Public (Mis)Understanding of Crime Policy

Abstract

Scholars attribute the public’s low level of knowledge about sentencing and corrections to its lack of extensive criminal justice experience and consequent reliance on the media for justice-related information. However, scant research exists that evaluates how criminal justice experience affects media consumption, or how such consumption may influence knowledge about sentencing laws or the extent of imprisonment. To extend this literature, we develop and test three hypotheses about the relationships between prior criminal justice experience, reliance on the mass media for information about crime and justice, and knowledge about criminal punishment. Analysis of data from a random telephone survey of 1,308 adult Floridians reveals that individuals with prior criminal justice experience are less likely to rely on the media for crime-related information. The evidence also shows that media reliance is associated with lower levels of knowledge about criminal punishment, and that this effect is particularly strong for female respondents.

Keywords

public opinion criminal justice policy media sentencing prison

Understanding public opinion about criminal justice is important because of its potential influence on the development, implementation, and effectiveness of crime policies (Anderson, Sample, & Cain, 2013; Baumer & Martin, 2013; Enns, 2014; Garland, Wodahl, & Schuhmann, 2013; Mancini & Mears, 2013). In particular, considerable social and practical grounds exist for focusing greater empirical attention on popular knowledge about sentencing law and corrections. Whether the public is informed or uninformed about criminal sanctions has direct implications for the capacity of criminal justice reforms to achieve their stated goals—namely, to deter crime and increase public safety (Apel, 2013; Cullen, Fisher, & Applegate, 2000; Roberts, 1992). If public perceptions of criminal punishment are inaccurate and unrelated to objective levels of punishment, then the ability of crime policies to prevent offending through deterrence mechanisms would be substantially limited (Kleck, Sever, Li, & Gertz, 2005; Nagin, 1998).

Because members of the public typically lack extensive experience with the justice system, they often rely on the mass media as a primary source of information about crime and its control (Callanan, 2012; Kort-Butler & Hartshorn, 2011). However, media coverage of crime and punishment is notoriously inaccurate and is biased toward sensationalized accounts (Dorfman & Schiraldi, 2001). The media typically depict crime rates as escalating regardless of actual trends in offending and portray “the criminal justice system as inefficient, ineffectual, and toothless” (Beckett & Sasson, 2004, p. 118). For this reason, scholars theorize that the inaccurate depictions of crime and punishment in the media explain “much of the public’s interest in criminal justice, as well as the limited extent of their knowledge of the criminal justice system” (Roberts & Stalans, 1997, p. 3).

Notwithstanding this theoretical scholarship, however, surprisingly few studies to date have examined public knowledge about sentencing laws or criminal justice policies, much less explored the ways in which the mass media as well as other information sources may function to detract from or contribute to that knowledge. To be clear, prior research has shown that media exposure is associated with less accurate perceptions of the extent and nature of crime (Stalans, 1993). However, this line of inquiry has only rarely been extended to the study of the accuracy of public information about criminal justice policies and practices (Apel, 2013; Roberts & Stalans, 1997). Moreover, as discussed below, the findings deriving from the small handful of prior investigations that have assessed media effects on public knowledge about crime policies have been decidedly mixed. Most studies have also relied on indicators of media consumption that are measured with survey questions that ask individuals to self-report their quantity of exposure to a given medium. Such measures fail to account for the content retained during exposure, and have been found in recent empirical work to lack validity (Prior, 2009a, 2009b).

The goal of the current study is to begin to fill in the gap in the literature on the sources of public knowledge about crime policies. To this end, and using an alternative measure of media consumption, reliance on the media specifically for information about criminal justice, we test the key theoretical assumptions underlying scholarly accounts of public knowledge about criminal punishment. First, we examine whether, as scholars have argued, prior criminal justice experience is negatively associated with reliance on the mass media for information about criminal justice issues. We then evaluate whether, after controlling for criminal justice experience, media reliance has an independent negative effect on knowledge about criminal punishment. Next, and not least, we assess the degree to which the relationship between media reliance and knowledge is moderated by prior criminal justice experience and other theoretically relevant audience traits.

Theoretical Issues and Hypotheses

Prior Criminal Justice Experience and Media Reliance

Scholars argue that a widespread lack of experience with crime and the criminal justice system drives the public’s reliance on the mass media for information about trends in offending and developments in crime policy (Roberts, Stalans, Indermaur, & Hough, 2003). As Surette (1984) puts it,

In terms of justice, perhaps the most important effect of the media lies in providing a prime information base for the public concerning justice issues. A relatively small percentage of people deal directly with the justice system and therefore the general public’s knowledge of justice is drawn significantly from the media. (p. 5)

Similarly, Hans and Dee (1991) assert that “because most of the public has little direct experience with the justice system, public knowledge and views of law and the legal system are largely dependent on media representations” (p. 136). This assertion is consistent with the uses and gratification theory of media consumption, which holds that in the absence of alternative sources of information, such as personal or vicarious experience, people often turn to media accounts to gain an understanding of social issues and events (Krcmar & Strizhakova, 2009).

Despite the centrality of this argument to scholarly accounts of media effects, little evidence exists regarding its accuracy. Indeed, to our knowledge, only one study to date has examined whether experience with crime or the criminal justice system is related to the use of mass media outlets to gain understanding of criminal justice issues. And the only experience variable included in that study, a measure of victimization status, was inconsistently related to the use of television and newspapers as primary sources of information about crime (Lane & Meeker, 2003; see also O’Keefe, 1984). Accordingly, the first hypothesis that we test is as follows,

Hypothesis 1: Individuals with prior experience as either an employee of the criminal justice system, an offender, or a crime victim will be less likely to rely on the mass media for information about criminal punishment.

Media Reliance and Public Knowledge About Criminal Justice

In the area of crime and justice, news and entertainment media typically receive the blame for public misinformation and misunderstanding (Beale, 2006; Chiricos, 1996; Pickett, Mancini, & Mears, 2013: Roberts, 1992). For example, scholars suggest that the media’s biased coverage of crime is a key factor perpetuating inaccurate stereotypes about victims and offenders (Pickett & Chiricos, 2012; Welch, 2007). This view stems largely from the finding that there are considerable discrepancies between the reality of crime and justice and the depictions of these phenomena in the media. For example, studies find that media coverage of crime disproportionately reports on violent crime, overrepresents the rarest and most serious types of offenses, underrepresents White offenders and non-White victims, and deemphasizes or ignores contextual causes of offending (Dorfman & Schiraldi, 2001). In addition, the extent of media coverage of crime bears little relation to objective rates of offending (Beckett, 1997), often increasing even as the latter declines (Dorfman & Schiraldi, 2001).

