.63 (0.552)	3.85 (0.478)	4.07 (0.434)
Negative Perception of Interaction	2.85 (0.542)	3.85 (0.478)	3.48 (0.591)
Empathy	3.39 (0.474)	3.57 (0.383)	3.51 (0.454)

Note. ATP-C = Chinese version of the Attitudes Toward Prisoners.

Post hoc Tukey tests revealed that there were significant differences for the factor perceived bad character between nonvolunteers and volunteers who had not served prisoners, p < .05, as well as between nonvolunteers and volunteers who had served volunteers, p < .001. But there were no significant differences between the two volunteer groups. Volunteers who had served prisoners scored higher on perceived bad character than the other two groups. For the factor, prisoners as normal, only nonvolunteers and volunteers who had served prisoners showed any differences between them, p < .001, with volunteers who had served prisoners scoring higher. For negative perception of interaction, there were significant differences between each group. No differences were found between the groups for the factor, empathy.

To control for age and gender, a series of multiple linear regressions were performed for each ATP-C subscale. Two dummy variables were created with the nonvolunteer group acting as the reference. The two demographic variables displayed no significance, whereas volunteers who had served prisoners scored significantly higher with respect to the subscales compared with nonvolunteers except for the factor empathy. Volunteers who had not served prisoners were found to have significant differences compared with nonvolunteers for all subscales. The results of the multiple regressions are presented in Table 6.

Table 6.

Multiple Linear Regression of the Three Groups of (Batch 2) Participants Controlling for Age and Gender for the ATP-C Subscales.

B (SD)	Perceived Bad Character	Prisoners as Normal	Negative Perception of Interaction	Empathy
Age	−0.005 (0.005)	−0.008 (0.005)	0.004 (0.006)	−0.003 (0.004)
Gender (1 = female)	0.098 (0.087)	0.014 (0.088)	0.087 (0.112)	−0.005 (0.080)
Volunteers who had served prisoners	0.495 (0.106)***	0.525 (0.107)***	0.589 (0.136)***	0.147 (0.097)
Volunteers who had not served prisoners	0.283 (0.096)**	0.264 (0.098)**	0.306 (0.124)*	0.195 (0.088)*
Adjusted R²	.120	.115	.134	.007

Note. ATP-C = Chinese version of the Attitudes Toward Prisoners.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to provide a reliable and valid measure for assessing the attitudes Hong Kong Chinese hold toward prisoners. Results demonstrated that the translated version of the ATP Scale (Melvin et al., 1985) is a psychometrically sound instrument and raised the possibility of a factor model unique to the local population.

Unique Four-Factor Structure

The four-factor structure uncovered by our EFA is quite different from the unidimensional model as proposed by the scale developer. It is believed that the difference between these two models is a matter not merely of the number of factors proposed but also of the content and the cultural implications underlying them. Melvin et al. (1985) proposed a one-factor model that tapped into the general positive and negative attitudes toward prisoners. In other words, the positive and negative attitudes were at opposite ends of a single continuum. One could not possibly hold both favorable and negative attitudes toward prisoners at the same time. One could choose to either hate or embrace prisoners, but not both. Under this conceptualization, it is feasible to combine both negative and positive scores to form a single ATP Scale score. Previous studies using the ATP Scale also confirmed this unidimensional factor structure (Kerce et al., 1994; Kjelsberg et al., 2007; Ortet-Fabregat et al., 1993).

The current four-factor model also revealed the positive and negative aspects of people’s attitudes toward prisoners. Yet, instead of clustering all items into a single bipolar dimension, two positive attitudinal factors (empathy and prisoners as normal) and two negative ones (perceived bad character and negative perception of interaction) were found. Such a distinction in factor structure could indeed be explained by cultural differences between the locations of the different studies. While previous studies were conducted in Western countries such as the United States (Kerce et al., 1994; Melvin et al., 1985), Spain (Ortet-Fabregat et al., 1993), and Norway (Kjelsberg et al., 2007), the present study recruited participants in the Hong Kong Chinese community. Thus, the unique factor structure found in our Chinese sample might be explained in terms of Chinese cultural characteristics.

