Student Reactions to Public Safety Reports of Hate Crimes

Abstract

This study investigated participant’s reactions to hate crime versus nonbiased crime incident reports that included more or less detail about the crime using a 2 (victim race: African American, unstated) × 2 (amount of information: vague, detailed) between-subjects factorial design. We hypothesized that participants would be more sympathetic, more distressed, and blame the victim less if the victim was African American (designating a hate crime) and if more detail was included in the incident report. The results generally showed greater psychological impact for a hate crime versus nonbiased crime and when more information was presented than with vague information, and these two manipulations did not interact in influencing participants’ reactions. These results indicate that amount of detail provided about a crime should be considered when publishing incident reports.

Keywords

hate crimes media violence

Two men were brutally murdered in 1998 because they were “different.” Matthew Shepard, with skull fractures and a damaged brainstem, was tied to a fence and left to die because he was gay. James Byrd Jr. was pulled to his death behind a pick-up truck because he was Black. These are two well-publicized examples of hate crimes, defined legally as a crime against a person or their property because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994; Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act). Any criminal activity can be motivated by hate, so hate crimes can include a wide range of behaviors such as intimidation, vandalism, or assault (see Green, McFalls, & Smith, 2001; U.S. Department of Education, 2011). President Obama recently expanded the Unites States federal hate crime law, naming it the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, to “help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray, or who they are” (“Obama signs hate,” 2009). There were 6,604 hate crimes reported in the United States in 2010 (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009), although hate crimes are generally underreported (Green et al., 2001; Rayburn, Earleywine, & Davison, 2003).

Psychology researchers have devoted effort to understanding hate crimes, why they occur, and who commits them (for reviews see Craig, 2002; Green et al., 2001). The current research expands on previous investigations of individuals’ reactions to hate crimes. In most past research on reactions to hate crimes, participants read a scenario or description of a crime with victims and perpetrators of different races, with a minority victim designating a hate crime. Participants are often asked to play the members of a mock jury to give a sentencing decision for the perpetrator or to give their reactions to the incident in general. Past research has shown that perpetrators of hate crimes are given harsher penalties (e.g., jail sentences) than those committing nonbiased crimes (Craig & Waldo, 1996; Cramer, Chandler, & Wakeman, 2010; Marcus-Newhall, Blake, & Bauman, 2002; Saucier, Brown, Mitchell, & Cawman, 2006; Saucier, Hockett, & Wallenberg, 2008; Saucier, Hockett, Zanotti, & Heffel, 2010) and victims of hate crimes are seen as less responsible for the crime than victims of nonbiased crimes (Rayburn, Mendoza, & Davison, 2003; Saucier et al., 2008, 2010).

In our study, we follow a similar paradigm and manipulate whether a crime is perceived by students as a hate crime by changing the race of the victim of threatening remarks—either an African American victim or a victim of unmentioned race. We used a racial hate crime because a high number of hate crimes target African Americans: In 2009, 48.5% of the reported single-bias hate crimes were racially based and 71.4% of those crimes were reported as being anti-Black (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009). We also used a mock public safety report to present students with information about a crime, which they read as a member of the campus community in which the crime reportedly took place. In addition, most of the past research has focused on the perpetrators of the crime in terms of sentencing, but there is less research on the psychological impact on readers who read a hate crime report versus when the incident is not biased. Our research works to address this missing link.

Specifically, we are interested in the sympathetic response elicited toward the victim of a hate crime, as well as other psychological reactions elicited in people who read about a hate crime. Sympathy is defined as awareness of the suffering of another person as something to be alleviated (Wispé, 1986). A sympathetic response could be beneficial in reaction to hate crimes because sympathy, and the related concept of empathy (Lowenstein & Small, 2007; Stephan & Finlay, 1999), are associated with increased helping behavior (Batson, 1991; Eisenberg et al., 1989; Lowenstein & Small, 2007; Shih, Wang, Bucher, Stotzer, 2009) and reductions in prejudice (Batson et al., 1997; Dovidio et al., 2004; Finlay & Stephan, 2000; Shih et al., 2009; Vescio, Sechrist, & Paolucci, 2003). Thus, if hate crime incidents could elicit sympathy, they could be used to enhance intergroup attitudes and behaviors.