In regard to crime control, and with the exception of police activities, the mass media generally pay little attention to the functioning of the justice system or the contours of crime policy, except when occasions arise to highlight negative aspects of either the legal process or sentencing practices (Surette, 2011). In these instances, news and entertainment media engage in what Garland (2001) characterizes as “victim discourse” (p. 158)—focusing on examples of the system’s ineffectiveness, emphasizing the leniency of the courts, drawing attention to cases in which offenders’ due process rights seemingly derail justice, and ignoring successful crime prevention efforts (Beckett & Sasson, 2004; Roberts, 1992; Surette, 2011). In short, as Beckett and Sasson (2004) explain, “the mass media . . . mislead the public about criminal justice practices” by highlighting “only the institutions’ most egregious failures, such as the early release of offenders who go on to commit new violent crimes” (p. 118). For this reason, Surette (2011) likens “learning about the criminal justice system from the media . . . to learning geology from volcanic eruptions” (p. 197).

Prior studies have shown that media exposure may contribute to the public’s misinformation about crime rates and the nature of criminal offending (Goidel, Freeman, & Procopio, 2006; Johnson, Braima, & Sothirajah, 2001; Kort-Butler & Hartshorn, 2011). For instance, in a seminal study, Stalans (1993) demonstrated that college students who both lacked interpersonal sources of crime information and reported having recent exposure to crime stories in the media—that is, students who were media reliant—were more likely to overestimate the prevalence of injury during robberies.

To our knowledge, however, there are only two published multivariate studies—conducted in the United States or internationally—that specifically examine whether media exposure affects the accuracy of individuals’ information about crime policy or criminal punishment, and the findings from these studies are mixed. Hough and Roberts (1999) show that individuals who report reading tabloid newspapers are more likely to underestimate the imprisonment rate for rapists, muggers, and burglars. Proctor, Badzinski, and Johnson (2002), by contrast, find that neither exposure to newspapers, television, or the radio, nor the degree of attention paid to crime news in these media outlets are related to knowledge of Megan’s Law. In a second set of models examining respondents’ knowledge about a specific notification law passed in their state, an inconsistent pattern of media effects emerges: Attention to crime news on television reduces knowledge, while radio use increases knowledge, though this latter effect diminishes as attention to crime news on the radio increases.

Other related prior research includes studies that assess the effects of media use on estimates of the characteristics of punishment, but that do not specifically evaluate how the former is related to the accuracy of such perceptions. Findings from these studies also offer little support for the assumption that media exposure explains public ignorance about criminal justice. Specifically, this work demonstrates that news consumption does not significantly influence individuals’ estimates of the certainty, severity, or swiftness of criminal punishment (see, for example, Kleck & Barnes, 2010; Kleck et al., 2005; Sprott, Webster, & Doob, 2013).

One probable explanation for the lack of consistent evidence of media effects on either knowledge about, or estimates of the characteristics of, criminal punishment is the particular measurement strategy used in previous studies to capture media exposure. In his discussion of the broader body of media research, Prior (2009b) notes, for example, that “null findings may reflect not the absence of media effects, but flawed measures of exposure” (p. 893). Specifically, most previous studies of media effects on views about crime and punishment use self-reported indicators of respondents’ extent of general exposure to a given medium, which are considered to be the weakest measures of media use for two reasons (Johnson et al., 2001; Price & Zeller, 1993; Prior, 2009b). First, as Prior (2009a) demonstrates, “self-reports of regular news exposure . . . lack validity” (p. 137). Most members of the public are not able to accurately recall episodes of media use, and the resultant response errors are neither random nor uniform (Prior, 2009a, 2009b).

Second, the indicators of media exposure used in prior studies tap media use rather than the content that is actually taken in by individuals. However, as Weitzer and Kubrin (2004) explain, measures of general exposure may “include people who read only the business section of the newspaper or television viewers who watch the local news simply for sports or weather—thereby limiting their exposure to crime news” (p. 506). More important still is the fact that even those measures specifically tapping exposure or attention to media depictions of crime and justice cannot speak of whether individuals actually extract information from those depictions. In their discussion of the research examining media effects on political knowledge, Price and Zeller (1993) state the point succinctly: “Only people who actually acquire information from the news can use it in forming and changing their political evaluations” (p. 134). The same axiom would seem to hold equally well for the public and their understanding, based on media accounts, of crime and punishment. The acquisition of information about crime and punishment from media sources should be most consequential for individuals’ knowledge levels when this information alone is relied upon to make judgments about criminal justice issues (Stalans, 1993). Given the forgoing, then, we investigate the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Reliance on the mass media for information about criminal justice will be associated with lower levels of knowledge about criminal punishment.

Audience Effects

Arguments outlined in the original and reformulated versions of the cultivation hypothesis have constituted the theoretical motivation for much of the prior research on attitudes about crime. That hypothesis predicts that media use will affect audience members’ mental images of social reality by cultivating the view that the real world is comparable with that depicted by the mass media (Gerbner & Gross, 1976). Reformulations of the hypothesis, prompted by the recognition that the meaning of media messages is differentially activated and interpreted by individuals in accordance with their specific backgrounds and social situations, suggest that cultivation effects will vary systematically with audience characteristics. For example, some scholars predict that media use will be most consequential for attitudes about crime among those with greater exposure to crime, such as males and non-Whites (Doob & Macdonald, 1979; Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1980). This variant of cultivation theory is known as the resonance hypothesis. Others expect media effects to be greater among groups, such as women and the elderly, who may believe they are especially vulnerable to victimization (Skogan & Maxfield, 1981) or among individuals more closely resembling the image of the typical victim constructed in media coverage of crime (Gerbner, Gross, Jackson-Beeck, Jeffries-Fox, & Signorielli, 1978). These predictions are generally characterized as the vulnerability and affinity hypotheses, respectively.

The evidence to date overwhelmingly supports the argument that media effects interact with audience traits to influence views about crime, but it is mixed in regard to the specific pattern of interaction effects (Chiricos, Eschholz, & Gertz, 1997; Chiricos, Padgett, & Gertz, 2000; Eschholz, Chiricos, & Gertz, 2003; Weaver & Wakshlag, 1986). In turn, and despite advances in scholarship, the extant research has been unable to adjudicate between the competing differential reception hypotheses. For instance, Weitzer and Kubrin (2004) show that identifying local television news as one’s most important news source is associated with increased fear of crime among Blacks and those living in high crime areas, but not among Whites or those living in low crime communities. Weaver and Wakshlag (1986) find that television exposure increases fear only among non-victims. And Chiricos and colleagues (1997) demonstrate that “all television ‘news effects’ are limited to women” (p. 352, emphasis in original).