Some researchers have theorized that, in Western cultures, positive and negative emotions cannot easily be experienced simultaneously and, thus, represent opposite categories on a bipolar scale (Green, Goldman, & Salovey, 1993; Schimmack, Oishi, & Diener, 2002; Williams & Aaker, 2002), according to this theory, “one is either happy or sad but not both” (Bagozzi, Wong, & Yi, 1999, p. 646). Yet, in the East, the existence of mixed emotions is both natural and common. Under the influence of dialectical philosophies such as Confucianism and Buddhism, the Chinese have a relatively high acceptance of duality or of situations where two opposite ideas or feelings coexist (Williams & Aaker, 2002). Therefore, the Chinese seem to be more at ease in dealing with conflicting emotions (Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1997; Larsen, McGraw, & Cacioppo, 2001; Schimmack et al., 2002). The above difference in the acceptability of duality is reflected by the greater use of dialectical proverbs (proverbs that contain contradictions) and emotional expressions in Chinese texts or pop songs as compared with American texts and pop songs (Peng & Nisbett, 1999; Shaver, Wu, & Schwartz, 1992).

While the one-factor model of the ATP Scale fits the nondialectical thinking style of Western culture, the four-factor model proposed in this study could accommodate the dialectical philosophies of the Chinese. And, if the one-factor model applicable to the West was directly employed in the Chinese context, people holding both positive and negative attitudes would end up in the midrange of the ATP Scale. Hence, their true attitudes could not be accurately reflected. The new four-factor model unique to Chinese culture allows for the coexistence of both positive and negative attitudes toward prisoners. One can score high on both positive factors (empathy and prisoners as normal) and negative factors (perceived bad character and negative perception of interaction). In this respect, the significant attitudinal patterns of Chinese participants can now be more accurately represented.

Evidence of this duality can be found among our Batch 2 sample, where it appears counterintuitive that volunteers who had served prisoners would score higher on perceived bad character of prisoners and prisoners as normal, in effect, displaying both positive and negative attitudes at the same time. At closer thought however, such coexistence is not too surprising. The same mixed attitudes can be noted from punitive attitudes research where the public, in both Western (Cullen, Fisher, & Applegate, 2000) and Chinese (Cao & Cullen, 2001) contexts, expresses support for both harsh sanctions against and the rehabilitation of offenders. Specifically for volunteers who work with prisoners, past studies pointed to how these volunteers are motivated by a desire to help prisoners and to simply share their beliefs (Chui & Cheng, 2013a, 2013b; Kerley, Matthews, & Shoemaker, 2009). Therefore, volunteers who serve offenders may not only acknowledge their bad character but also feel that they are human beings who deserve support at the same time.

Limitations and Future Directions

One study limitation that must be noted is the reliance on several nonrandom self-reported data from university students and those recruited through nongovernmental organizations. Thus, the results cannot be generalized to Chinese university students or to the general public in Hong Kong and China. Batch 1 of our sample, for instance, were all social work majors. Past research has noted that a student’s major is related to his or her crime-related attitudes, where criminal justice majors were found to be more punitive that noncriminal justice majors (Mackey & Courtright, 2000). Social work majors, however, tended to be more supportive of rehabilitation (Lambert, Pasupuleti, & Allen, 2005).

What this study does is evaluate the construct underlying attitudes toward prisoners in the Hong Kong Chinese context. It points out that differences in thinking style and emotional experiences lead the Chinese to develop perceptions of prisoners that are quite distinct from those of Westerners. Specifically, while positive and negative attitudes toward prisoners fall on the same continuum for Westerners, they are separate constructs that can be experienced simultaneously for the Chinese. Such cultural differences should lead to further research. For example, it was suggested that many East Asian cultures besides the Chinese also have a dialectical way of thinking (Bagozzi et al., 1999; Kitayama, Markus, & Kurokawa, 2000; Schimmack et al., 2002). Thus, it would be of interest to compare the structural model across different countries, using dialectical thinking as the mediator between culture and attitudes toward prisoners. It is expected that people in countries with a nondialectical way of thinking have attitudes toward prisoners that fall on a single continuum. Conversely, people living in countries with dialectical thinking hold attitudes toward prisoners that follow a multidimensional pattern.

