Assistance II

Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 50–59

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Criminal Justice

Public opinion on crime causation: An exploratory study of Philadelphia area residents

Shaun L. Gabbidon ⁎, Danielle Boisvert School of Public Affairs, Department of Criminal Justice, Penn State Harrisburg, Middletown, PA 17057, U.S.

⁎ Corresponding author at: Penn State Harrisburg, 777W PA 17057, U.S. Tel.: +1 717 948 6054; fax: +1 717 948 6

E-mail address: [email protected] (S.L. Gabbidon).

0047-2352/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.11.008

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Available online 22 December 2011

Purpose: This study examined the views on crime causation from a sample of randomly selected Philadelphia area residents. Methods: Through the use of a phone survey, residents (N=359) were asked thirty seven questions related

to their level of support for several criminological theories, including classical theory, biological theory, psy- chological theory, social disorganization theory, strain/general strain theory, subcultural theory, social learn- ing theory, social control/general theory, labeling theory, critical theory, and environmental criminology theory. The analyses assessed whether the views of respondents differed by race, gender, and political ideol- ogy. Both across-race and within-race analyses were also conducted to determine the nuances of the support for specific criminological perspectives. Results: The results pointed to numerous significant gender differences and across-race differences in public opinion on crime causation but few within-race differences. The results also confirmed previous research that supported the notion that one's political ideology is tied to the level of support for certain criminological theories. Conclusion: Overall, the results point to the merits of including the views of lay persons when there are dis- cussions pertaining to crime causation.

© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

One of the core aspirations of criminology as a discipline is to deter- mine the causes of criminal behavior (Sutherland, 1924). As such, for more than a century, theorists have considered numerous factors in seeking to explain crime (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2011). With more than 14 million arrests in 2010, there continues to be substantive interest and potential value in identifying the primary contributors to law- breaking in America. Thus, today, those studying crime continue to con- sider a wide variety of theories to explain criminal offending. Such the- ories include those emphasizing biological, sociological, psychological, and a variety of other factors to explain criminality. While some of these theories have shown promise, a recent analysis of articles pub- lished in the leading criminological journal, Criminology, revealed that the vast majority of existing criminological theories have demonstrated limited explanatory power (Weisburd & Piquero, 2008). Nonetheless, these theories continue to be the lifeline of criminological research in the field.

Notably, scholars in the field have engaged in spirited debate about which criminological theory holds the most promise for explaining criminal behavior. It is interesting, though, that while scholars within

. Harrisburg Pike,Middletown, 320.

rights reserved.

the discipline continue to debate themerits of individual and integrated perspectives on crime (Agnew, 2005, 2011; Barak, 2009) there has been very scant research on the criminological views of ordinary citizens. In other words, very few scholars have asked the public about their opin- ions on crime causation. While there has been an abundance of studies on public views on policing practices (Flanagan & Vaughn, 1995; Higgins, Gabbidon, & Vito, 2010; Maxon, Hennigan, & Sloane, 2003; Miller, Davis, Henderson, Markovic, & Ortiz, 2005; Weitzer & Tuch, 2006; Weitzer, Tuch, & Skogan, 2008), courts and sentencing (Gerber & Greer-Engelhardt, 1996; Myers, 1996; Warr, 1995), capital punish- ment (Bobo & Johnson, 2004; Falco & Freiburger, 2011; Unnever & Cullen, 2007; Unnever & Cullen, 2011), and opinions on how to handle crime (Cullen, Fisher, & Applegate, 2000; Sims & Johnston, 2004) and delinquency (Nagin, Piquero, Scott, & Steinberg, 2006), the existing body of public opinion research on crime causation is limited. We believe that citizens have a unique vantage point on criminal behavior occurring in their neighborhoods; especially citizens that reside in areas where crime is a major concern. Citizens from these areas may witness crime, talk with their neighbors about crime, read and/or hear about crime on a frequent basis, have family members and/or friends that have criminal backgrounds, and/or experience crime themselves. Considering the milieu in which citizens from large metropolitan areas reside, it makes sense to ask residents living in such an area (Philadelphia) what they considered to be the major contributors to crime. This is critical because the policies that result from politicians’

51S.L. Gabbidon, D. Boisvert / Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 50–59

perceptions on the causes of crime have the potential to directly influ- ence what crime prevention initiatives are implemented. Thus, adding residents’ views on crime causation to the conversation might result in their ideas being considered in the policymaking process (Nagin et al., 2006).

We were also interested in whether residents’ views varied by race and gender. Considering that much of the existing public opinion research on criminal justice issues has identified a “racial divide” in views between Blacks and Whites (Unnever, 2008; Unnever & Gabbidon, 2011), this study examines whether a similar divide exists in regard to observations on the causes of crime. Similarly, previous public opinion research has shown that males and females perceive specific aspects of criminal justice differently (Hurwitz & Smithey, 1998). Therefore, we felt examining opinions by race and gender might provide greater insights into the nuances of this relationship. Finally, since past research has also shown that political ideology (conservative, moderate, or liberal) influences public opinion (Flanagan & Longmire, 1996), we also considered this in our research.

We begin with a review of the literature on perceptions of crime causation studies in criminology. Our review focuses on the scholar- ship that has investigated residents’ views on crime causation and also the literature that pays particular attention to the studies that have examined criminologists’ opinions on crime causation.

Literature Review

Public Opinion on Crime Causation

There is a distinct body of literature that has centered on soliciting public opinion on crime causation. This literature is older than previ- ously thought (Gabbidon, 2000, 2007). For example, in the early 1900s, a statewide poll was conducted that asked residents why they felt Blacks were overrepresented in the Georgia criminal justice system (Du Bois, 1904). The residents pointed to factors such as: “in- dolence and laziness,” “lack of home training,” “not attending to their own business,” “disobedience,” “bad company,” “ignorance,” and “race prejudice” (Du Bois, 1904, p. 55). Though the survey was limited in scope, it clearly yielded some early insights into citizens’ views on crime causation.

Erskine (1974) provided one of the first comprehensive summa- ries of poll questions on the causes of crime and delinquency from 1936 to the early 1970s. The summary found that in the 1940s, respondents pointed to “lack of parental control and supervision; neglect” and “improper training at home; poor conditions in home,” as the two leading factors for juvenile delinquency. Similar results were reported in the 1950s with “parents not strict enough, give youngsters too much freedom” and “parents do not provide proper home life, training in the home,” being the reasons why teenagers were getting out of hand (Erskine, 1974). Polls from the early 1960s continued to find that parents and poor home life were key contribu- tors to juvenile delinquency and the increase of crime in the United States. By the end of the 1960s, race issues began to emerge as possi- ble contributors to crime. For example, one of the leading causes identified for the breakdown of law and order, in a Harris poll in 1968, was “Negroes who start riots.” A year later another Harris poll found that, “lack of programs to help disadvantaged young people,” was second to “leniency in handling offenders” as a contributor to the increase in crime. Shortly thereafter, “leniency in criminal justice” emerged as a leading explanation among the public on crime causa- tion (Erskine, 1974).