Notably, prior studies on audience effects focus exclusively on attitudes and anxieties about crime rather than knowledge about criminal punishment or crime policy. In our view, it seems most probable that media reliance will be especially consequential for knowledge about criminal justice among individuals with greater exposure to crime—the resonance hypothesis—because crime and justice issues will likely be more salient for such persons. More specifically, we expect that such individuals will likely pay greater attention to, as well as comprehend and retain a larger proportion of, the crime-related information conveyed by the media (see Doob & MacDonald, 1979; O’Keefe, 1984). Accordingly, we test the following:

Hypothesis 3: The negative relationship between reliance on the mass media for information about criminal justice and knowledge about criminal punishment will be stronger for members of groups who, on average, have greater exposure to crime and the justice system.

Method

The data for this study come from a random telephone survey of 1,308 adult (18 and older) residents of the state of Florida. The survey was designed to gauge Floridians’ attitudes about the state correctional system. It was administered between January and April of 2006 by the Research Network, a public opinion polling firm in Tallahassee, Florida. To maximize control over the interviewing process and minimize data-entry errors, trained interviewers conducted all of the interviews at a central call center equipped with computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). Survey administrators implemented a 15-callback rule before number substitution to provide ample opportunities for sampled respondents’ to participate. When calculated in accordance with the recommendations of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR, 2004), the overall response rate was 48.6%. This response rate compares favorably with those obtained in other recent public opinion studies (e.g., Anderson et al., 2013; Garland et al., 2013). In addition, the break-off rate, another important indicator of the potential for nonresponse bias in public opinion polls, was low in this survey—91% of those who began the interview completed the questionnaire. Below, we describe the measurement of the variables used in the analyses. The descriptive statistics for these measures are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

	M	SD
Number of inmates	0.83	0.37
10-20-Life law	0.54	0.50
Minimum Sentence Law	0.80	0.40
Multiple incorrect answers	0.78	0.41
Media reliance	0.33	0.47
Contact with offenders	0.27	0.44
Household victim	0.30	0.46
Household CJS employment	0.09	0.29
Male	0.39	0.49
Black	0.08	0.27
Hispanic	0.07	0.26
Age	4.06	1.64
Education	2.27	1.05
Married	0.60	0.49
Parent	0.78	0.42
Conservative protestant	0.35	0.48
Conservative	0.34	0.47
Moderate	0.43	0.50
Urban	0.17	0.38

Knowledge About Criminal Punishment

We include four measures that gauge the extent of Floridians’ knowledge about sentencing laws and the extent of imprisonment in Florida. A particular strength of our study is that the knowledge measures are all derived from close-ended, item-specific, multiple-choice questions, which minimize bias from stylistic responding (see Gibson & Calderia, 2009; Pickett & Baker, 2014). The first two items measure individuals’ understanding of two “get tough” policies enacted in Florida that are representative of those commonly advocated for in contemporary law-and-order discourse. The first assesses whether respondents are familiar with Florida’s 10-20-Life Law, which was implemented in 1999 to deter gun crimes. It mandates a minimum of 10 years for offenders who use a gun to commit a crime, 20 years for those who fire a gun, and 25 years to life for those who shoot a victim (Florida Department of Corrections [FDOC], 2007). The survey question asked, “What is the purpose of the new 10-20-Life law?” Respondents were given several possible response options such as “I’m not sure but I have heard of the 10-20-Life law” and “I’ve never heard of the 10-20-Life law.” The correct answer was “to provide harsher penalties to offenders if they use a gun in the commission of a crime.” Only 46% of respondents chose this answer. They were coded “0” on the 10-20-Life Law variable, while the 54% of respondents who answered incorrectly were coded “1”.

Before proceeding, it is important to note that we use questions that ask about detailed knowledge of specific aspects of criminal punishment in Florida to measure the outcome variables in this study, including the 10-20-Life Law variable, because it is exactly this type of information that is assumed to be conveyed to the public through the enactment and enforcement of “get tough” policies. As Kleck et al. (2005) explain, the most common justification for punitive policies like Florida’s 10-20-Life and Law is deterrence—tougher punishments should reduce crime “by ‘sending a message,’ ‘getting the word out’ that crime will not be tolerated, that criminals will be ‘taught a lesson’ that crime will not be ‘coddled,’ and that punishment will surely follow crime” (p. 627). However, the desired deterrent effect is only possible if members of the public are aware of punitive reforms and recognize the associated increase in objective levels of punishment. Put simply, Florida’s 10-20-Life law can only deter gun crimes—the policy’s explicit goal—if potential criminals in the state are familiar with it and consider the specific consequences allocated therein when contemplating firearm offenses.

The second outcome variable incorporated in the analyses, Minimum Sentence Law, assesses the accuracy of respondents’ understanding of a law passed to eliminate offender early releases from Florida prisons. The question was “What minimum percentage of their sentence must all new Florida inmates serve?” The listed response options ranged from “50%” to “100%.” By law, inmates in Florida prisons who committed their crimes on or after October 1, 1995, are required to serve at least 85% of their sentence (FDOC, 2005). Only 20% of respondents were aware of this sentencing policy. They were coded “0” on the Minimum Sentence Law variable, while the 80% who answered incorrectly were coded “1.”

The third outcome variable examines whether respondents know the Number of Inmates in Florida prisons and, thus, are aware of the extent of imprisonment in their state. This item speaks directly of the ability of the public to accurately estimate imprisonment rates as well as to the validity of scholars’ assumptions about the public’s lack of awareness of “the mounting numbers of persons in prison” (Roberts & Hough, 2005, p. 14). The specific question was “How many inmates do you think currently are in Florida State prisons?” Interviewers listed several possible response options for respondents, which ranged from “Less than 25,000” to “More than 100,000.” The correct answer was “75,000 to 100,000” as the FDOC held just under 85,000 at the time of the survey (FDOC, 2005). Only 17% of the respondents answered this question correctly. These respondents were coded “0” on the Number of Inmates variable, and the 83% who answered incorrectly were coded “1.”

The fourth outcome variable indicates whether a respondent gave Multiple Incorrect Answers. It is coded “1” if the respondent provided more than 1 incorrect answer and coded “0” if he or she either answered all of the questions correctly or just answered one item incorrectly. Only 2% of respondents answered all three questions correctly. Fewer than 20% answered only one question incorrectly. The majority (78%) provided multiple incorrect answers.