By extension, this study also highlights the importance of validating existing scales for use across different cultures, particularly that between East and West. As revealed in the present study, the dialectal way of thinking for Chinese people plays an important role in their perceptions of prisoners. The underlying dimensions in certain scales, even well-established ones such as the ATP, could very well be different in different contexts. Other studies have also shown underlying factors in scales developed in Western countries to be distinct when utilized on non-Western samples. For example, Wong, Chui, and Kwok (2011) found the volunteer satisfaction index (Galindo-Kuhn & Guzley, 2001) to yield a divergent factor structure after validating it using a Chinese sample. If scales are simply translated and utilized without validation, unique underlying cultural dimensions will be missed.

Future studies should also utilize the ATP-C to measure attitudes of criminal justice professionals in Chinese societies. Past studies have consistently found that law enforcement and correction officers hold the most negative attitudes toward prisoners compared with those engaged in rehabilitating offenders and the general public. But as noted above, the Hong Kong correctional system emphasizes the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders; it would be interesting to see whether the attitudes of those working in the criminal justice system possess views that are different from the official discourse.

To conclude, the present study has gone beyond translating and validating the ATP-C Scale (Melvin et al., 1985). By demonstrating satisfactory psychometric properties, the ATP-C Scale can now be used for research, assessment, and policy development in the Chinese societies. Moreover, through the discovery of a new factor structure, this study furthers cross-cultural research on people’s attitudes toward prisoners.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on earlier versions of the article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The 3-year study, including the work described in this article, is fully supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Project No. 442208).

Author Biographies

Wing Hong Chui, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at City University of Hong Kong. His research interests include social work, youth studies, criminology, and criminal justice.

Kevin Kwok-yin Cheng, PhD, is an associate professor in the Faculty of Law at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research interests include criminal justice and sociolegal studies.

References

Adorjan

Chui

W. H.

(2012). Making sense of going straight: Personal accounts of male ex-prisoners in Hong Kong. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 577-590.

Bagozzi

R. P.

Wong

(1999). The role of culture and gender in the relationship between positive and negative affect. Cognition and Emotion, 13, 641-672.

Barnett

M. E.

Brodsky

S. L.

Davis

C. M.

(2004). When mitigation evidence makes a difference: Effects of psychological mitigating evidence on sentencing decisions in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 751-770.

Barretto

Miers

Lambie

(2018). The views of the public on youth offenders and the New Zealand criminal justice system. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 129-149.

Boothyby

J. L.

Overduin

L. Y.

(2007). Attitudes regarding the compassionate release of terminally ill offenders. The Prison Journal, 87, 408-415.

Brody

R. G.

Luo

(2009). Fraud and white-collar crime: A Chinese perspective. Cross-Cultural Management, 16, 317-326.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Gardner

W. L.

Gary

G. B.

(1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 3-25.

Cao

Cullen

F. T.

(2001). Thinking about crime and control: A comparative study of Chinese and American ideology. International Criminal Justice Review, 11, 58-81.

Carroll

J. S.

Perkowitz

W. T.

Lurigio

A. J.

Weaver

F. M.

(1987). Sentencing goals, causal attributions, ideology, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 107-118.

10.

Chen

(2004). Social and legal control in China: A comparative perspective. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 523-536.

11.

Chui

W. H.

(2001). Theoretical underpinnings of community-based sentences and custody for young offenders in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Law Journal, 31, 266-282.

12.

Chui

W. H.

(2002). The social work model of probation supervision for offenders in Hong Kong. Probation Journal, 49, 297-304.

13.