Research in the 1970s and 1980s started to lookmore deeply at lay views on crime causation by factors such as gender, age, and political ideology. For example, Reuterman (1978) found that the public relied on a variety of factors to explain delinquency and that there were gender differences in opinions with women more than men pointing to home and family causes of delinquency. This gender divide was

also found in other causal attribution studies of the period (see Cann, Calhoun, & Selby, 1980). Furnham and Henderson (1983) fur- ther examined public opinion on lay theories of delinquency from a sample of 350 Londoners. Overall, the study found that societal explanations were most important, while explanations pointing to a “young person's mental instability or genetic deficit”were considered less important as a causal factor. The study also found that political orientation, sex, and age influenced the results. In particular, Conser- vatives were more likely than Labour voters to view a “defective edu- cation,” as an explanation for delinquency. Further, “females more than males and older people more than younger people believed that temptation was an important factor in explaining delinquency” (p. 112). The sex differences persisted throughout the study with women being more inclined than men to find factors related to social- ization in school and home being critical to explaining delinquency.

Research during this time period also began to examine how views on crime causation might influence decision making. For exam- ple, Carroll (1978) found that causal attributions influenced release decisions by parole officials. More specifically, the parole officials con- sidered the following as the leading attributions on crime causation: “…substance abuse (drugs and alcohol), profit, victim precipitation, influence of associates, personality deficiencies (lack of control, men- tal problems, immaturity, easily influenced, aimless) and domestic problems” (Carroll, 1978, p. 385).

Cullen, Clark, Cullen, and Mathers (1985) examined causal attri- bution and attitudes towards criminal sentencing. The authors inves- tigated whether attributions related to the classical school (individual responsibility) or the positivist school (behavior caused by social con- straint and social ills) contributed to views on sentencing, controlling for a variety of demographic and other factors including the salience of crime in the lives of the respondents and also victimization experi- ences. The researchers found that causal attribution did have a signif- icant effect on views towards criminal sanctioning. In particular, those with a positivist orientation favored rehabilitation over more punitive sanctions; conversely, those holding a classical school orien- tation were found to support more punitive sentencing options. Nota- bly, following the work of Cullen and his colleagues, the late 1980s continued to find researchers examining the trends related to lay opinions on crime causation (Flanagan, 1987).

For example, in 2003, Sims examined the relationship between causal attribution and correctional ideology. The results of her study revealed that, on the one hand, those persons that supported structural positivism expressed less punitive attitudes. On the other hand, those respondents that supported social process (learning and bonding theo- ries) and subcultural theories expressed more punitive attitudes. In support of the earlier Cullen et al. (1985) findings, those participants that were supportive of classical theory were more likely to hold puni- tive attitudes. Sims (2003) also found that race and education had indi- rect effects on punitive attitudes. Whites were less likely than non- Whites to attribute crime to structural factors, and were also more supportive than non-Whites of social process, classical, subcultural, and labeling theories. Those respondents with higher levels of educa- tion were less likely to support structural factors and classical theories. Conversely, theyweremore supportive than less educated respondents of social process, subcultural, and labeling theories. Recent research has continued to find that causal attribution matters in public opinion on support for either punitive or more rehabilitation-oriented correctional policies (Cook & Lane, 2009; Thompson & Bobo, 2011).

Criminologists on Crime Causation

Over the last two decades, an emerging body of research has sought to determine the opinions of criminologists’ concerning crime causation. This body of research has investigated what crimino- logical theories are most favored among criminologists. Dating to the late 1980s, the early scholarship in this area found that social control

52 S.L. Gabbidon, D. Boisvert / Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 50–59

and social learning theories were the ones most favored by criminol- ogists to explain serious/persistent offending and delinquency/ minor offending (Ellis & Hoffman, 1990). This early research also found that criminologists ranked an unfair economic system as the leading con- tributor to serious/persistent offending. Less serious offenses and de- linquency were attributed to poor supervision at home and having uncaring families (Ellis & Hoffman, 1990). Replications of this re- search in the late 1990s found that social control theory remained the most favored theory for explaining serious/persistent offending. By this time, self-control theory had emerged as the leading theory for explaining delinquency and minor offending (Ellis & Walsh, 1999; Walsh & Ellis, 1999, 2004).

Researchers have recently devoted additional scholarly attention to the topic. And again, they have sought to determine what theories are most favored by criminologists and what specific factors are perceived to be the greatest causes of crime (Cooper, Walsh, & Ellis, 2010; Ellis, Cooper, &Walsh, 2008). Based on a sample ofmembers of the American Society of Criminology, researchers noted the fragmentation in the dis- cipline considering that only half the sample was willing to provide a single favored theory out of 24 possible selections (Cooper et al., 2010). The results from this limited participation pointed to social learning theory, life course/developmental theory, social control theory, and social disorganization theory as the most favored theories. The highest rated causes of crime were “an unfair economic system,” “lack of empathy and concern for others,” “peer influences,” and “unstable family life.” In addition, this research continued to find that, “[political] ideology still plays a substantial role in criminology, impacting favored theories, and attitudes towardswhat the sciences have to offer” (Cooper et al., 2010, p. 344).

Purpose of the Current Study

Past research has examined the views of the lay public, criminal jus- tice professionals, and academically trained criminologists on their most favored criminological theories. Our study expands previous work in that it includes a large sample of Black respondents. Much of the previous research in this area has included small samples of Blacks and other racial/ethnic minorities (Cook & Lane, 2009; Cooper et al., 2010). For example, the studymost closely tied to ours included a sam- ple comprised of 82% Whites, 5% Hispanics, and 9% Black/African Americans (see Sims, 2003). More recent studies have had larger Black samples (Thompson & Bobo, 2011), but tend to only scratch the surface in terms of assessing the public opinions on the vast array of existing criminological theories. In addition to a large sample of Blacks (46%)—our study also includes a large sample of Whites (54%) from a large metropolitan area where crime is a salient concern. The makeup of our sample allows for substantive comparisons across and within race.

We specifically examined three questions. First, what are the views of Philadelphia area residents on crime causation? And, how do these views align with contemporary criminological theories? Sec- ond, we explored whether there are differences between males and females and Blacks and Whites in their views on the causes of crime. Next, we further examined whether there are within-group differences in views on the causes of crime (Black/White Males vs. Black/White Females andWhite Male/Female vs. Black Male/Female). These analyses provide further nuances of public opinion on crime causation that have not been previously considered. Finally, building on the extant literature in the area (Cooper et al., 2010; Walsh & Ellis, 1999; Walsh & Ellis, 2004), we also examined whether political ideology matters in citizens’ attitudes towards crime causation.

Methods

[The data for this studywere collected] using a telephone survey ad- ministered by Penn State Harrisburg's Center for Survey Research from

February 1, 2010 toMarch 17, 2010. The Center used the highly sophis- ticated VOXCO Computer Assisted Telephone Assisted Interviewing (CATI) system that is tied to random digit dialing and yields random samples (including unlisted numbers) from target populations. The Center used twenty-five trained interviewers to conduct the phone in- terviews.1 To ensure data quality, ongoing interviewer training sessions were held. CallsweremadeMonday through Thursday from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm and Saturday from 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm. Interviewers asked to speak to the person in the household who was 18 years or older and who last celebrated a birthday. The questionnaire included 55 open and close-ended responses along with a series of ten demographic questions. In total, the research yielded 409 completed surveys. Using the American Association of Public Opinion Research's Cooperation Rate 3 (COOP3) formula, the cooperation rate for this study was 76%.

Traditional telephone surveys oftentimes exclude certain segments of the population. Thus, weighting factors were applied to all cases as a way to correct for any biases resulting from the non-participation of those excluded individuals. The weights were calculated by comparing participant demographics, specifically age and gender, to known occur- rences in Philadelphia using U.S. Census data. For example, 15 partici- pants in our sample were males between the ages of 18 to 24. Based on the demographics in Philadelphia (provided by the U.S. Census), we would have expected there to have been 31 respondents in the 18–24 year old male category. As such, a weight of 2.035 was applied to those 15 cases. This process of applying weights to participant data serves to increase the generalizability of our results.