Media Reliance

As noted above, the weakest measures of media use are those derived from questions that ask respondents to report their amount of exposure to a given medium during some previous time period (e.g., the past week). Specifically, research shows these items impose “unrealistic demands on respondents’ memory,” because most individuals are incapable of accurately recalling their past episodes of media use (Prior, 2009b, p. 904). Thus, the indicators resulting from these measures are not valid (Prior, 2009a). In addition, such measures of exposure do not speak of what types of information individuals actually obtain from the utilized media sources (Price & Zeller, 1993; Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004). In this study, we are interested in actual sources of information rather than mere exposure to potential information sources. We also take seriously the problems associated with using questions to gauge media use that overtax respondents’ memories. For these reasons, we measure Media Reliance with an item that specifically asked respondents to list their sources of information about corrections in Florida, but that did not require them to recall individual episodes of exposure to these sources.

The specific survey question was “Where do you get information about Florida prisons?” We asked specifically about “Florida prisons” because asking broadly about “criminal justice in Florida” may have introduced measurement error if respondents answered in reference to different dimensions of the system (e.g., policing, recent arrests, etc.). Interviewers read the following list of potential sources to respondents and asked them to select all that applied: “(a) Friends or family, (b) Internet, (c) Newspapers, (d) Television, (e) Magazine articles, (f) Other.” Respondents who selected the “Other” category were asked to name the specific sources. Examples of the cited sources included, among others, the following: “radio,” “library lecture,” “school,” “classes,” “church group,” “work,” “conferences,” “police department,” and “first-hand knowledge.”

Our original intention was to separately analyze the predictors and effects of reliance on different media outlets (e.g., television, newspapers). However, while a significant proportion of respondents (33%) reported that they obtained their information about the Florida correctional system exclusively from media outlets, few respondents reported relying on only a single medium. For example, just 4.6% of respondents reported relying solely on television for information, and only 3.5% of respondents reported relying solely on newspapers. Put simply, the data demonstrate that the vast majority of respondents who rely on the media for crime-related information draw on multiple media sources. Thus, to measure Media Reliance, we separate respondents into two groups: those who only received their information from media outlets (i.e., newspapers, television, magazine articles, and radio) and those who also received information from at least one non-media source (e.g., family and friends, work, classes, Internet, etc.).¹ The first group was coded “1” on the Media Reliance variable and the second was coded “0.”

Prior Criminal Justice Experience

We engage three measures of respondents’ prior experiences with crime and the criminal justice system. The first, Contact with Offenders, is measured with the following survey question: “Have you, any of your immediate or extended family members, or friends ever been placed in the Florida prison system or on state probation?” where 1 = yes and 0 = no. The second, Household Victim, indicates whether a respondent has prior experience—personal or vicarious—with criminal victimization. The specific question was “Over the past five years, has anyone in your immediate family been the victim of a crime?” where 1 = yes and 0 = no. Finally, the third variable, Household Criminal Justice System (CJS) Employment, comes from a series of questions that asked if anyone in the respondent’s immediate or extended family is employed by law enforcement, the criminal justice system, or the corrections system. Respondents who said yes to any of these items were coded “1” and those who said no were coded “0.”

Control Variables

To reduce the risk of omitted variable bias, we control for factors that prior research suggests may be related to knowledge about criminal punishment, media reliance, and prior experiences with crime or the criminal justice system (see, for example, Kleck et al., 2005; Lane & Meeker, 2003; O’Keefe, 1984; Proctor et al., 2002). These include gender (Male = 1), race (Black = 1), ethnicity (Hispanic = 1), Age, Education, marital status (Married = 1), parental status (Parent = 1), religious affiliation (Conservative Protestant = 1), political ideology (Conservative = 1, Moderate = 1, reference = Liberal), and residential location (Urban = 1). Age and Education are ordinal variables. Age is coded as follows: 1 = 18 to 24, 2 = 25 to 34, 3 = 35 to 44, 4 = 45 to 54, 5 = 55 to 64, 6 = 65 to 74, 7 = 75, and above. Education is coded as follows: 1 = high-school degree or less, 2 = some college, 3 = college graduate, and 4 = attended and/or completed graduate school.

Results

Because the outcome variables in the analyses are binary measures, we estimate all models using logistic regression. Multicollinearity is not problematic—the largest variance inflation factor in any of the models is 1.71. We begin by investigating the relationship between prior criminal justice experience and media reliance. Table 2 displays the results of logistic regressions of media reliance on the three measures of criminal justice experience and the controls. Inspection of Model 1 in Table 2 reveals that all three types of prior criminal justice experience are associated with a lower likelihood of reliance on the media for information about criminal punishment. For example, the odds of media reliance among individuals who had contact with offenders are 67% lower than the odds of media reliance among individuals who had no such contact (odds ratio = .329). Similar effects emerge in Model 2, which incorporates the controls. The results here show that the odds of being media reliant for persons with prior experience with crime or the justice system are between 38% and 68% lower, depending on the type of experience, as compared with those for their counterparts without similar experience. Other notable findings are that younger persons and conservative Protestants are both less likely to be media reliant. Indeed, the standardized logistic regression coefficients, which are listed in the table in parentheses, show that age is the strongest predictor of media reliance in the model.

Table 2.

Logistic Regression of Media Reliance on Select Predictors.

	Model 1	Model 2
Contact with offenders	0.329***	0.391***
Contact with offenders	(−.254)	(−.204)
Household victim	0.564***	0.622**
Household victim	(−.135)	(−.106)
Household CJS employment	0.330***	0.322***
Household CJS employment	(−.168)	(−.161)
Male	—	1.061
Male	—	(.014)
Black	—	0.672
Black	—	(−.052)
Hispanic	—	0.668
Hispanic	—	(−.052)
Age	—	1.314***
Age	—	(.219)
Education	—	0.996
Education	—	(−.002)
Married	—	1.220
Married	—	(.048)
Parent	—	0.985
Parent	—	(−.003)
Conservative protestant	—	0.736*
Conservative protestant	—	(−.072)
Conservative	—	0.828
Conservative	—	(−.044)
Moderate	—	0.860
Moderate	—	(−.037)
Urban	—	1.141
Urban	—	(.024)
χ²	102.21***	172.72***
Pseudo R²	.063	.112
n	1,288	1,217

Note: Presented are odds ratios (with standardized logistic regression coefficients in parentheses).