Craig (1999) showed no difference between peoples’ responses to hate crimes and nonbiased crimes in terms of excitement, anxiety, or irritation. However, participants in this study also watched control scenes that were not criminal in nature (e.g., people walking on a campus, kittens playing with toys) and thus differences in the emotional reactions to the hate versus nonbiased crime may have been overshadowed by the difference between the crime and noncrime scenes. Thus, more research should assess how participants view the information presented in the hate crimes and the emotions evoked from them in order to understand the impact of hate crime incident reports on the public. In fact, Lyons (2006) stated that part of the function of hate crime laws is to encourage sympathetic reactions to victims who suffer violence and harassment because of their minority status. Lyons (2006) believed this sympathy may be partially manifested in attributions of reduced blame to the victims of race-based hate crimes, as demonstrated in past research (e.g., Rayburn et al., 2003; Saucier et al., 2010). To expand on past research, we measured sympathy directly by asking participants about their feelings toward the victim, rather than relying on victim blame as a proxy for sympathy. Based on findings related to victim blame, we expected a hate crime to elicit more sympathy for the victim and greater distress than a nonbiased crime. This hypothesis is also supported by research suggesting that decreased anonymity of a victim and increased vividness are tied to sympathy (Lowenstein & Small, 2007), and knowing the victim’s race and that it is a hate crime could help to make the victim less anonymous and the crime more vivid.

Another way to increase sympathy could be to increase the amount of detail included in the vignette. News media often gives short descriptions of hate crimes, as well as other crimes, which may be the basis for public opinion and knowledge of hate crimes. Race was not often mentioned in media reports of crime incidents in major newspapers (see Chermak, 1998; Chermak & Chapman, 2007), limiting the information given about crimes and whether they may have been driven by bias. Departments of public safety on college campuses also play a role in creating awareness, given that in 2009, 11.4% of reported hate crimes occurred at schools or colleges (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009) and both victims and perpetrators are often young adults (Craig & Waldo, 1996; Downey & Stage, 1999). College campuses are required by law to create an annual security report, including hate crimes, and distribute this to all currently enrolled students (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Within this report, victims and persons accused of committing crimes are not to be identified. Thus, personally identifiable information is removed from the reports, which sometimes results in a vague report. However, more information about a crime may result in a better ability of readers to take the perspective of the victim in the crime, increase the vividness of the mental picture readers have of the crime, and decrease the anonymity of the victim, all of which increase sympathy (Lowenstein & Small, 2007). If people are able to better imagine the event and take the victim’s perspective due to the inclusion of more detail, they may feel more sympathetic toward the victim, but no past research has tested this proposition. The detailed information may not even have to be about the victim to elicit sympathy, as long as the reader is better able to imagine the incident. Thus, in our study we included more information about the crime itself to assess whether providing more information about crimes may result in greater feelings of sympathy and distress.

In sum, this study sought to test whether the amount of detail included in public safety incident reports and whether the victim was African American, distinguishing it as a hate crime, would have an effect on the students’ reactions to the crime. Consistent with and extending past research, we hypothesized that hate crime incidents with an African American victim would result in the participant perceiving more harm, having greater feelings of sympathy toward the victim, feeling more distressed, and less blaming the victim than nonbiased crimes. We also manipulated the amount of detail provided about the incident, and hypothesized that the incident reports with more detail should result in participants perceiving the victim was harmed as well as greater sympathy toward the victim, more distress, more awareness of crime, and less blaming the victim when compared to vague reports. In addition, we crossed these two factors in an ANOVA design to assess whether the effects of detail and the race of the victim interact to create perceptions of the victim and reactions to the crime.

Method

Participants

A total of 147 (30 male, 116 female, and one unreported sex) undergraduate students participated in the study. The participants’ average age was 19.9 (SD = 1.28) and they were 65.3% Caucasian, 15.0% Hispanic/Latino, 11.6% Asian American/Pacific Islander, and 8.2% other, mixed, or unreported race. None of the participants were African American, although they were not intentionally excluded from the study. Students either received course credit for their participation or were selected at random from public areas and classes on campus.

Procedure and Design

The study was a 2 (victim race: African American, unstated) × 2 (amount of information: vague, detailed) between-subjects factorial design. The crime against an African American victim represented a hate crime, whereas the crime against a victim of unstated race was a nonbiased crime. After signing the consent form, participants were randomly assigned one of four incident report vignettes. The vignettes varied by either including or not including specific detail about the crime and by either mentioning or not mentioning the race of the victim. After reading the vignette, participants completed a questionnaire assessing their reaction to the incident and reported their demographic characteristics.