The final analytical sample (N=359) included only respondents who identified themselves as either White (54%) or Black (46%). The age of the respondents ranged from 18 to 91 years old with a mean of 46.5 (SD=18.07). There were slightly more females (55.5%) than males (44.5%) included in the sample. The education level of the re- spondents ranged from having less than a high school diploma to grad- uate work, with the majority of the participants (94%) having obtained at least a high school diploma/GED. Approximately 60% of the respon- dents were employed, of which 70% of those employed worked full- time. Most participants categorized themselves as having moderate political views (40%), followed by liberal (36%), then conservative (24%) viewpoints. The majority of the participants resided in an urban area (76%) and over 60% of the sample indicated a total household in- come of less than $60,000. A complete list of the sample demographics is provided in Table 1.

Measures

To explore the criminological preference of residents, we used a va- riety ofmeasures that represented the hallmark perspectives in thefield including: classical theory, biological theory, psychological theory, so- cial disorganization theory, strain/general strain theory, subcultural theory, social learning theory, social control/general theory, labeling theory, critical theory, and environmental criminology theory. For each theory, a series of questions were asked and the respondents’ expressed the strength of their support for a particular question using a 7-point scale that ranged from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). Some of the measures were borrowed and revised from prior studies (Sims, 2003), while others were constructed based on feedback provided by well-known criminologists.2 A complete list of all 37 questions along with the descriptive statistics for each item and the reliabilities for each composite score is presented in Table 2.

Findings

Findings for Entire Sample

It was interesting that none of our measures garnered support higher than 6 on the 7-point scale. In fact, only 8 out of 37 questions had an average score that surpassed the 5-point threshold. These

Table 1 Background Characteristics of Participants

Frequency Percent*

Gender Male 151 45 Female 188 56

Race White 184 54 Black/African American 155 46

Age 18–24 years 43 13 25–34 years 53 16 35–44 years 64 19 45–54 years 69 20 55–64 years 52 15 65-74 years 31 9 75 years and older 27 8

Political Views Conservative 74 24 Moderate 126 40 Liberal 114 36

Geographic Location Rural 37 11 Suburban 41 13 Urban 253 76

Employment Status Working 206 61 Not employed (e.g., homemaker) 18 5 Retired 67 20 Unemployed 31 9 Disabled 16 5

Working Status Full-time 143 70 Part-time 42 21 Both 19 9

Total Household Income Less than $10,000 32 12 $10,000 to $19,999 33 12 $20,000 to $39,999 48 18 $40,000 to $59,999 58 21 $60,000 to $74,999 35 13 $75,000 to $99, 999 32 12 $100,000 to $124,999 14 5 $125,000 to $149,000 3 1 $150,000 or more 17 6

Educational Level Less than high school 19 6 High school diploma or GED 86 25 Some college 76 23 Two-year technical degree 38 11 Four-year college graduate 53 16 Graduate work 65 19

* Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding

53S.L. Gabbidon, D. Boisvert / Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 50–59

included two measures that supported psychological theory “lack of compassion/concern” (5.22) and “drug/alcohol problems” (5.28), two measures that supported social control/general theory “not involved in positive activities” (5.13) and “not close to parents/ guardians” (5.30), one measure that supported social learning the- ory “friends/family/others approve” (5.15), and another that sup- ported strain/general theory “obtain material wealth any way” (5.26). The highest rated cause of crime fell under environmental criminology “opportunity/not being caught” (5.51).

Among the theories with the lowest rated items were: biological theory, social disorganization theory, strain/general strain theory, subcultural theory, and critical theory. The lowest rated cause of crime fell under biological theory “substance use during pregnancy” (2.94). Two other biological theory items also received low ratings, these included: “genetics” (3.02), and “brains work differently” (3.76). The item under social disorganization that suggested immi- gration as a contributor to crime also had minimal support (3.32). One item from the strain/general theory was rated low: “negative ex- periences” (3.57). The subcultural item that pointed to offenders hav- ing “different values/morals” was also rated low (3.67). Finally, the

item under critical theory that pointed to racism as a cause of crime was also not strongly supported by the respondents (3.85).

When we split the sample by gender, only the subcultural theory index revealed significant sex differences, with males being more supportive of subcultural explanations of crime compared to females. There were additional significant differences for individual items under specific theories. These are noted in Table 3. In particular, fe- males were found to be more supportive than males on the following crime causation items: “punishment is not harsh enough” (classical theory), “lack of positive activities” (social control/general theory), "being called "criminal" enough times, they become one" (labeling theory), and racism (critical theory). In only one item were men sig- nificantly more supportive than women. This occurred with the social control/general theory item on discipline (“weren't properly disciplined”).

Our analysis of opinions on criminological theories by political ideology revealed significant differences in five instances (see Table 4). Conservatives were significantly more supportive than mod- erates and liberals of classical theory, biological theory, psychological theory, and social control theory. The remaining finding of note was that liberals were significantly more supportive of critical theory than moderates and conservatives.

Across-Race Findings

Using t-tests, we examined whether there were significant differ- ences betweenWhite and Black support for the assorted theories. Our results revealed that Whites significantly favored five theories more so than Blacks (psychological theory, social disorganization theory, subcultural theory, social learning theory, and social control/general theory). Table 5 highlights the individual items in which there were significant differences by race. In total, there were significant differ- ences in 13 measures; and, in all but two of the theories (classical theory and environmental criminology) there were significant items. Specifically, Whites were significantly more supportive than Blacks of the following contributors to crime causation: “genetics” (biological theory); “drug and alcohol problems” (psychological theory); “sense of belonging” (social disorganization theory); “immi- grants” (social disorganization theory); “crime is acceptable in neigh- borhoods” (subcultural theory); “imitating family/friends/others” (social learning theory); “behavior is learned” (social learning theo- ry); “friends/family/others approve of criminal behavior” (social learning theory); “criminals can't control their impulses” (social con- trol/general theory); and, “if they are called ‘criminal’ enough times, they become one” (labeling theory). Racism did not emerge as a sig- nificant area of difference between the views of Whites and Blacks; however, it was unanticipated that Whites supported this as a con- tributor to crime more than Blacks (3.95 vs. 3.73).

Blacks significantly supported only three crime causation items more than Whites. These included measures pertaining to “stressful life events” (strain/general strain theory), “some have lots/others have nothing” (critical theory), and “poverty” (critical theory). A non-significant finding of interest is that Blacks reported slightly higher support than Whites for the notion that “low intelligence” was a contributor to offending (4.28 v. 4.17).

Between-race comparisons were also analyzed by gender. First, we discuss the differences between White and Black males (Table 6). This is followed by a comparison of White and Black females (Table 7). On the whole, there were three theories in which White males were significantly more supportive than Black males (psychological theory, social disorganization theory, and subcultural theory) and one in which Black males were significantly more sup- portive than White males (critical theory). As shown in Table 6, there were twelve individual items in which there were significant differences among White and Black males. The results generally show that White males were significantly more supportive than

Table 2 Participants attitudes towards crime causation

CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY Range Mean (SD) N

Classical Theory items (α=.77) 3-21 13.69 (5.18) 336 Crime occurs because punishments are not harsh enough 1-7 4.27 (2.10) 336 People break the law because they believe they can get away with it 1-7 4.87 (2.08) 339 People break the law because they are not punished quickly enough 1-7 4.50 (2.10) 338 Biological Theory items (α=.58) 4-28 13.72 (5.64) 311 Low intelligence plays a role in explaining why some people commit crime 1-7 4.22 (2.19) 339 Smoking, drinking, or using drugs during pregnancy will increase the chances that the child will become criminal when they grow up.