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

We turn now to the question of whether media reliance affects levels of public knowledge about criminal justice issues. Table 3 reports the results for logistic regression models that examine the effects of media reliance on knowledge while controlling for the other covariates. An examination of the findings for Models 1 to 3 in Table 3 reveals that for each of the three knowledge questions, media reliance is associated with a higher likelihood of providing an incorrect answer (p < .05). Specifically, the odds of answering incorrectly to the knowledge questions are between 34% and 51% higher, depending on the model and associated knowledge domain, for media-reliant persons than for their non-media-reliant counterparts.

Table 3.

Logistic Regression of Knowledge About Criminal Punishment on Media Reliance.

	Model 1: Number of inmates	Model 2: 10-20-Life law	Model 3: Minimum sentence law	Model 4: Multiple incorrect answers
Media reliance	1.513*	1.343*	1.497*	2.471***
Media reliance	(.104)	(.071)	(.097)	(.212)
Contact with offenders	1.092	0.734*	0.473***	0.554**
Contact with offenders	(.021)	(−.071)	(−.174)	(−.135)
Household victim	1.016	0.714*	0.947	0.916
Household victim	(.004)	(−.079)	(−.013)	(−.020)
Household CJS employment	0.802	0.541**	0.417***	0.345***
Household CJS employment	(−.034)	(−.091)	(−.132)	(−.158)
Male	0.974	0.511***	0.569***	0.561***
Male	(−.007)	(−.169)	(−.142)	(−.143)
Black	1.037	1.571^†	0.848	1.018
Black	(.005)	(.062)	(−.023)	(.003)
Hispanic	1.023	1.718*	1.790^†	1.527
Hispanic	(.003)	(.073)	(.081)	(.058)
Age	0.999	1.295***	0.998	1.054
Age	(−.001)	(.215)	(−.001)	(.043)
Education	0.922	0.948	1.091	0.947
Education	(−.046)	(−.029)	(.047)	(−.028)
Married	1.130	1.159	1.816**	1.628**
Married	(.032)	(.037)	(.151)	(.121)
Parent	0.901	0.858	0.858	0.827
Parent	(−.024)	(−.033)	(−.033)	(−.040)
Conservative protestant	0.698*	0.930	0.942	0.809
Conservative protestant	(−.093)	(−.018)	(−.015)	(−.051)
Conservative	1.875**	0.853	1.067	1.095
Conservative	(.160)	(−.039)	(.016)	(.022)
Moderate	1.209	0.749^†	1.119	0.946
Moderate	(.051)	(−.074)	(.029)	(–.014)
Urban	0.704^†	0.904	0.990	0.862
Urban	(−.071)	(−.019)	(−.002)	(−.028)
χ²	22.91^†	127.53***	85.63***	103.47***
Pseudo R²	.022	.078	.077	.095
n	1,129	1,192	1,107	1,036

Note: Presented are odds ratios (with standardized logistic regression coefficients in parentheses).

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Model 4 in Table 3 presents the regression results for the relationship between media reliance and the likelihood of answering multiple knowledge questions incorrectly. Here, the consequence of relying on the mass media for information about crime policy is readily apparent. Independent of the effects of prior criminal justice experience and the controls, media reliance is positively associated with the likelihood of answering multiple questions incorrectly. Indeed, the odds of answering multiple questions incorrectly are 147% higher for media-reliant persons than for their non-media-reliant counterparts. In addition, inspection of the results reveals that Media Reliance is the strongest predictor in the model. In short, the results suggest that reliance on the media for information about criminal justice issues is associated with significantly lower levels of knowledge about criminal punishment.

In this context, it is noteworthy that the findings in Table 3 show that prior criminal justice experience is associated with higher levels of knowledge about criminal punishment. Specifically, individuals with prior criminal justice experience were less likely to provide incorrect answers to two of the three questions about crime policy and were also less likely to answer multiple questions incorrectly. However, these respondents were just as likely as their counterparts without prior experience to inaccurately estimate the number of inmates in correctional facilities. Notably, prior victimization is only significant in the model predicting knowledge about Florida’s 10-20-Life law, indicating that respondents with prior victimization experience were more likely than non-victims to possess accurate information about this policy.

The final portion of the analyses tests the resonance hypothesis. Recall that this hypothesis suggests that media effects should be larger for those individuals with greater exposure to crime and the justice system (Gerbner et al., 1980). To test this hypothesis, we first divide the sample into groups based on factors associated with the likelihood of offending and victimization: prior criminal justice experience, gender, race, age, education, marital status, and residential location. Next, for each of these groups, we reestimate Model 4 in Table 3—that is, the full model predicting the likelihood of answering multiple knowledge questions incorrectly.² Too few respondents reported each type of prior criminal justice experience to estimate reliably the regression model separately for each group that had a given experience. We thus create a combined measure, Criminal Justice Experience, coded “1” for respondents who gave at least one affirmative answer to the experience questions (i.e., Contact with Offenders, Household Victim, and Household Employment in CJS) and “0” for all others; the two Criminal Justice Experience groups (some experience vs. none) are derived from this measure.³

Table 4 displays the results of the disaggregated analyses. Two panels are presented. The left panel provides, for the high resonance group, the estimated effects of media reliance on having incorrect knowledge of crime and punishment in Florida. The right panel provides the comparable effects for the low resonance group. As noted in the table, the high resonance group consists of individuals for whom crime and justice can be anticipated to have more salience because of their membership in groups with greater exposure to offending and victimization. Conversely, the low resonance group consists of individuals for whom crime and justice can be anticipated to have less salience.

Table 4.

Disaggregated Analyses: Estimates of the Effect of Media Reliance on the Likelihood of Getting Multiple Answers Incorrect for Select Subsamples of Respondents.

High resonance groups (crimeand justice are more salient)		Low resonance groups (crime and justice are less salient)
Sample	Effect of media reliance	Sample	Effect of media reliance
Criminal justice experience n = 529	2.763** (.215)	No experience n = 507	2.538** (.233)
Male n = 417	1.265 (.056)	Female n = 619	6.562*** (.413)
Non-White n = 210	1.829 (.121)	White n = 826	2.694*** (.234)
Age < 45 n = 396	2.342* (.169)	Age 45+ n = 640	2.515*** (.225)
No college n = 308	2.183^† (.173)	College n = 728	2.600*** (.222)
Not married n = 427	2.011* (.157)	Married n = 609	2.933** (.251)
Urban n = 176	3.354* (.272)	Not urban n = 860	2.474*** (.210)

Note: Presented are odds ratios (with standardized logistic regression coefficients in parentheses). Estimates shown are from equations that include all additional independent and control variables. The criminal justice experience subsample includes respondents who answered affirmatively to at least one of the three prior experience variables (i.e., Contact with Offenders, Household Victim, and Household Employment in CJS).