Materials

Incident Reports

The crime incident reports that the participants read were based on previous public safety reports and incident descriptions used in Craig and Waldo (1996). For half of the participants, the incident report was vague and included no specific information about what type of crime or how any crime was committed. The detailed conditions incorporated verbal threats of physical behavior and derogatory comments, specifically, threatening to run the victim over and foul language.

The type of the crime was manipulated by explicitly stating that the victim was an African American (indicating a hate crime) or not stating the victim’s race. The vignette for the detail conditions included the racial slur “nigger” (cf. Saucier et al., 2008) along with other race-neutral profanity used in both vignettes. Racial slurs are often used as an indicator of a hate crime as they speak to the motivation of the perpetrator (Czajkoski, 1992; Herek, Cogan, & Gillis, 2002) given that not all crimes with a minority victim are hate crimes.

The crime incident report was as follows (with the hate crime and detailed information in brackets):

On April 23, 2009 at 10:30pm, the Department of Public Safety received a report from an [African American] individual who was walking through the main parking structure. The victim reported being threatened by another individual while walking in the structure after a sporting event. [The victim said that the individual threatened multiple times to “run them over with their car” and was called names such as [“nigger,”] “fucker,” and “asshole.”] The perpetrator has been described as a male, approximately 6’1” in height, wearing khaki pants and black t-shirt. The reporting party contacted Department of Public Safety approximately 15 minutes after the incident occurred. Public Safety officers responded but were unable to locate anyone in the area matching the description. The incident remains under investigation.

Dependent Measures

Participants rated their level of agreement or disagreement with a range of statements on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). A principal axis factor analysis was computed on the 15 items that represented the dependent measures, which resulted in four scales. An item asking about sympathy double-loaded in two scales and is thus analyzed separately.

Perception of harm

Participants were given three different statements in which they were asked to agree or disagree with whether they felt “harm was done to the victim,” it was “necessary for the victim to report this incident,” and whether a crime was committed (α = .81). An item asking whether the perpetrator was justified in their actions toward the victim double-loaded on this factor and the victim responsibility factor and is thus not included in this scale.

Sympathy

Sympathy was measured with one item in the questionnaire asking their agreement with the statement “I feel sympathy towards the victim.”

Distress

Five items asked participants to indicate how they felt after reading about the incident: “upset,” “distressed,” “less safe,” that “as a member of the community [they] feel like this incident has an impact on [them],” and that the incident had “not changed my personal views of crime on campus” (reverse scored; α = .87).

Victim responsibility

The questionnaire contained three statements to determine the participant’s view of victim responsibility. They included statements that “the victim provoked the perpetrator,” “the victim could have prevented the incident,” and the “victim most likely did something to cause the incident” (α = .79).

Awareness of crime

Two items assessed whether or not the participant felt more aware of crimes on campus after reading about the incident by asking if they felt “more informed” and “more aware” of crimes occurring on campus (α = .82).

Manipulation Checks

In addition, there were two manipulation checks; one for each independent variable. Participants’ understanding of the type of crime depicted in the incident report was assessed by asking participants if they agreed with the statement “this crime should be considered a hate crime” from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Participants in the conditions that involved an African American victim were expected to agree with the hate crime statement more than other participants who were in the unstated victim race condition. There was also a question asking participants if they agreed with the statement that “it is difficult to understand this incident because there isn’t enough information” from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Participants in the conditions that involved vague information were expected to agree with this statement more than participants in the detailed condition.

Results

We performed 2 (victim race: African American, unstated) × 2 (amount of information: vague, detailed) ANOVAs to assess the impact of victim race and the amount of detail included in the crime incident report on each of the dependent variables (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations). For all analyses, p-values less than .05 were considered significant.

Table 1.

The Effects of Victim Race and Amount of Information on Each Dependent Measure.

	Victim Race					Amount of Information
	African American		Unstated			Vague		Detailed
	M	SD	M	SD	d	M	SD	M	SD	d
Perception of harm	6.09_a	0.98	4.98_b	1.22	0.98	4.84_a	1.18	5.94_b	1.08	0.97
Sympathy	5.85_a	1.39	4.82_b	1.31	0.76	4.70_a	1.28	5.68_b	1.40	0.72
Distress	4.51_a	1.00	3.33_b	1.51	0.88	3.12_a	1.33	4.38_b	1.29	0.95
Victim responsibility	2.27_a	1.09	3.06_b	1.16	0.69	2.86_a	1.06	2.64_a	1.31	0.18
Awareness of crime	4.14_a	1.50	3.17_a	1.49	0.65	3.02_a	1.53	4.02_b	1.44	0.67

Note: d = standardized mean effect size, corrected for small sample bias. Means within a row under each independent variable with different subscripts are statistically significant at p < .05.