1-7 2.94 (2.12) 325

People commit crime because their brains work differently than people who do not commit crime 1-7 3.76 (2.21) 330 Genetics can explain why crime runs in the family 1-7 3.02 (2.03) 330 Psychological Theory items (α=.57) 3-21 14.85 (3.93) 337 People commit crimes because they have emotional or mental health problems 1-7 4.34 (1.87) 337 People commit crimes because they have a lack of compassion or concern for others. 1-7 5.22 (1.79) 337 People commit crimes because they have a problem with drugs or alcohol. 1-7 5.28 (1.71) 339 Social Disorganization Theory items (α=.58) 4-28 17.70 (5.01) 326 Crime occurs when people don't feel a sense of belonging to their community. 1-7 4.59 (1.89) 336 People commit crimes when neighborhoods are run down and neglected 1-7 4.85 (1.96) 338 Crime rates are higher in neighborhoods with a large number of immigrants 1-7 3.32 (1.89) 330 Young people commit crimes when there are no youth activities or jobs 1-7 5.03 (1.78) 338 Strain/General Theory items (α=.62) 4-28 16.9 (5.07) 333 Crime occurs because people try to obtain material wealth in any way possible. 1-7 5.26 (1.64) 339 Crime occurs because it provides the only opportunity for some people to succeed 1-7 4.01 (2.00) 337 People commit crime because they can't handle stressful events that occur in their lives 1-7 4.06 (1.85) 337 When people experience negative things in their life, such as abuse or the death of a loved one, they will turn to crime as a way to cope with it.

1-7 3.57 (1.92) 334

Subcultural Theory items (α=.67) 3-21 12.21 (4.62) 336 People commit crime because they belong to a culture that has values and morals that are different from the rest of society.

1-7 3.67 (2.00) 337

People commit crime when they feel they have been disrespected in some way. 1-7 4.33 (1.81) 337 People commit crime because they live in neighborhoods where it is acceptable to break the law. 1-7 4.22 (2.15) 338 Social Learning Theory items (α=.76) 4-28 19.37 (5.50) 334 People commit crime because they are imitating family, friends, and others they see doing wrong. 1-7 4.59 (1.78) 337 Crime is like any other behavior; it is learned from the people around you. 1-7 4.87 (1.85) 337 People commit crime when family, friends, or others either approve of the crime or do not discourage their criminal behavior

1-7 5.15 (1.79) 337

Social Control/General Theory items (α=.64) 4-28 19.15 (5.04) 335 People commit crime because their relationships with family, school, or friends are weak or broken 1-7 4.76 (1.80) 338 Young people commit crimes when they are not involved enough in positive activities such as after-school programs or sports

1-7 5.13 (1.77) 339

People commit crime because they can't control their impulses 1-7 4.34 (1.91) 337 People commit crime because they weren't properly disciplined as children 1-7 4.38 (1.92) 336 Young people are more likely to break the law when they do not feel close to their parents or guardians or do not care what their parents or guardians think of them.

1-7 5.30 (1.66) 337

Labeling Theory items (α=.54) 2-14 8.27 (3.15) 323 When people are called “criminal” enough times, they will become one. 1-7 4.0 (1.93) 336 People who have contact with the criminal justice system are made worse, not better. 1-7 4.29 (1.87) 326 Critical Theory items (α=.73) 3-21 13.37 (4.81) 335 Crime occurs because the American economic system has produced communities where some people have a lot and others have nothing.

1-7 4.58 (2.03) 337

Poverty is a major reason why we have so much crime. 1-7 4.93 (1.97) 337 Racism is a major reason why we have so much crime. 1-7 3.85 (1.99) 336 Environmental Criminology Theory items (α=.59) 3-21 14.58 (3.87) 329 The physical design, for example, lighting and easy access in and out of a neighborhood, influences how much, or what type of, crime happens there.

1-7 4.77 (1.73) 330

People commit crime when there is an opportunity to do so and little chance of getting caught. 1-7 5.51 (1.62) 339 Crime occurs in apartments, shopping malls, and bars due to poor security. 1-7 4.36 (1.88) 337

54 S.L. Gabbidon, D. Boisvert / Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 50–59

Black males of tenets of individual-level theories. Illustrative of this is the fact that, except for two significant findings under social disorga- nization and one under subcultural theory, the theories in which White men were significantly more supportive than Black men in- clude: biological theory, psychological theory, social learning theory, and social control theory/general theory.

Table 7 shows that there were fewer significant differences be- tween White females and Black females. Specifically, for only two theories were White females significantly more supportive than Black females; these are social learning theory and labeling theory. Furthermore, individual items in which White females were more supportive than Black females fell under subcultural theory (“crime acceptable in certain neighborhoods”), social learning theory (“imitating family/friends/others” and “crime is learned”), labeling theory (“if they are called “criminal” enough times, they become

one), and critical theory (“racism”). Only in one instance did Black fe- male support for an item significantly exceed that of White females (“negative experiences”).

Within-Race Findings

We close our findings section with a review of the within-race re- sults. Here our aim was to determine whether the views of White males diverged from those of White females and similarly whether the views of Black males diverged from Black females. The general finding here was—few significant differences. Our comparison of White males and females yielded only two theories in which there were significant differences of support. In particular, White males were significantly more supportive of subcultural theory than White females, and White females were significantly more supportive of

Table 3 Public Opinion on Crime Causation by Gender1

Criminological Theory/Item

Males/ Mean(SD)

Females/ Mean(SD)

T-test

Punishment not harsh enough 3.96 (2.13) 4.52 (2.05) −2.45* Subcultural Theory 12.92 (4.51) 11.64 (4.64) 2.56* Not involved in positive activities 4.89 (1.81) 5.32 (1.71) −2.23* Weren't properly disciplined 4.64 (1.82) 4.17 (1.98) 2.29* Called “criminal” enough times 3.67 (1.89) 4.27 (1.92) −2.86** Racism 3.52 (1.96) 4.11 (1.97) −2.74**

*pb0.05 **pb0.01 1 To reduce the length of the paper, only the significant findings are presented. The

full results are available from the authors.