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

As inspection of the table shows, the findings provide no support for the resonance hypothesis. That is, we find little evidence that media reliance is more consequential for knowledge about criminal punishment among members of groups who, on average, have greater exposure to crime and the justice system. Instead, it appears the reliance on the media for information about crime reduces knowledge about criminal justice among all but two of the subsamples examined: males and non-Whites. The effect of media reliance for female respondents is especially striking; here, the odds of answering multiple questions incorrectly are over 500% higher for media-reliant women than non-media-reliant women. Media reliance also appears to have a larger negative effect on knowledge among Whites than non-Whites. To formally test whether the differences in the effects shown in Table 4 are statistically significant, we estimate a series of models for the full sample including interaction terms between each of the audience traits and media reliance (not shown). The only statistically significant interaction is between gender (Male) and the media reliance measure (odds ratio = .228, p < .01). In short, the analyses demonstrate that media reliance is associated with lower levels of knowledge about criminal punishment, regardless of one’s exposure to crime and the justice system, and that this effect is particularly strong for females.

Discussion and Conclusion

Extant evidence shows quite convincingly that variations in objective levels of punishment do not translate into comparable shifts in citizens’ assessments of the formal sanction costs for offending (Kleck et al., 2005; Sprott et al., 2013). Scholars direct the blame for this disconnection toward the mass media (Beale, 2006; Beckett & Sasson, 2004). The assumption is that many members of the public rely on the mass media to gain an understanding of criminal justice issues because they lack experience with crime or the justice system (Surette, 2011). A further assumption is that media reliance reduces knowledge about criminal punishment because the information conveyed by the media is inaccurate and biased (Roberts, 1992). The current study provides the first systematic test of these two predictions. It is also the first to examine the differential reception hypothesis as it applies to public knowledge about criminal justice issues. Several important findings emerged from our analyses.

First, the analyses reveal that, consistent with scholars’ assumptions (Hans & Dee, 1991; Surette, 2011), individuals with prior criminal justice experience are less likely to rely on the media for information about criminal punishment. This effect is observed for all three types of criminal justice experience examined herein. The second central finding to emerge from the analyses is that reliance on the mass media for crime-related information is associated with lower levels of knowledge about criminal punishment. Indeed, the results show that media reliance is a stronger predictor of answering multiple knowledge questions incorrectly than any other variable examined, including prior criminal justice experience and education.⁴ This finding supports Roberts and Stalans’s (1997) assertion that while information derives from “direct and indirect experiences, in the area of crime and justice, the news media are predominant” (p. 4). In addition, supplementary analyses (available on request) reveal that knowledge about criminal punishment is extremely low among both media-reliant and non-media-reliant respondents. For instance, a large majority of both groups (90% and 73%, respectively) answered multiple knowledge questions incorrectly. Taken together, these findings suggest that general deterrence effect of criminal justice policies might be negligible in so far as deterrence effects depend on citizens being aware, at least to some extent, of the actual sanctions for offending (Kleck et al., 2005; Roberts & Stalans, 1997).

That said, we also find that prior criminal justice experience is related to knowledge about criminal punishment. Specifically, the analyses show that personal or vicarious contact with the justice system as an offender or employee increases the likelihood of knowing the purpose of the 10-20-Life law and being aware that inmates in Florida must serve a minimum of 85% of their sentences. That offenders and persons who know offenders tend to be more familiar with objective punishments suggests there may be some cause for optimism about the potential for certain types of specific deterrence approaches to reduce reoffending by influencing perceptions of the severity of sanctions. The findings here thus provide a contrast to Kleck et al.’s (2005) results, which demonstrated “that neither news media information, nor personal experiences of the actor or his associates . . . provide an adequate foundation for forming even minimally accurate perceptions of the certainty, severity, or swiftness of punishment” (p. 655). At least in terms of the severity of sanctions, the results in the current study show that media reliance reduces the accuracy of knowledge about criminal punishment, while prior criminal justice experience either as an offender or employee increases knowledge about criminal punishment.

A final finding from the analyses is that media reliance is associated with lower levels of knowledge among most subgroups of respondents. That is, the relationship between media reliance and knowledge about criminal punishment does not appear to be conditional on audience traits. The one exception to this rule is gender. Our data show that the negative effect of media reliance on knowledge about criminal punishment is substantially stronger among female respondents. This finding parallels the results from two studies by Chiricos and colleagues (Chiricos et al., 1997; Chiricos et al., 2000), which demonstrate that the effect of media use on fear of crime is exclusively limited to or is especially pronounced for women.

One possible explanation for gender differences in media effects on knowledge about criminal justice may be that, relative to men, women have greater cumulative exposure to news and crime-related media content because they spend more time watching TV (Nielsen, 2011). Alternatively, it may be that there are differences in the types of media used by men and women (see, for example, Ahlers, 2006). It is also plausible that women, more so than men, may perceive that using the media for the express purpose of obtaining crime-related information is an activity that is necessary for ensuring their safety as well as the safety of their children (Morely, 1986; Valentine, 1992). Accordingly, women may be more likely to pay attention to, comprehend, and remember the depictions of crime and criminal justice in the media. Given the consistent evidence of gendered media effects, future studies exploring such possibilities are important.

Two limitations of our analyses bear mention. First, due to the small number of respondents who reported relying on a single media source for information about prisons, we were unable to examine the relationships between reliance on different media and knowledge about criminal punishment. Thus, our results likely provide a conservative estimate of the effect of media reliance on knowledge. Future research ideally will assess the extent to which reliance on a given medium (e.g., television vs. newspaper), as well as specific types of content within that medium (e.g., news vs. entertainment, local vs. national), for crime-related information is associated with knowledge about criminal punishment and crime policy.⁵ Second, we analyze data from a survey of residents of a single state. That said, almost every state in the country has undertaken “get tough” measures similar to those in Florida. In addition, there is little theoretical reason to expect a priori that the relationships observed herein would be limited to Florida residents. Even so, future studies ideally will investigate the extent to which these relationships hold for residents of other states as well as the nation more broadly.

Despite these limitations, the current study provides important insights about the sources of public knowledge about criminal punishment. It presents the first empirical evidence that reliance on the media for crime-related information is a key factor explaining public misunderstanding of criminal justice policies. It is also the first to demonstrate that media reliance is highest among those without criminal justice experience, and that the consequences of media reliance are moderated by audience gender, being most pronounced for women.