Manipulation Checks

One manipulation check was used to see if participants felt that more information should have been included in the vague condition than in the detailed condition. As expected, individuals in the vague condition (M = 5.85, SD = 1.37) indicated that it was more difficult to understand the incident because not enough information was provided than participants in the detailed condition (M = 4.67, SD = 1.76), F(1, 143) = 20.21, p < .001, d = 0.75. Participants in the unstated victim race condition (M = 5.56, SD = 1.62) also indicated that not enough information was provided more so than those in the African American victim condition (M = 4.94, SD = 1.69), F(1, 143) = 5.01, p = .03, d = 0.37. The interaction between victim race and amount of information included in the incident report was not significant, F(1, 143) = 0.08, p = .78.

The second manipulation check was used to determine if participants had understanding of whether the incident was a hate crime or not. Participants who read about an African American victim (M = 4.63, SD = 1.78) agreed the incident should be classified as a hate crime significantly more so than participants in the unstated victim race condition (M = 3.38, SD = 1.67), F(1, 143) = 22.19, p < .001, d = 0.72. Participants in the detailed condition (M = 4.74, SD = 1.95) agreed that the vignette they read was a hate crime significantly more than individuals in the vague condition (M = 3.22, SD = 1.33), regardless of the race of the victim, F(1, 143) = 34.69, p < .001, d = 0.91. There was not a significant interaction between victim race and the amount of information included in the incident report, F(1, 143) = 3.25, p = .07. Overall, 100 out of 147 participants answered the hate crime manipulation check in the way we expected, which we defined as agreeing at least somewhat with the incident being a hate crime when the victim was African American by giving a score of 5 or higher on the 7-point scale and being neutral or disagreeing at least somewhat with the incident being a hate crime when the victim’s race was not indicated by giving a score of 4 or lower. Of the participants who did not pass the manipulation check, 66% labeled the crime with an African American victim as not likely to be a hate crime and 34% said that the nonbiased crime was likely a hate crime. When using only those participants who passed the manipulation check, participants who read about an African American victim (M = 5.95, SD = 0.94) agreed the incident should be classified as a hate crime significantly more so than participants in the unstated victim race condition (M = 2.77, SD = 1.26), F(1, 96) = 119.75, p < .001, d = 2.75. There was not a significant main effect of amount of information, F(1, 96) = 1.14, p = .29, or an interaction between victim race and the amount of information included in the incident report, F(1, 96) = 2.49, p = .12. Thus, we used only these participants in the data analysis below.

Perception of Harm

Participants who read about an African American victim thought that the crime was more harmful than participants who read the report with a victim of unstated race, F(1, 95) = 6.97, p = .01 (see Table 1). In addition, and as expected, participants in the detailed condition also thought that the crime was more harmful than participants in the vague condition, F(1, 95) = 11.61, p = .001. The interaction between victim race and the amount of information included in the incident report was not significant, F(1, 95) = 1.41, p = .99.

Sympathy

Participants in the African American victim condition felt more sympathetic toward the victim than participants in the unstated victim race condition, F(1, 96) = 4.21, p = .04. In addition, and as expected, participants in the detailed condition indicated feeling more sympathetic toward the victim than participants in the vague condition, F(1, 96) = 6.18, p = .02. The interaction between victim race and the amount of information was not significant, F(1, 96) = 0.82, p = .37.

Distress

As expected, participants in the African American victim condition indicated that they felt more distressed than participants in the unstated victim race condition, F(1, 96) = 5.58, p = .02. In addition, participants in the detailed condition were more distressed by the incident than participants in the vague condition, F(1, 96) = 10.75, p = .001. The interaction between victim race and the amount of information included in the incident report was not significant, F(1, 96) = 0.33, p = .57.

Victim Responsibility

As expected, participants who read about an African American victim thought the victim was less responsible for the crime than participants who read about a victim of unstated race, F(1, 95) = 9.31, p = .003. The main effect for the amount of information included in the incident report was not significant, F(1, 95) = 0.21, p = .65, and neither was the interaction between victim race and amount of information, F(1, 95) = 0.04, p = .84.

Awareness of Crime

As expected, participants in the detailed condition indicated that they felt more aware of crime on campus after reading the incident than those in the vague condition, F(1, 96) = 4.05, p = .047. However, the main effect of victim race was not statistically significant, F(1, 96) = 3.67, p = .06, nor was the interaction between victim race and amount of information, F(1, 96) = 0.03, p = .87.