Table 4 Public Opinion on Criminological Theories by Political Ideology

Criminological Theory

Conservative/ Mean (SD)

Moderate/ Mean (SD)

Liberal/ Mean(SD)

F value

Classical 15.41 (5.06) 13.93 (5.06) 12.31 (4.93) 8.66*** Biological 15.20 (5.95) 13.63 (5.47) 12.94 (5.33) 3.51* Psychological 15.75 (3.89) 15.05 (4.09) 14.23 (3.75) 3.43* Social Disorganization 18.26 (5.28) 18.46 (4.62) 17.47 (4.63) 1.32 Strain/General Strain 16.97 (5.24) 17.63 (5.44) 16.28 (4.54) 2.05 Subcultural 12.53 (5.09) 12.64 (4.65) 11.97 (4.39) 0.68 Social Learning 19.35 (5.87) 20.14 (5.10) 18.90 (5.47) 1.56 Social Control 20.12 (5.48) 19.70 (4.80) 18.24 (4.90) 3.85* Labeling 7.93 (3.27) 8.56 (3.13) 7.86 (2.93) 1.69 Critical 12.44 (5.17) 12.78 (4.83) 14.54 (4.06) 6.00** Environmental 15.18 (4.18) 14.61 (3.67) 14.36 (3.94) 0.37

*pb0.05 **pb0.01***pb0.001

Table 6 Public Opinion on Crime Causation by Race and Sex (Males)1

Criminological Theory/Item White Males/ Mean (SD)

Black Males/ Mean (SD)

T-test

Genetics 3.24 (2.13) 2.09 (1.62) 3.62*** Psychological Theory 15.64 (3.09) 13.50 (3.98) 3.65*** Emotional/health problems 4.52 (1.46) 3.74 (2.00) 2.51* Drugs/alcohol problems 5.76 (1.32) 4.61 (2.01) 3.74*** Social Disorganization Theory 18.53 (4.75) 16.16 (5.38) 2.75** No sense of belonging 4.86 (1.72) 3.97 (2.20) 2.55* Immigrants 3.68 (1.73) 2.58 (1.93) 3.56*** Subcultural Theory 13.80 (4.01) 11.31 (4.96) 3.14** Different values/morals 4.23 (1.79) 3.24 (2.12) 2.87** Acceptable in neighborhoods 5.09 (1.79) 3.73 (2.27) 3.76*** Imitating family/friends/others 4.89 (1.51) 4.24 (2.12) 2.00* Family/friends/others approve 5.38 (1.50) 4.88 (2.06) 2.49* Can't control impulses 4.73 (1.86) 3.68 (2.10) 3.17** Critical Theory 12.39 (4.93) 14.15 (4.87) −2.10* Some have lots/others have nothing 4.35 (2.03) 5.15 (1.99) −2.31* Poverty 4.55 (2.01) 5.39 (2.12) −2.41*

*pb0.05 **pb0.01***pb0.001 1 To reduce the length of the paper, only the significant findings are presented. The

full results are available from the authors.

Table 7 Public Opinion on Crime Causation by Race and Sex (Females)1

Criminological Theory/Item White Females/ Mean(SD)

Black Females/ Mean(SD)

T-test

Negative experiences 3.25 (1.86) 3.90 (1.86) −2.38* Acceptable in neighborhoods 4.39 (2.15) 3.49 (2.10) 2.87** Social Learning Theory 20.05 (5.13) 18.29 (5.93) 2.14* Imitating family/friends/others 4.82 (1.57) 4.30 (1.93) 2.03* Learned 5.08 (1.72) 4.49 (2.13) 2.09* Labeling Theory 9.01 (2.94) 7.91 (3.37) 2.30* Called “criminal” enough times 4.65 (1.82) 3.94 (1.96) 2.56* Racism 4.49 (1.91) 3.79 (1.98) 2.42*

*pb0.05 **pb0.01***pb0.001 1 To reduce the length of the paper, only the significant findings are presented. The

full results are available from the authors.

55S.L. Gabbidon, D. Boisvert / Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 50–59

critical theory than White males. As presented in Table 8, there were also five individual items in which there were significant differences among White men and women. Specifically, White males were more supportive than White females of the two items under subcul- tural theory pertaining to criminals having different morals/values and crime being acceptable in certain neighborhoods. White women were more supportive than White men of the social control/general

Table 5 Public Opinion on Crime Causation by Race1

Criminological Theory/Item Whites/ Mean(SD)

Blacks/ Mean(SD)

t-test

Genetics 3.25 (2.03) 2.75 (2.01) 2.24* Psychological Theory 15.36 (3.49) 14.24 (4.34) 2.57* Drugs/alcohol problems 5.63 (1.52) 4.88 (1.84) 4.03*** Social Disorganization Theory 18.46 (4.75) 16.75 (5.17) 3.10** No sense of belonging 4.81 (1.74) 4.32 (2.03) 2.39* Immigrants 3.62 (1.83) 2.95 (1.90) 3.24*** Stressful events 3.85 (1.75) 4.32 (1.93) −2.34* Subcultural Theory 13.02 (4.37) 11.23 (4.73) 3.61*** Different values/morals 3.93 (1.89) 3.34 (2.08) 2.72** Acceptable in neighborhoods 4.76 (1.99) 3.58 (2.16) 5.19*** Social Learning Theory 19.36 (4.65) 18.89 (5.49) 2.96** Imitating family/friends/others 4.86 (1.54) 4.27 (1.99) 2.53** Learned 5.10 (1.57) 4.58 (2.11) 2.53** Family/friends/others approve 5.38 (1.50) 4.88 (2.06) 2.49* Social Control/General Theory 20.18 (4.98) 18.38 (5.94) 2.96** Can't control impulses 4.59 (1.80) 4.04 (2.01) 2.63** Called “criminal” enough times 4.19 (1.84) 3.77 (2.01) 2.02* Some have lots/others have nothing

4.38 (2.01) 4.82 (2.03) −1.97*

Poverty 4.73 (1.94) 5.17 (2.00) −2.03*

*pb0.05 **pb0.01***pb0.001 1 To reduce the length of the paper, only the significant findings are presented. The

full results are available from the authors.

theory supposition that a contributor to crime causation is when per- sons are not involved in positive activities. Similarly, White women were more supportive of the labeling concept that being called “crim- inal” enough times spurs criminality and also the conflict notion that racism is a key contributor to offending.

Even fewer significant differences existed between the opinions of Blackmen andwomen. In fact, therewere no theories inwhich they sig- nificantly differed, and, as shown in Table 9, only in two instances were there significant differences. In particular, Black females were more supportive of the idea that punishment was not harsh enough and they were also significantly more likely than Black men to support the

Table 8 Public Opinion of Whites on Crime Causation by Sex1

Criminological Theory/Item White Males/ Mean(SD)

White Females/ Mean(SD)

T-test

Subcultural Theory 13.80 (4.01) 12.15 (4.62) 2.59** Different values/morals 4.23 (1.79) 3.61 (1.96) 2.24* Acceptable in neighborhoods 5.09 (1.79) 4.39 (2.15) 2.39* Not involved in positive activities 4.80 (1.69) 5.28 (1.61) −1.96* Called “criminal” enough times 3.79 (1.77) 4.65 (1.82) −3.25*** Critical Theory 12.39 (4.93) 13.82 (4.64) −2.01* Racism 3.47 (1.88) 4.49 (1.91) −3.62***

*pb0.05 **pb0.01***pb0.001 1 To reduce the length of the paper, only the significant findings are presented. The

full results are available from the authors.

Table 9 Public Opinion of Blacks on Crime Causation by Sex1

Criminological Theory/Item Black Males/ Mean(SD)

Black Females/ Mean(SD)

T-test

Punishment not harsh enough 3.88 (2.18) 4.60 (1.96) −2.09* Genetics 2.09 (1.62) 3.07 (2.11) −3.09**

*pb0.05 **pb0.01 1 To reduce the length of the paper, only the significant findings are presented. The

full results are available from the authors.

56 S.L. Gabbidon, D. Boisvert / Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 50–59

belief that genetics is a contributor to offending. In the next section we turn our attention to making sense of these wide-ranging findings.