Chui

W. H.

(2017). Probation and community service orders. In Chui

W. H.

T. W.

(Eds.), Understanding criminal justice in Hong Kong (2nd ed., pp. 291-311). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

14.

Chui

W. H.

Cheng

K. K.

(2013a). Effects of volunteering experiences and motivations on attitudes toward prisoners: Evidence from Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Criminology, 8, 103-114.

15.

Chui

W. H.

Cheng

K. K.

(2013b). Self-perceived role and function of Christian prison chaplains and Buddhist volunteers in Hong Kong prisons. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 154-168.

16.

Chui

W. H.

Cheng

K. K.

Ong

(2015). Attitudes of the Hong Kong Chinese public towards sex offending policies: The role of stereotypical views of sex offenders. Punishment & Society, 17, 94-113.

17.

Chui

W. H.

Cheng

K. K. Y.

Wong

L. P.

(2013). Gender, fear of crime, and attitudes toward prisoners among social work majors. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 479-494.

18.

Church

W. T.

Wakeman

E. E.

Miller

S. L.

Clements

C. B.

Sun

(2008). The community attitudes toward sex offenders scale: The development of a psychometric assessment instrument. Research on Social Work Practices, 18, 251-259.

19.

Cullen

F. T.

Fisher

B. S.

Applegate

B. K.

(2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice, 27, 1-79.

20.

Ferguson

Ireland

C. A.

(2006). Attitudes towards sex offenders and the influence of offence type: A comparison of staff working in a forensic setting and students. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 8(2), 10-19.

21.

Fielding

N. G.

Fielding

(1991). Police attitudes to crime and punishment. British Journal of Criminology, 31, 39-53.

22.

Galindo-Kuhn

Guzley

R. M.

(2001). The volunteer satisfaction index: Construct definition, measurement, development, and validation. Journal of Social Service Research, 28, 45-68.

23.

Glaser

(1969). The effectiveness of a prison and parole system. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

24.

Gottlieb

(2017). The effect of message frames on public attitudes toward criminal justice reform for nonviolent offenses. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 636-656.

25.

Green

D. P.

Goldman

S. L.

Salovey

(1993). Measurement error masks bipolarity in affect ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1029-1041.

26.

Hogarth

(1974). Sentencing as a human process. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

27.

Hong Kong Correctional Services. (2018). Annual review 2016. Retrieved from http://www.csd.gov.hk/english/pub/pub_ar/pub_ar.html

28.

Ireland

J. L.

Quinn

(2007). Officer attitudes towards adult male prisoners who self-harm: Development of an attitudinal measure and investigation of sex differences. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 63-72.

29.

Jiang

Lambert

E. G.

Jenkins

(2010). East meets west: Chinese and U.S. college students’ views on formal and informal crime control. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 264-284.

30.

Jiang

Lambert

E. G.

Nathan

V. M.

(2009). Reasons for death penalty attitudes among Chinese citizens: Retributive or instrumental? Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 225-233.

31.

Jiang

Lambert

E. G.

Wang

(2007a). Capital punishment views in China and the United States: A preliminary study among college students. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 84-97.

32.

Jiang

Lambert

E. G.

Wang

(2007b). Correlates of formal and informal social/crime control in China: An exploratory study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 261-271.

33.

Jiang

Wang

(2008). Correlates of support for capital punishment in China. International Criminal Justice Review, 18, 24-38.

34.

Jones

Vagg

(2007). Criminal justice in Hong Kong. Abingdon, UK: Routledge-Cavendish.

35.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141-151.

36.

Kerce

E. W.

Magnusson

Rudolph

(1994). The attitudes of navy corrections staff members: What they think about confinees and their jobs. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.

37.

Kerley

K. R.

Matthews

T. L.

Shoemaker

(2009). A simple plan, a simple faith: Chaplains and lay ministers in Mississippi prisons. Review of Religious Research, 51, 87-103.

38.

Kitayama

Markus

H. R.

Kurokawa

(2000). Culture, emotion, and well-being: Good feelings in Japan and the United States. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 93-124.

39.