Additional Analyses

Including all of the participants in the analyses, regardless of whether they passed the hate crime manipulation check, resulted in very similar findings. The main effect of victim race on sympathy was only marginally significant (p = .10, d = 0.28), but all other results remained significant and no statistically significant interactions occurred.

An alternative way to analyze the data is to use the hate crime manipulation check, with responses of five or higher indicating a perceived hate crime and responses of four or lower as a nonbiased crime, in place of the manipulated victim race variable. That is, the hate crime manipulation check indicated participants who thought the crime incident was a hate crime, regardless of the race of the victim. This classification of participants created only correlational results, as the variable was not manipulated. However, the results were very similar to those reported with the victim race variable. Two main differences occurred: The effect of labeling the crime a hate crime on sympathy became marginally significant (p = .053, d = 0.71) and the effect on awareness of crime on campus became significant (p = .03, d = 0.68), with participants who believed the crime was a hate crime (regardless of the manipulated race of the victim) reporting higher awareness.

Discussion

Our study assessed whether the type of crime and the amount of information included in a public safety report changed the way participants reacted to it using a 2 (victim race: African American, unstated) × 2 (amount of information: vague, detailed) between-subjects factorial design. We hypothesized that the hate crime (with an African American victim) and incidents published with more detail would heighten reactions to the crime compared to the nonbiased crime (with a victim of unstated race) and incidents with less detail.

The manipulation check on the amount of information in the report showed the expected effect that the vague incident was rated as more difficult to understand because of a lack of information than the detailed incident. Participants in the unstated victim race condition also indicated that not enough information was provided more often than those who were told the victim was African American, although this effect is smaller than the effect for the amount of information. Perhaps participants who read the explicitly racist incident could better picture the event (including the race of the individuals involved) and thus felt that they had a better grasp of the incident than those in the vague condition. It should be noted, however, that the mean rating on this scale in all conditions was around 5 on a 7-point scale, indicating general agreement with the idea that more information is needed in all conditions.

The manipulation check for the type of crime indicated that participants believed the crime was more likely to be labeled a hate crime when the victim was explicitly stated as African American than when no race was mentioned, indicating that the students understood that a racially-biased crime was more likely to be a hate crime. However, 32% of participants miscategorized the crime, compared to our manipulation of victim race. Although this is seemingly a high rate of incorrect judgments, it may not be unusual considering that many students do not understand the definition of a hate crime and have a difficult time applying the definition of hate crimes to actual criminal incidents (Craig & Waldo, 1996; Miller, 2001). The race of the perpetrator was not mentioned, which may have influenced participant’s perceptions of the crime as interracial crimes (e.g., a Caucasian perpetrator and African American victim) are more likely to be hate crimes (e.g., Saucier et al., 2010). In addition, it appears that when given more information (which included name-calling), participants may have interpreted the incident as a hate crime and perhaps assumed the victim was the member of a minority group even though race was not explicitly mentioned in the description of the incident. This result is consistent with research showing that students were more likely to classify a crime as a hate crime when a racial slur was used (Saucier et al., 2008), which is unsurprising given that racial slurs are often used as an indicator of a hate crime. Thus, to test the impact of a hate crime on psychological perceptions, we limited the analysis to participants who passed the manipulation check.

Effects of Victim Race

Consistent with our hypotheses, participants felt more strongly that the incident was harmful when the victim was described as African American. Participants also felt more sympathetic for an African American victim than an unstated victim and significantly more distressed after reading about a hate crime incident than a nonbiased one. All of these effects are large. These results may indicate that with the race included, the reader can identify with the victim, reducing anonymity. In addition, perhaps with the race of the victim mentioned, participants were able to create a more vivid picture of the incident. All of these factors could have resulted in greater sympathy (see Loewenstein & Small, 2007).

We should note, however, that our one-item sympathy measure could be improved in future research with the inclusion of a multiple-item measure with greater reliability. Because it asked directly about sympathy, participants may have given the socially desirable response. However, we feel social desirability is an unlikely explanation for our effects because sympathy toward any victim should be socially desirable, and in this between-subjects design participants did not have to indicate greater or lesser sympathy for different victims.

Consistent with past research (Rayburn et al., 2003; Saucier et al., 2008, 2010), participants perceived the victim as significantly less responsible for the hate crime than the nonbiased crime. Victims of crimes, regardless of type may generally be considered innocent, as indicated by the generally low means on ratings of victim responsibility. In hate crimes, victims are targeted based on their identification with a demographic group, which is something they cannot control, leading to less blaming the victim.