Discussion

We began this research with the aim of investigating the theoret- ical leanings of the lay public. In general, when examining the re- sponses given by the entire sample, individual-level theories appear to be the most favored among Philadelphia area residents. This pat- tern of results may speak to the high value placed on family and friends in accounting for criminal behavior. It was also no surprise that the respondents felt that drug and alcohol problems were contributors to crime causation. Like other metropolitan areas, Philadelphia has its share of drug and alcohol problems that residents clearly believe contributes to offending in their communities. Two of the highest rated items relate to obtaining material wealth by any means necessary and having an opportunity to commit crime with lit- tle chance of being caught. Support for the material wealth measure might be recognition by respondents that inner-city residents are faced daily with relative economic deprivation and may make up for this with an all-out pursuit of the American Dream either solely through criminal means or through the combination of legitimate employment partnered with criminal activities (Merton, 1938; Robinson & Murphy, 2009). For the findings concerning opportunity, it might be possible that residents strongly identified with that partic- ular question because they believe that opportunities abound to com- mit crime in the inner-cities due to the lack of crime prevention efforts in place to deter crime.

Residents were not supportive of tenets of biological theory. This was evidenced by the fact that among the lowest rated items were questions connecting crime causation to “substance abuse during pregnancy” and “genetics.” This finding supports earlier research that reported limited support for biological theories (Furnham & Henderson, 1983; Sims, 2003). We suspect that residents are less amenable to the connections between biology and crime because they have not been exposed to the literature that explains the value of research being conducted in this area. It is notable that many crim- inologists have an aversion to the biological perspective, even though recent research has suggested that biosocial (combining biological and environmental factors) perspectives have become somewhat more acceptable among criminologists in recent years (Cooper et al., 2010; Cullen, 2009).

Philadelphians also did not support theoretical ideas that point to the immigration and crime linkage and also the belief that criminals have different values and morals. The immigration-crime relationship has long been disproven by scholars (Abbott, 1931; Hagan & Palloni, 1999) and has, in recent years, been turned on its head because re- search has shown that immigration actually stabilizes certain com- munities and produces the positive effect of decreased crime in communities with sizeable immigrant communities (Feldmeyer, 2009; Velez, 2009). Residents in diverse communities such as Philadelphia might see through the stereotypical notions related to immigration, so they are less likely to support such a supposition. Similarly, while astute scholarly observers of Philadelphia might con- clude that there is a certain “code” by which residents live (Anderson, 1999)—some residents apparently do not agree with this conclusion.

Since the respondents live in these areas, they might be less inclined to condemn themselves or their neighbors as having “different values/morals.” Considering the area that was sampled, it was inter- esting to find little support for the suggestion that racism is a contrib- utor to crime causation (cf. Unnever & Gabbidon, 2011).

The gender comparisons of the entire sample disclosed slight dif- ferences between males and females. It is of note that women felt that a primary cause of crime was the fact that punishment is not harsh enough. This goes against the general notion espoused by some that women tend to have an “ethic of care,” as opposed to men who adhere to an “ethic of justice” (Gilligan, 1982). These diver- gent approaches—that are the product of gender socialization and/or biological differences across the sexes— often result in women sup- porting more nurturing approaches to crime and men supporting more punitive approaches. Even so, the finding does align with some research that shows women to be more punitive than men under certain conditions—especially in situations in which they feel vulnerable (Hurwitz & Smithey, 1998). Thus, our findings here might possibly be the product of the fact that women in urban areas tend to have high victimization rates so they believe lenient punish- ments contribute to offending. Furthermore, from an evolutionary perspective, women often employed strategies to increase their like- lihood of survival. By ensuring their own survival, the likelihood that their children would live on to reproductive age also increased thus allowing for familial genes to be passed on to future generations (Campbell, 1999). One such strategy may be to protect oneself by supporting harsher punishments towards those who pose a risk to themselves and/or their children.

The findings that men were more likely to believe that a contribu- tor to crime causation was that children “weren't properly disci- plined” might be tied to the fact that men have traditionally been responsible for the lion's share of the disciplining in most households. Thus, they attribute some criminality to lax or ineffective disciplinary practices.

Our findings also support the continuing assertion that one's theoretical orientation is closely tied to one's political orientation. In particular, the finding that supporters of classical, biological, psycho- logical, and social control theories are more likely to be conservative than moderate and liberal supports recent research findings (Cooper et al., 2010). Similarly, the finding that liberals support criti- cal theory more than moderates and conservatives is also supportive of prior research (Cooper et al., 2010; Walsh & Ellis, 2004). On the surface, these results might appear problematic; however, it might simply be that there are aspects of specific theories that comport with one's political views. We see nothing wrong with this. We do, however, feel that this can become a problem if views pertaining to theories remain static simply because of political ideology. In other words, if empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports an emerging perspective that requires new policy prescriptions that go against one's longstanding political beliefs, withholding one's support based on ideology can become an “achilles’ heel” (Walsh & Ellis, 2004). At the moment, the existing empirical evidence does not address wheth- er this is actually the reality in the discipline.

The across-race comparisons provided a window into new nu- ances related to public opinion on crime causation. There was no clear theme here since Whites were more supportive than Blacks of both individual-level and macro-level theories, which supports the recent research by Thompson and Bobo (2011) that concluded “there do appear to be differences between Blacks and Whites in terms of how they explain crime” (p. 26). Some of the findings from the individual items were anticipated. For example, measures that connect crime causation to genetics will in the immediate future like- ly always yield a measure of suspicion and resistance in the Black community (Fishbein, 2001). This is possibly an artifact of the moun- tain of research that, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries, linked biology, race and crime in a way that promoted White

57S.L. Gabbidon, D. Boisvert / Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 50–59

supremacy (for a summary, see Gabbidon, 2010). It is also under- standable that Blacks were more likely to attribute some crime causa- tion to “stressful life events.” There is a wide body of literature that speaks to the role of social stress in the lives of Blacks (Gabbidon & Peterson, 2006; Geronimus, Hicken, Keene, & Bound, 2006; Geronimus & Thompson, 2004; Pittman, 2011). Further, we were also not surprised that macro-level measures such as “some have lots/others have nothing” and “poverty” as being supported more by Blacks. Considering the large earning and wealth gap betweenWhites and Blacks (Oliver & Shapiro, 2006; Shapiro, 2005), it is no wonder that Blacks see this as a contributing factor to crime causation.

The between-race comparisons by gender (White males/Black males and White females/Black females) uncovered several interest- ing findings. First, White males and Black males clearly have vastly different views on the etiology of crime. Second, White males were more likely than Black males to support ideas related to individual- level theories such as biological theory, psychological theory, social learning theory, and social control/general theory. This might be tied to the fact that White males identify with the power structure and are less likely to place blame for crime at the macro-level where they are likely to be in positions of authority. The strong sup- port by Black males for measures tied to critical theory leads one to conclude that they apparently believe that—even with a Black man currently serving as President of the United States—the continuing economic inequities in American society has something to do with crime causation.

There were fewer differences noted when we conducted across- race comparisons by sex for females (White females/Black females). Interestingly, the only measure that Black women showed higher levels of support than White women was the one linking “negative experiences” to crime. We suspect support for this measure among Black womenmight be attributable to the fact that Blacks have higher death rates than Whites in general and, as a result, Black women wit- ness or experience stressors at higher rates than White women so they are more likely to attribute crime to negative stressors (Hall, Everett, & Mason-Hamilton, 2011; Jang & Johnson, 2003, 2005; Jang & Lyons, 2006; Kaufman, Rebellon, Thaxton, & Agnew, 2008).