Kjelsberg

Loos

L. H

. (2008). Conciliation or condemnation? Prison employees’ and young peoples’ attitudes towards sexual offenders. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 7, 95-103.

40.

Kjelsberg

Skoglund

T. H.

Rustad

(2007). Attitudes towards prisoners, as reported by prison inmates, prison employees and college students. BMC Public Health, 7, 1-9.

41.

Lambert

E. G.

Jiang

(2006). A comparison of Chinese and US college students’ crime and crime control views. Asian Journal of Criminology, 1, 37-49.

42.

Lambert

E. G.

Pasupuleti

Allen

R. I.

(2005). Punishment and rehabilitation views of social work majors and non-social work students: An exploratory study. Journal of the South Carolina Academy of Science, 3, 31-42.

43.

Larsen

J. T.

McGraw

Cacioppo

J. T.

(2001). Can people feel happy and sad at the same time? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 684-696.

44.

Mackey

D. A.

Courtright

K. E.

(2000). Assessing punitiveness among college students: A comparison of criminal justice majors with other majors. The Justice Professional, 12, 423-441.

45.

Melvin

K. B.

Gramling

L. K.

Gardner

W. M.

(1985). A scale to measure attitudes toward prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 241-253.

46.

Moore

Yates

Mallindine

Ryan

Jackson

Chinnon

Hammond

(2002). Expressed emotion in relationships between staff and patients in forensic services: Changes in relationship status at 12 month follow-up. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 7, 203-218.

47.

Morgan

R. D.

Beer

A. M.

Fitzgerald

K. L.

Mandracchia

J. T.

(2007). Graduate students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward correctional/forensic psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 96-107.

48.

Murphy

Brown

(2000). Exploring gender role identity, value orientation of occupation and sex of respondent in influencing attitudes towards male and female offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5, 285-290.

49.

Loftus

E. F.

(1998). Attitudes toward law and prisoners, conservative authoritarianism, attribution, and internal–external locus of control: Korean and American law students and undergraduates. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 595-615.

50.

Nelson

Herlihy

Oescher

. (2002). A survey of counsellor’s attitudes towards sex offenders. Journal of Mental Health Counselling, 24, 51-67.

51.

Ortet-Fabregat

Perez

Lewis

(1993). Measuring attitudes toward prisoners: A psychometric assessment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20, 190-198.

52.

Peng

Nisbett

R. E.

(1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54, 741-754.

53.

Sahlstrom

K. J.

Jeglic

E. L.

(2008). Factors affecting attitudes toward juvenile sex offenders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 17, 180-192.

54.

Schimmack

Oishi

Diener

(2002). Cultural influences on the relation between pleasant emotions and unpleasant emotions: Asian dialectic philosophies or individualism-collectivism? Cognition and Emotion, 16, 705-719.

55.

Shannon

S. K. S.

Page

(2014). Bureaucrats on the cell block: Prison officers’ perceptions of work environment and attitudes toward prisoner. Social Service Review, 88, 630-657.

56.

Shaver

P. R.

Schwartz

J. C.

(1992). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in emotion and its representation. In Clark

M. S.

(Ed.), Emotion (pp. 175-212). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

57.

Tewksbury

Dabney

(2005). Prison volunteers: Profiles, motivations, satisfaction. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40, 173-183.

58.

Thurstone

L. L.

(1954). An analytical method for simple structure. Psychometrika, 19, 173-182.

59.

Trevethan

Rastin

C. J.

Bell

Gillis

(2004). Citizens’ advisory committees in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Research Branch, Correctional Service of Canada.

60.

Williams

Aaker

J. L.

(2002). Can mixed emotions peacefully coexist? Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 636-650.

61.

Wong

L. P.

Chui

W. H.

Kwok

Y. Y.

(2011). The volunteer satisfaction index: A validation study in the Chinese cultural context. Social Indicators Research, 104, 19-32.

62.

Sun

I. Y.

(2011). Support for the death penalty: Chinese and American college students compared. Punishment & Society, 13, 354-376.