Several policy considerations flow from these results. Broadly, given that large swaths of the public hold inaccurate perceptions about the correctional system along a range of dimensions, we recommend policy makers consider strategies designed to counter public misunderstanding. Scholars have made similar recommendations in prior work (see Hough & Roberts, 1999; Pickett, Mears, Stewart, & Gertz, 2013; Roberts & Stalans, 1997). However, our finding that media reliance is associated with reduced knowledge about correctional policy suggests that such public education efforts may be most effective if they are delivered through media outlets; for example, in the form of TV commercials or advertisements in newspapers and magazines. It may also be helpful to implement targeted information campaigns aimed at viewers of those shows that are likely to have the greatest impact on attitudes about criminal justice (e.g., crime drama [e.g. Crime Scene Investigation] and criminal justice reality [e.g., COPS] programs, and national or local news broadcasts).

In any such public education initiative, to effectively facilitate retention of criminal justice facts, efforts should be made to take advantage of insights from the current literature on information communication. For instance, research strongly suggests that simply providing either base rate statistical information (e.g., the incarceration rate or the average sentence length) or factual descriptions (e.g., the specifics of a given policy) to individuals is unlikely to yield information retention or long-term attitude change (Kahneman, 2011). A more promising approach would involve the use of personal accounts or stories—narratives or exemplars—that are emotionally charged (Betsch, Ulshöfer, Renekewitz, & Betsch, 2011; Heath, 2009; Zillmann, 2006), outline causal linkages between events, and surprise audience members (Kahneman, 2011). This communication strategy increases audience engagement and influences intuitive judgments. Thus, in a commercial or advertisement, coupling emotional personal accounts with statistical or factual information may represent a particularly effective method for informing members of the public about crime policy and corrections. As but one example, policy makers might commission commercials that show the sentencing of a specific offender, include a brief interview with someone affected by the sentence (e.g., his or her parents, spouse, child), and then provide factual information about the laws that were broken and the associated sentencing statutes.

Beyond supporting the need for broad public education campaigns, our findings suggest it would be useful to require any implemented criminal justice policy that has as one of its goals to have an impact on community members—for example, to affect citizens’ sanction perceptions, levels of knowledge about and use of sex offender registries, and so on—to meet two conditions. First, such policies might include a mandatory allocation of some ratio of the total funds to communicating relevant information to the public. To illustrate, for every US$10 million invested in incarceration or other penal policies, US$100,000 could be allocated to educational media campaigns. It makes little sense to spend billions of dollars on corrections without taking sufficient steps to ensure that citizens know how their tax dollars are being spent and are aware of the key features and consequences of the funded policies. Second, on the back end, crime policies should undergo what could be termed a “public awareness evaluation,” which would involve assessing the extent to which members of the public have been made aware of the enactment and specifics of an implemented policy. Mears (2010) details the importance of subjecting crime policies to a series of different evaluative assessments, ranging from a needs evaluation through a cost-efficiency evaluation. A public awareness evaluation could be added to this list to make certain that the process of disseminating policy information to the public does not escape official attention.

In short, there is a need for criminal justice agencies to systematically implement and evaluate public educational campaigns that convey facts about the criminal justice system—including the intent of new laws, incarceration trends, daily operations and procedures, and additional features of the correctional system. This may mean using multiple modes of media such as newspapers, television, and the Internet to disseminate accurate and easily digestible information about corrections. To the extent that such campaigns are successful in increasing public knowledge about the criminal justice system is ultimately an empirical question. However, given the potential benefits of such interventions—enhanced public safety and greater public confidence in the correctional system—such an approach, at the very least, merits additional policy consideration.

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.

Notes

Author Biographies

Justin T. Pickett, PhD, is an assistant professor in the School of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York at Albany. His research interests center broadly on public opinion about criminal justice, including a particular focus on the contours and sources of attitudes toward crime and justice issues. He is currently examining methods for measuring ambiguity in probabilistic expectations and exploring the determinants of public views about juvenile treatment programs. He has published in Criminology, the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, and other leading criminology journals.

Christina Mancini, PhD, is an assistant professor at Virginia Commonwealth University’s L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs. She received her doctoral degree from Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice in 2009. She has published in Criminology, Crime and Delinquency, the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, and other crime and policy journals. She is currently involved in studies examining the emergence and efficacy of sex offender policy, public opinion, race and perceptions about offending, and violent victimization.

Daniel P. Mears, PhD, is the Mark C. Stafford professor of Criminology at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice. He conducts basic and applied research on crime and justice. His work has appeared in Criminology, the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, and other crime and policy journals and in a book, American Criminal Justice Policy (Cambridge University Press 2010).

Marc Gertz is a professor at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice. He has published in Criminology, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Justice Quarterly, and Social Problems. His research interests include the study of public opinion and the criminal justice system, the organization of courts, and interest groups and voting behavior.

References

Ahlers

(2006). News consumption and the new electronic media. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 11, 29-52.

American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2004). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Ann Arbor, MI: Author.

Anderson

A. L.

Sample

L. L.

Cain

C. M.

(2013). Residency restrictions for sex offenders: Public opinion on appropriate distances. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0887403413513897

Apel

(2013). Sanctions, perceptions, and crime: Implications for criminal deterrence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29, 67-101.

Baumer

Martin

K. H.

(2013). Social organization, collective sentiment, and legal sanctions in murder cases. American Journal of Sociology, 119, 131-182.

Beale

S. S.

(2006). The news media’s influence on criminal justice policy: How market-driven news promotes punitiveness. William and Mary Law Review, 48, 397-481.

Beckett

(1997). Making crime pay: Law and order in contemporary American politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Beckett

Sasson

(2004). The politics of injustice: Crime and punishment in America (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Betsch

Ulshöfer

Renekewitz

Betsch

(2011). The influence of narrative v. statistical information on perceiving vaccination risks. Medical Decision Making, 31, 742-753.

10.

Callanan

V. J.

(2012). Media consumption, perceptions of crime risk and fear of crime: Examining race/ethnic differences. Sociological Perspectives, 55, 93-115.

11.

Chiricos

(1996). Moral panic as ideology: Drugs, violence, race and punishment in America. In Lynch

M. J.

Patterson

E. B.

(Eds.), Race with prejudice: Race and justice in America (pp. 19-48). New York, NY: Harrow and Heston.

12.

Chiricos

Eschholz

Gertz

(1997). Crime, news and fear of crime: Toward and identification of audience effects. Social Problems, 44, 342-357.

13.

Chiricos

Padgett

Gertz

(2000). Fear, TV news, and the reality of crime. Criminology, 38, 755-786.

14.

Cullen

F. T.

Fisher

B. S.

Applegate

B. K.

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

15.

Doob

A. N.

Macdonald

G. E.

(1979). Television viewing and fear of victimization: Is the relationship causal? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 170-179.