Our within-race analyses of Whites by gender pointed to White males supporting subcultural theory and ideas related to it more than White females. Further, White women tended to support more macro-level labeling/critical approaches than White men. It is possible here that White men are more likely than White women to accept the images they see related to Black culture and crime on television and also as part of their daily encounters with Black culture. For example, research has shown that White youth consume rap music more than Blacks (Yousman, 2003); this might lead some Whites to believe sub- cultural notions related to crime causation. White women, because of their exposure to sexism, might identify with the power of stereotypi- cal views and racism; as a result, they are inclined to believe that crime causation is related to the reinforcement of stereotypical notions of criminality and also macro-level forces such as discrimination.

Our final set of results pertained to within-race analyses of Blacks by sex. Even though there were only two significant findings, they are notable. First, Black women were more supportive of the notion that crime causation is tied to punishment not being harsh enough. This is particularly interesting considering the toll that punitive policies have had on Black communities in particular (Alexander, 2010; Tonry, 2011; Western, 2006). Quite possibly, Black women are more sup- portive than Black men of the notion that punitive policies have re- duced crime in metropolitan areas such as Philadelphia. This supposition presents an interesting direction for future research. The second significant difference between Black males and females is tied to support for the idea that genetics contributes to crime. We have no scholarly literature to inform us as to why this is the case; however, we can say that this might be tied to Black women being more open-minded to the possibility that crime runs in the family

due to genetic factors. Conversely, Black males are likely aversive to such ideas because they—more than Black women—have historically been the targets of suggestions that crime is inherited or the product of evolutionary factors.

While the results of our study are interesting and promising for understanding the different lenses through which citizens view crime causation, we recognize the clear weaknesses of the study. By studying one city, the research has limited generalizability. As such, we remain cautious about making pronouncements considering our restricted sample. We also recognize that not every theory was repre- sented in our study. For better or worse, criminology is saturated with theories that might have been seen as more appealing to the respon- dents. Providing participants with a more diverse selection of theories might have produced support for items that, unlike the items in the current study, averaged closer to 7. In addition, some of the theory measures included in our study had low reliabilities (b0.70). This is to be somewhat expected given the small number of items (e.g., be- tween 2 to 5) included in our measures. Nevertheless, these low coef- ficients suggest cautious interpretations of our results and highlight the need to include additional questions within each theory. Another notable limitation of our research was that it was limited to the Black andWhite Philadelphia area residents. We suspect a regional study of key areas in the country where there are large pockets of minorities will likely produce a diverse enough sample to make comparisons across groups including Hispanics, Asians, etc. Our research was also limited in that it focused on a major metropolitan area. Capturing the views on crime causation of residents in non-metropolitan/ urban areas is likely to yield alternative responses.3

Conclusion

This study expanded prior research focused on lay perspectives on crime causation. The findings have clear implications for both policy- makers and researchers. The results suggest that policymakers should consider the views of the public when seeking insight on crime causa- tion, particularly the views of those who reside in disadvantaged areas riddled with crime. While admittedly their views are based on their personal experiences, their deep roots in a particular community can certainly provide complementary observations to those provided by criminologists who often have limited first-hand exposure to the com- munities they study. Further, policymakers who actively listen to the opinions of individuals living in communities plagued with social prob- lems may be better equipped to support policies related to crime pre- vention strategies that are appropriate for those areas. In turn, having their voices heard may instill motivation and hope in residents; there- by increasing their own involvement in the pursuit of change. Further- more, the differences uncovered by race and gender found in our study also endorses the practice of consulting numerous constituencies when trying to solve complex crime-related issues. In a similar vein, re- searchers should take stock of the numerous differences found by race and gender. Such differences should alert them to the complexities of opinions surrounding ideas tied to criminological theories.

Future research in this area might be directed at exploring the neglected opinions of those persons residing in non-metropolitan areas. The bulk of the existing research has focused on either national public opinion or the views of residents in major urban centers. The time has arrived for a more substantive focus on the opinions of rural residents that face a different reality than inner-city residents. We also anticipate that future research will be devoted to multivari- ate studies that seek to determine the factors that best predict sup- port for various criminological theories.

Acknowledgements

This research was generously supported by funding from Penn State's Africana Research Center, the School of Public Affairs at Penn

58 S.L. Gabbidon, D. Boisvert / Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 50–59

State Harrisburg, and Penn State Harrisburg's Office of Research and Graduate Studies.

Notes

1. Because of funding restrictions, cell phone users were not included in our study. Since there has been an increase in the number of persons that have removed their land-lines and switched to exclusively relying on cell-phones for their phone use, we ac- knowledge there is some sample coverage-bias since it is estimated that in Pennsylvania nearly 11% of the population are cell-phone only households (Blumberg et al., 2009).

2. Marilyn McShane, Frank Williams, III, John P. Wright and Jamie Vaske graciously agreed to examine our questions for face validity.

3. We thank an anonymous reviewer for reminding us of this key limitation.

References

Abbott, E. (Ed.). (1931). National commission on law observance and enforcement. Report on crime and the foreign born (no. 10). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Agnew, R. (2005). Why do criminals offend? A general theory of crime and delinquency. New York: Oxford University Press.

Agnew, R. (2011). Toward a unified criminology: Integrating assumptions about crime, people, and society. New York: New York University Press.

Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow. New York: The New Press. Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street. NY: A. A. Knopf. Blumberg, S. J., Luke, J. V., Davidson, G., Davern, M. E., Yu, T., & Soderberg, K. (2009).

Wireless substitution: State-level estimates from the National Health interview survey. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Barak, G. (2009). Criminology: An integrated approach. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Bobo, L. D., & Johnson, D. (2004). A taste for punishment: Black and White Americans’ views on the death penalty and the war on drugs. Du Bois Review, 1, 151–180.

Campbell, A. (1999). Staying alive: Evolution, culture, and women's intrasexual aggres- sion. Behavior and Brain Sciences, 22, 203–252.

Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., & Selby, J. W. (1980). Attributions for delinquent behavior: Im- pact of consensus and consistency information. The British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 33–40.

Carroll, J. S. (1978). Causal theories if crime and their effect upon expert parole deci- sions. Law and Human Behavior, 2, 377–388.

Cook, C. L., & Lane, J. (2009). The place of public fear in sentencing and correctional pol- icy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 586–595.

Cooper, J. A., Walsh, A., & Ellis, L. (2010). Is criminology moving toward a paradigm shift? Evidence from a survey of the American Society of Criminology. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21, 332–347.

Cullen, F. T. (2009). Foreword. In A. Walsh & K. Beaver (Eds.), Biosocial criminology: New directions in theory and research, pp. xv–xvii. New York: Routledge.

Cullen, F. T., Clark, G. A., Cullen, J. B., & Mathers, R. A. (1985). Attribution, salience, and attitudes towards criminal sanctioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12, 305–331.

Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B., & Applegate, B. K. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice, 27, 1–79.

Du Bois, W. E. B. (1904). Some notes on Negro crime, particularly in Georgia. Atlanta: Atlanta University Press.

Ellis, L., Cooper, J. A., &Walsh, A. (2008). Criminologists’ opinions about causes and the- ories of crime and delinquency: A follow-up. The Criminologist, 33, 23–26.

Ellis, L., & Hoffman, H. (1990). Views of contemporary criminologists on causes and theories of crime. In L. Ellis & H. Hoffman (Eds.), Crime in biological, social, and moral contexts, pp. 50–58. New York: Praeger.