However, participants did not feel significantly more aware of crime on campus when victim race was included than when race was unstated. This could be due to the fact that the most important pieces of information in the report are about the crime itself and not details about the victim (Chermak, 1998). Knowing the race of the victim does not necessarily add to information about crime on campus compared to not knowing this information. Although, participants in the unstated victim race condition indicated significantly more than participants in the African American victim condition that more information should have been included. Thus, the race of the victim was not an important piece of information in creating awareness of crime on campus but may still be relevant for other responses to the incident reports.

Using all participants, instead of only those who passed the hate crime manipulation check, the results were very similar although in some cases weaker. The fact that the results were stronger when participants actually labeled the incident with an African American victim as a hate crime suggests that the label “hate crime” is a powerful factor in creating perceptions. Future research should address the labeling issue directly by outwardly stating whether the crime is classified as a hate crime or not, or leaving the classification ambiguous and noting differences in the psychological impact of the incident report on students. Another possibility would be to include the definition of a hate crime at the bottom of each incident report in order to prompt readers to label the crime as a hate crime.

Effects of the Amount of Information

As predicted, participants were more likely to report that the crime was harmful when more information was presented. In addition, when more information was included in the incident report, the participants felt more sympathy for the victim, more distressed by the crime, and more aware of crime on campus and the effect sizes show that these are large differences. We suggest that when detailed information was given participants were better able to imagine or picture the incident due to its vividness and perhaps take the perspective of the victim. In using their imagination they are able to picture the event that occurred, and thus feel more distressed and sympathetic (see Loewenstein & Small, 2007). Participants are more likely to think about and remember a message more if it contains more emotional rather than neutral elements (Kensinger & Corkin, 2003), which is likely the case in the incident report that contained more detail, including profanity, which we argue could create an emotional reaction. Therefore, if more information is included regarding the crime, participants are able to gain a better understanding of the crime that occurred enabling them to be more psychologically impacted and increasing their awareness. Thus, although publication of hate crimes can create panic, perhaps disproportional to base rates (see Colomb & Damphousse, 2004), our results suggest that the consensus not to explicitly mention the detailed nature of a hate crime in published reports of such incidents could also have an adverse effect on people’s reactions to the crime in terms of reduced sympathy, distress, and perceived harm. Future research should address the long-term implications of reading different types of crime reports in terms of memory for the event and impact over time.

Contrary to our hypothesis that more information would reduce attributions of victim blame, we found no significant difference between the incident reports that included the specific threats made by the perpetrator and those without this extra information. A possible explanation for why more information did not reduce victim blaming may be that the report depicted the perpetrator making threats toward the victim, with no description of the actions of the victim either before or after these threats. Although the general scenario could be interpreted in a way to suggest that the victim of the threats was not completely innocent in the situation (e.g., they could have taunted the perpetrator), most students appeared to assume the victim was not to blame for the incident.

Another reason why greater detail was important in participants’ reactions to the incident report is that the greater detail about the threats given in the incident may be seen as more severe than the report without this detail. More severe crimes also result in lesser victim responsibility, which is considered a sympathetic response (e.g., Gold et al., 1977; Saucier et al., 2008). However, participants are certainly free to interpret the vague information as equivalent or even higher in severity than the threat because the incident does not explicitly state what the threat was. Thus, some participants may have felt the less detailed report was less severe, but others may have believed it to be at least equally severe as the detailed report. We used a vague report that was realistic in comparison to the information provided in most published reports of campus crime. In addition, the main analyses used only those participants who viewed the crime with an African American victim as a hate crime, and that label itself may imply a certain level of severity. The fact that the detailed report was perceived as more likely to be a crime than the less detailed report and that it elicited stronger responses by our participants suggests that detail is useful in creating reactions to incident reports, as it allows participants to clearly understand the nature of the crime and appropriately match their reactions to the crime. Because in most cases incident reports are lacking details, especially in hate crime situations, in order to protect the victim, we argue that adding detail to the incident reports would also likely add severity as well as vivid imagery. We should also note that the added detail also necessitated greater length (one more sentence). Thus, participants had to spend slightly more time reading the incident report. However, we do not think that length accounts for the effects because greater length by itself does not necessarily increase attention or vividness of the report, as length could also be created by adding mundane information.