16.

Dorfman

Schiraldi

(2001). Off balance: Youth, race and crime in the news. Washington, DC: Building Blocks for Youth.

17.

Enns

P. K.

(2014). The public’s increasing punitiveness and its influence on mass incarceration in the United States. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 857-872. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12098

18.

Eschholz

Chiricos

Gertz

(2003). Television and fear of crime: Program types, audience traits, and the mediating effect of perceived neighborhood racial composition. Social Problems, 50, 395-415.

19.

Florida Department of Corrections. (2005). Florida department of corrections 2004-05 annual report. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

20.

Florida Department of Corrections. (2007). 10-20-Life criminals sentenced to Florida’s prisons. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

21.

Garland

Wodahl

Schuhmann

(2013). Value conflict and public opinion toward prisoner reentry initiatives. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24, 27-48.

22.

Garland

(2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

23.

Gerbner

Gross

(1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 173-199.

24.

Gerbner

Gross

Jackson-Beeck

Jeffries-Fox

Signorielli

(1978). Cultural indicators: Violence Profile No. 9. Journal of Communication, 28, 176-207.

25.

Gerbner

Gross

Morgan

Signorielli

(1980). The “mainstreaming” of America: Violence Profile No. 11. Journal of Communication, 30, 10-29.

26.

Gibson

J. L.

Caldeira

G. A.

(2009). Knowing the supreme court? A reconsideration of public ignorance of the high court. Journal of Politics, 71, 429-441.

27.

Goidel

R. K.

Freeman

C. M.

Procopio

S. T.

(2006). The impact of television viewing on perceptions of juvenile crime. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50, 119-139.

28.

Hans

V. P.

Dee

J. L.

(1991). Media coverage of law: Its impact on juries and the public. American Behavioral Scientist, 35, 136-149.

29.

Heath

(2009). Emotional engagement: How television builds big brands at low attention. Journal of Advertising Research, 49, 62-73.

30.

Hough

Roberts

J. V.

(1999). Sentencing trends in Britain: Public knowledge and public opinion. Punishment & Society, 1, 11-26.

31.

Johnson

T. J.

Braima

M. A. M.

Sothirajah

(2001). The press and the not-so-mean streets: The relative influence of the news media on public knowledge of crime rates. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 9, 182-202.

32.

Kahneman

(2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

33.

Kleck

Barnes

J. C.

(2010). Do more police lead to more crime deterrence? Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0011128710382263

34.

Kleck

Sever

Gertz

(2005). The missing link in general deterrence research. Criminology, 43, 623-660.

35.

Kort-Butler

L. A.

Hartshorn

K. J. S.

(2011). Watching the detectives: Crime programming, fear of crime, and attitudes about the criminal justice system. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 36-55.

36.

Krcmar

Strizhakova

(2009). Uses and gratifications as media choice. In Hartman

(Ed.), Media choice: A theoretical and empirical overview (pp. 53-69). New York, NY: Routledge.

37.

Lane

Meeker

J. W.

(2003). Ethnicity, information sources, and fear of crime. Deviant Behavior, 24, 1-26.

38.

Mancini

Mears

D. P.

(2013). The effect of agency scandal on public views toward the correctional system. Criminal Justice Review, 38, 5-28.

39.

Mears

D. P.

(2010). American criminal justice policy: An evaluation approach to increasing accountability and effectiveness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

40.

Morely

(1986). Family television: Cultural power and domestic leisure. London, England: Comedia Publishing Group.

41.

Nagin

D. S.

(1998). Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice, 23, 1-42.

42.

Nielsen. (2011). American video habits by age, gender and ethnicity. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2011/american-video-habits-by-age-gender-and-ethnicity.html

43.

O’Keefe

G. J.

(1984). Public views on crime: Television exposure and media credibility. In Bostrom

R. N.

(Ed.), Communication yearbook (8th ed., pp. 514-534). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

44.

Pickett

J. T.

Baker

(2014). The pragmatic American: Empirical reality or methodological artifact? Criminology, 52.

45.

Pickett

J. T.

Chiricos

(2012). Controlling other people’s children: Racialized views of delinquency and whites’ punitive attitudes toward juvenile offenders. Criminology, 50, 673-710.

46.

Pickett

J. T.

Mancini

Mears

D. P.

(2013). Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: Explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology, 51, 729-759.

47.

Pickett

J. T.

Mears

D. P.

Stewart

E. A.

Gertz

(2013). Security at the expense of liberty: A test of predictions deriving from the culture of control thesis. Crime & Delinquency, 59, 214-242.

48.

Price

Zeller

(1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 133-164.

49.

Prior

(2009a). The immensely inflated news audience: Assessing bias in self-reported news exposure. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 130-143.

50.

Prior

(2009b). Improving media effects research through better measurement of news exposure. The Journal of Politics, 71, 893-908.

51.

Proctor

J. L.

Badzinski

D. M.

Johnson

(2002). The impact of media on knowledge and perceptions of Megan’s Law. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13, 356-379.

52.

Roberts

J. V.

(1992). Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. Crime and Justice, 16, 99-180.

53.

Roberts

J. V.

Hough

(2005). Understanding public attitudes to criminal justice. New York, NY: Open University Press.

54.

Roberts

J. V.

Stalans

L. J.

(1997). Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

55.

Roberts

J. V.

Stalans

L. J.

Indermaur

Hough

(2003). Penal populism and public opinion: Lessons from five countries. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

56.

Skogan

Maxfield

(1981). Coping with crime. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

57.

Sprott

J. B.

Webster

C. M.

Doob

A. N.

(2013). Punishment severity and confidence in the criminal justice system. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 55, 279-292.

58.

Stalans

L. J.

(1993). Citizens’ crime stereotypes, biased recall, and punishment preferences in abstract cases: The educative role of interpersonal sources. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 451-470.

59.

Surette

(1984). Justice and the media: Issues and research. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

60.

Surette

(2011). Media, crime and criminal justice: Images, realities, and politics (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

61.

Valentine

(1992). Images of danger: Women’s sources of information about the spatial distribution of male violence. Area, 24, 22-29.

62.

Weaver

Wakshlag

(1986). Perceived vulnerability to crime, criminal victimization experience and television viewing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 30, 141-158.

63.

Weitzer

Kubrin

C. E.

(2004). Breaking news: How local TV news and real world conditions affect fear of crime. Justice Quarterly, 21, 497-520.

64.

Welch

(2007). Black criminal stereotypes and racial profiling. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 276-288.

65.

Zillmann

(2006). Exemplification effects in the promotion of safety and health. Journal of Communication, 56, 221-237.