Ellis, L., & Walsh, A. (1999). Criminologists’ opinions about causes and theories of crime and delinquency. The Criminologist, 24, 4–6.

Erskine, H. (1974). The polls: Causes of crime. Public Opinion Quarterly, 38, 288–298. Falco, D. L., & Freiburger, T. L. (2011). Public opinion and the death penalty: A qualita-

tive approach. The Qualitative Report, 16, 830–847. Feldmeyer, B. (2009). Immigration and violence: The offsetting effects of immigrant

concentration on Latino violence. Social Science Research, 38, 717–731. Fishbein, D. (2001). Biobehavioral perspectives in criminology. Belmont, CA: Wads-

worth/Thomson Learning. Flanagan, T. J. (1987). Change and influence in popular criminology: Public attributions

of crime causation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 15, 231–243. Flanagan, T., & Longmire, D. R. (Eds.). (1996). Americans view crime and justice: A

national public opinion survey, pp. 31–45. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Flanagan, T., & Vaughn, M. (1995). Public Opinion About Police Abuse of Force. In W.

Geller & H. Toch (Eds.), And justice for all: Understanding and controlling police abuse of force., (pp. 113–131). Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

Furnham, A., & Henderson, M. (1983). Lay theories of delinquency. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 107–120.

Gabbidon, S. L. (2000). An early American crime poll by W. E. B. Du Bois. Western Journal of Black Studies, 24, 167–174.

Gabbidon, S. L. (2007). W. E. B. Du Bois on crime and justice: Laying the foundations of sociological criminology. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publications.

Gabbidon, S. L. (2010). Criminological perspectives on race and crime (2nd edition). New York: Routledge.

Gabbidon, S. L., & Peterson, S. A. (2006). Living while black: A state-level analysis of the influence of select social stressors on the quality of life among black Americans. Journal of Black Studies, 37, 83–102.

Gerber, J., & Greer-Engelhardt, S. (1996). Just and painful: Attitudes towards sentenc- ing criminals. In T. Flanagan & D.R. Longmire(Eds.). Americans view crime and jus- tice: A national public opinion survey, pp. 62–74. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Geronimus, A. T., Hicken, M., Keene, D., & Bound, J. (2006). “Weathering” and age patterns of allostatic load scores among blacks and whites in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 826–833.

Geronimus, A. T., & Thompson, J. P. (2004). To denigrate, ignore, or disrupt: Racial inequality in health and the impact of a policy-induced breakdown of African American communities. Du Bois Review, 1, 247–279.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hagan, J., & Palloni, A. (1999). Sociological criminology and the mythology of Hispanic immigration and crime. Social Problems, 46, 617–632.

Hall, J. C., Everett, J. E., & Mason-Hamilton, J. (2011). Black women talk about workplace stress and how they cope. Journal of Black Studies, doi:10.1177/0021934711413272

Higgins, G. E., Gabbidon, S. L., & Vito, G. (2010). Exploring the influence of race relations and public safety concerns on public support for racial profiling during traffic stops. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 12, 12–22.

Hurwitz, J., & Smithey, S. (1998). Gender differences on crime and punishment. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 89–115.

Jang, S. J., & Johnson, B. R. (2003). Strain, negative emotions, and deviant coping among African Americans: A test of general strain theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 79–105.

Jang, S. J., & Johnson, B. R. (2005). Gender, religiosity, and reactions to strain among Af- rican Americans. The Sociological Quarterly, 46, 323–357.

Jang, S. J., & Lyons, J. A. (2006). Strain, social support, and retreatism among African Americans. Journal of Black Studies, 37, 251–274.

Kaufman, J. M., Rebellon, C. J., Thaxton, S., & Agnew, R. (2008). A general strain theory of racial differences in criminal offending. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41, 421–437.

Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2011). Criminological theory: Context and conse- quences (5th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Oliver, M., & Shapiro, T. (2006). Black wealth/white wealth: A new perspective on racial inequality (2nd edition). New York: Routledge.

Maxon, C., Hennigan, K., & Sloane, D. C. (2003). Factors that influence public opinion of the police. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682.

Miller, J., Davis, R. C., Henderson, N. J., Markovic, J., & Ortiz, C. (2005). Measuring influ- ences on public opinion of the police using time-series data: Results from a pilot study. Police Quarterly, 8, 394–401.

Myers, L. B. (1996). Bringing the offenders to heel: Views of the criminal courts. In T. Flanagan & D.R. Longmire (Eds.), Americans view crime and justice: A national public opinion survey, pp. 46–61. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Nagin, D. S., Piquero, A. R., Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Public preferences for re- habilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders: Evidence from a contingent validation survey. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 627–652.

Pittman, C. T. (2011). Getting mad but ending up sad: The mental health conse- quences for African Americans using anger to cope with racism. Journal of Black Studies, doi:10.1177/0021934711401737

Reuterman, N. A. (1978). The public's view of delinquency causation: A consideration in comprehensive juvenile justice planning. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 29, 39–47.

Robinson, M., & Murphy, D. (2009). Greed is good: Maximization and elite deviance in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc..

Shapiro, T. (2005). The hidden cost of being black in America: How wealth perpetuates in- equality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Sims, B. (2003). The impact of causal attribution on correctional ideology: A national study. Criminal Justice Review, 28, 1–25.

Sims, B., & Johnston, E. (2004). Examining public opinion about crime and justice: A statewide study. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15, 270–293.

Sutherland, E. (1924). Criminology. Philadelphia: Lippincott. Thompson, V. R., & Bobo, L. D. (2011). Thinking about crime: Race and lay accounts of

lawbreaking behavior. Annals of the American Association of Political and Social Sciences, 634, 16–38.

Tonry, M. (2011). Punishing race. New York: Oxford University Press. Unnever, J. D. (2008). Two worlds far apart: Black-White differences in beliefs about

why African-American men are disproportionality imprisoned. Criminology, 46, 511–538.

Unnever, J. D., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). Reassessing the racial divide in support for capital punishment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 124–158.

Unnever, J. D., & Cullen, F. T. (2011). White perceptions of whether African Americans and Hispanics are prone to violence and support for the death penalty. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, doi:10.1177/0022427811415533

Unnever, J. D., & Gabbidon, S. L. (2011). A theory of African American offending. NY: Routledge.

Velez, M. B. (2009). Contextualizing the immigration and crime effect: An analysis of homicide in Chicago neighborhoods. Homicide Studies, 13, 325–335.

Walsh, A., & Ellis, L. (1999). Political ideology and American criminologists’ explana- tions for criminal behavior. The Criminologist, 24, 26–27.

Walsh, A., & Ellis, L. (2004). Ideology: Criminology's Achilles’ heel? Quarterly Journal of Ideology, 27, 1–25.

59S.L. Gabbidon, D. Boisvert / Journal of Criminal Justice 40 (2012) 50–59

Warr, M. (1995). The polls—poll trends: Public opinion on crime and punishment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 296–310.

Weisburd, D., & Piquero, A. R. (2008). Taking stock of how well criminologists’ explain crime. A review of published studies. Crime and Justice Studies, 37, 453–502.

Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2006). Race and police in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Weitzer, R., Tuch, S., & Skogan, W. (2008). Police-Community relations in a majority- black city. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 45, 398–428.

Western, B. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Yousman, B. (2003). Blackophilia and Blackophobia: White youth, the consumption of rap music, and white supremacy. Communication Theory, 13, 366–391.