Implications and Conclusions

Past research has shown that sympathy leads to greater helping (Lowenstein & Small, 2007) and reduced prejudice (Batson et al., 1997; Stephan & Finlay, 2002; Vescio, Sechrist, & Paolucci, 2003), and the current study provides evidence that more detailed information increases sympathy for the victims of crimes. Future research should also provide a direct link between reading crime incident reports, sympathy, and helping behavior and prejudice, especially for hate crimes. One possibility is to manipulate sympathy directly through perspective taking manipulations or instructions to identify with how the victim is feeling by including a simple statement before the incident report asking the participant to relate to the victim (cf. Stephan & Finlay, 1999). These instructions may lead participants to put themselves in the position of the victim and, as a result, the participants may feel and show more sympathy toward the victim. Then prejudice and helping behavior toward the victim specifically or other members of the same minority group could be directly measured, tying detailed crime reports to positive real-world outcomes through the effects of sympathy.

The characteristics of the victim of a hate crime may also influence people’s perceptions. For example, gay male and lesbian victims of hate crimes may be seen as more blameworthy and viewed as instigating the crime (Herek, 1989; Lyons, 2006), perhaps especially when perceivers hold heterosexist attitudes (see Rayburn & Davison, 2002). Thus, in some cases victim blame may show different results. One outcome of greater victim blame could be less sympathy, and therefore fewer positive intergroup outcomes. However, college students were more likely to state that they intended to help a gay male victim of a hate crime than a victim of a nonbiased crime, even though they were not directly supportive of the victim (Rayburn & Davison, 2002). Future research can further test whether our results replicate with gay male and lesbian victims, as well as other victimized groups.

Overall, the results showed that the victim race and amount of information influenced psychological reactions separately, but did not interact to influence impressions of the crime, suggesting that a crime with a minority victim and a more detailed incident report both create stronger psychological reactions independently. On most college campuses and workplaces there has been an increased effort to reduce the amount of hate crimes. It is, of course, unfortunate that hate crimes occur, but given that they do, the reporting of hate crimes could provide an opportunity to educate the public about hate crimes and increase positive reactions toward minorities. Our results suggest that if public safety reports were to include more details, regardless of whether they are hate crimes or nonbiased crimes, readers would have a greater psychological reaction after reading them. More detail would allow readers to get a more vivid mental picture of what is occuring on their campus and feel more informed after reading the report. In conclusion, our results demonstrate the need for a broader discussion considering the inclusion of more details in campus crime reports.

Footnotes

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Jessica E. Kahl graduated from the University of San Diego with a Bachelor of Arts in Spanish with minors in Psychology and Chemistry. She is currently working as a Trauma Research Associate at Scripps Mercy Hospital in San Diego, CA.

Anne Koenig, PhD, is an assistant professor the University of San Diego. Her research interests include stereotyping, prejudice, and gender issues. Her most recent research addresses the masculinity of leadership roles and the ideologies of sex differences. She received her PhD from Northwestern University in 2007.

Ramon Smith received a bachelor’s degree from the University of San Diego with a major in Psychology and a minor in Business Administration. He now works as a human resources manager while working toward a Professional in Human Resources SHRM certification.

References

Batson

C. D.

(1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Batson

C. D.

Polycarpou

M. P.

Harmon-Jones

Imhoff

H. J.

Mitchener

E. C.

Bednar

L. L.

Highberger

(1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105-118.

Chermak

(1998). Predicting crime story salience: The effects of crime, victim, and defendant characteristics. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 61-70.

Chermak

Chapman

N. M.

(2007). Predicting crime story salience: A replication. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 351-363. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.05.001

Colomb

Damphousse

(2004). Examination of newspaper coverage of hate crimes: A moral panic perspective. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 147-163.

Craig

K. M.

(1999). Retaliation, fear, or rage: An investigation of African American and White reactions to racist hate crimes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 138-151. doi:10.1177/088626099014002003

Craig

K. M.

(2002). Examining hate-motivated aggression: A review of the social psychological literature on hate crimes as a distinct form of aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 85-101.

Craig

K. M.

Waldo

C. R.

(1996). “So, what’s a hate crime anyway?” Young adults’ perceptions of hate crimes, victims, and perpetrators. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 113-129.

Cramer

R. J.

Chandler

J. F.

Wakeman

E. E.

(2010). Blame attribution as a moderator of perceptions of sexual orientation-based hate crimes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 848-862. doi:10.1177/0886260509336962

10.

Czajkoski

E. H.

(1992). Criminalizing hate: An empirical assessment. Federal Probation, 56, 36-40.

11.

Dovidio

J. F.

ten Vergert

Stewart

T. L.

Gaertner

S. L.

Johnson

J. D.

Esses

V. M.

Pearson

A. R.

(2004). Perspective and prejudice: Antecedents and mediating mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1539-1549. doi:10.1177/0146167204271177

12.

Downey

J. P.

Stage

F. K.

(1999). Hate crimes and violence on college and university campuses. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 3-9.

13.

Eisenberg

Fabes

R. A.

Miller

P. A.

Fultz

Shell

Mathy

R. M.

Reno

R. R.

(1989). Relation of sympathy and personal distress to prosocial behavior: A multimethod study. Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 55-66. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.1.55

14.

Finlay

K. A.

Stephan

W. G.

(2000). Improving intergroup relations: The effects of empathy on racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1720-1737. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02464.x

15.

Gold

A. R.

Landerman

P. G.

Bullock

K. W.

(1977). Reactions to victims of crime: Sympathy, defensive attribution, and the just world. Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 295-304. doi:10.2224/sbp.1977.5.2.295

16.

Green

D. P.

McFalls

L. H.

Smith

J. K.

(2001). Hate crime: An emergent research agenda. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 479-504.

17.

Herek

G. M.

(1989). Hate crimes against lesbians and gay men. Issues for Research and Policy, 44, 948-955.

18.

Herek

G. M.

Cogan

J. C.

Gillis

J. R.

(2002). Victim experiences in hate crimes based on sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 319-339.

19.

Kensinger

E. A.

Corkin

(2003). Memory enhancement for emotional words: Are emotional words more vividly remembered than neutral words? Memory and Cognition, 31, 1169-1180.

20.

Loewenstein

Small

D. A.

(2007). The scarecrow and the tin man: The vicissitudes of human sympathy and caring. Review of General Psychology, 11, 112-126. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.11.2.112

21.

Lyons

C. J.

(2006). Stigma or sympathy? Attributions of fault to hate crime victims and offenders. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 39-59.

22.

Marcus-Newhall

Blake

L. P.

Bauman

(2002). Perceptions of hate crime perpetrators and victims as influenced by race, political orientation, and peer group. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 108-135. doi:10.1177/0002764202046001008

23.

Matthew

Shepard

Byrd

James

Jr.

Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 2647, Pub.L. 111-84, 111 Cong., 1st Sess. (2009).

24.

Miller

A. J.

(2001). Student perceptions of hate crimes. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 293-307.

25.

Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill Into Law. (2009, October 28). CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/28/hate.crimes/index.html.

26.

Rayburn

N. R.

Davison

G. C.

(2002). Articulated thoughts about antigay hate crimes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 431-447.

27.

Rayburn

N. R.

Earleywine

Davison

G. C.

(2003). Base rates of hate crime victimization among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1209-1221. doi:10.1177/0886260503255559

28.

Rayburn

N. R.

Mendoza

Davison

G. C.

(2003). Bystanders’ perceptions of perpetrators and victims of hate crime: An investigation using the person perception paradigm. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1055-1074. doi:10.1177/0886260503254513

29.

Saucier

D. A.

Brown

T. L.

Mitchell

R. C.

Cawman

A. J.

(2006). Effects of victims’ characteristics on attitudes toward hate crimes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 890-909. doi:10.1177/0886260506288936

30.

Saucier

D. A.

Hockett

J. H.

Wallenberg

A. S.

(2008). The impact of racial slurs and racism on the perceptions and punishment of violent crime. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 685-701. doi:10.1177/0886260507313774

31.

Saucier

D. A.

Hockett

J. M.

Zanotti

D. C.

Heffel

(2010). Effects of racism on perceptions and punishment of intra- and interracial crimes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 1167-1784. doi:10.1177/0886260509358386

32.

Shih

Wang

Bucher

A. T.

Stotzer

(2009). Perspective taking: Reducing prejudice towards general outgroups and specific individuals. Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 12, 565-577. doi:10.1177/1368430209337463

33.

Stephan

W. G.

Finlay

(1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 729-743. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00144

34.

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). The handbook for campus safety and security reporting. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/campus.html

35.

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2009). Hate crime statistics, 2009. Retrieved from http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/index.html

36.

Vescio

T. K.

Sechrist

G. B.

Paolucci

M. P.

(2003). Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 455-472. doi:10.1002/ejsp.163

37.

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, H.R 3355, Pub.L. 103-322, 103 Cong., 2nd Sess. (1994).

38.

Wispé

(1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy: To call forth a concept, a word is needed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 314-321.