Anna C Barron, Colleen M Berryessa, Melissa de Vel-Palumbo
Objective: Sometimes people fail to sympathize-and may even relish-when people in the criminal justice system experience harms such as police brutality or inadequate care while in custody. These are harms that occur incidentally to one's involvement with the criminal justice system, as they are not prescribed by laws associated with arrest or conviction. The current research explores what causes people to justify such legally illegitimate harms.
Hypotheses: We expected that when people make essentialized character-based attributions about people who commit crimes (e.g., labeling them as fundamentally and enduringly "bad"), this can lead them to view incidental harms as deserved punishment.
Method and results: In Study 1 (N = 49), we provide initial qualitative evidence for this idea: participants who expressed indifference toward the suffering of incarcerated individuals tended to rationalize such suffering as punishment for perceived immoral character. In Study 2 (N = 258), the perception that people who commit crimes have an underlying and unchanging "criminal" character was positively related to tolerance for incidental suffering. In Study 3 (N = 537), describing a person's crime as stemming from an unchangeable immoral character increased participants' tolerance for incidental harms through heightened perceptions of the person's ongoing dangerousness. However, the unchangeable immoral character also appeared to reduce tolerance for harms through a competing, unexplained pathway.
Conclusions: Taken together, the findings underscore the complex ways in which character-based explanations for crime influence whether justice-involved individuals are seen as deserving of moral concern. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"When we do not care about what happens to \"criminals\": How character judgments influence indifference to incidental suffering in the criminal justice system.","authors":"Anna C Barron, Colleen M Berryessa, Melissa de Vel-Palumbo","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000626","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000626","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Sometimes people fail to sympathize-and may even relish-when people in the criminal justice system experience harms such as police brutality or inadequate care while in custody. These are harms that occur incidentally to one's involvement with the criminal justice system, as they are not prescribed by laws associated with arrest or conviction. The current research explores what causes people to justify such legally illegitimate harms.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We expected that when people make essentialized character-based attributions about people who commit crimes (e.g., labeling them as fundamentally and enduringly \"bad\"), this can lead them to view incidental harms as deserved punishment.</p><p><strong>Method and results: </strong>In Study 1 (<i>N</i> = 49), we provide initial qualitative evidence for this idea: participants who expressed indifference toward the suffering of incarcerated individuals tended to rationalize such suffering as punishment for perceived immoral character. In Study 2 (<i>N</i> = 258), the perception that people who commit crimes have an underlying and unchanging \"criminal\" character was positively related to tolerance for incidental suffering. In Study 3 (<i>N</i> = 537), describing a person's crime as stemming from an unchangeable immoral character increased participants' tolerance for incidental harms through heightened perceptions of the person's ongoing dangerousness. However, the unchangeable immoral character also appeared to reduce tolerance for harms through a competing, unexplained pathway.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Taken together, the findings underscore the complex ways in which character-based explanations for crime influence whether justice-involved individuals are seen as deserving of moral concern. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2026-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147822285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Angelea D Bolaños,Faith Scanlon,Robert D Morgan,Sean M Mitchell,Darci Delgado
OBJECTIVEBecause approximately 50% of psychiatric patients present with current or past criminal legal involvement, we aimed to compare factors associated with criminal legal involvement across three inpatient psychiatric groups: patients with mental illness with legal involvement, patients with mental illness without legal involvement, and patients found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI).HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that participants in the three groups would not differ in psychiatric symptomatology but that participants with mental illness and legal histories would report higher criminal risk scores than the NGRI and mental illness only groups.METHODParticipants consisted of 74 people with mental illness and prior legal involvement, 68 people with mental illness only from a private hospital's psychiatric unit, and 207 forensic state hospital patients acquitted NGRI. We used multivariate analysis of variance, discriminant function analyses, and analysis of variance to test group differences.RESULTSCriminal risk factors, criminal attitudes, and social support accurately classified 64.9%-75.2% of participants into their respective groups. Additionally, people with mental illness and past legal involvement scored higher than both mental illness-only and NGRI groups on the total criminal risk score, criminal friend scores, and total perceived social support. The NGRI group produced the lowest psychiatric symptom severity scores.CONCLUSIONSPeople with mental illness involved in the legal system demonstrate the highest indicators of criminal risk, further showing that both psychiatric needs and criminal risk should be the target of treatment for this population. We also found that patients adjudicated NGRI showed the lowest psychiatric symptom severity, which may be due to sustained treatment in a stable therapeutic milieu. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Psychiatric symptoms and criminogenic risk in people with mental illness: Comparing patients across forensic and nonforensic settings.","authors":"Angelea D Bolaños,Faith Scanlon,Robert D Morgan,Sean M Mitchell,Darci Delgado","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000663","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000663","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEBecause approximately 50% of psychiatric patients present with current or past criminal legal involvement, we aimed to compare factors associated with criminal legal involvement across three inpatient psychiatric groups: patients with mental illness with legal involvement, patients with mental illness without legal involvement, and patients found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI).HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that participants in the three groups would not differ in psychiatric symptomatology but that participants with mental illness and legal histories would report higher criminal risk scores than the NGRI and mental illness only groups.METHODParticipants consisted of 74 people with mental illness and prior legal involvement, 68 people with mental illness only from a private hospital's psychiatric unit, and 207 forensic state hospital patients acquitted NGRI. We used multivariate analysis of variance, discriminant function analyses, and analysis of variance to test group differences.RESULTSCriminal risk factors, criminal attitudes, and social support accurately classified 64.9%-75.2% of participants into their respective groups. Additionally, people with mental illness and past legal involvement scored higher than both mental illness-only and NGRI groups on the total criminal risk score, criminal friend scores, and total perceived social support. The NGRI group produced the lowest psychiatric symptom severity scores.CONCLUSIONSPeople with mental illness involved in the legal system demonstrate the highest indicators of criminal risk, further showing that both psychiatric needs and criminal risk should be the target of treatment for this population. We also found that patients adjudicated NGRI showed the lowest psychiatric symptom severity, which may be due to sustained treatment in a stable therapeutic milieu. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147751339","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Amanda M Fanniff,Leila N Wallach,Taylor York,Reilly E Gallin,Morgan Hester Howell,Annika I Arango
OBJECTIVEThis study aimed to assess the degree to and manner in which research published in four forensic psychology journals in the years 2016-2020 addressed sociocultural identities.HYPOTHESESThis was an exploratory content analysis with no a priori hypotheses.METHODAll empirical articles (n = 859) published in Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Law and Human Behavior, and Psychology, Public Policy, and Law in the years 2016-2020 (inclusive) were coded. Information on seven sociocultural identities was recorded, including whether the identity was mentioned, participant identities were reported, and participants with different identities were compared, among other information. Additional details were recorded for a randomly selected subset of articles (n = 401).RESULTSSociocultural identities were infrequently mentioned in titles and abstracts of these articles; for example, gender was mentioned in 31.5% abstracts, and race was mentioned in 13.2%. Almost all corresponding and first authors (97.4%) worked in a United Nations regional group that includes primarily high-income, democratic nations, many of which have predominantly White populations. Gender (95%), race and/or ethnicity (74%), and socioeconomic status (43%) were the identities most frequently reported in the articles; others were very rarely reported (e.g., sexual orientation, 2%). Few studies addressed cultural strengths and/or explicitly recognized the impact of systems-level biases. Few studies explicitly addressed within-group differences for any sociocultural identity group. There was minimal evidence of improvement in the inclusion of sociocultural identities over time.CONCLUSIONSThe articles in this content analysis were largely completed prior to the publication of updated guidance regarding addressing the sociocultural identities of participants in publications. The results indicate that despite progress since previous content analyses were published, there was considerable room for improvement as of 2020. Greater attention to sociocultural factors will facilitate our understanding of the generalizability of our research and of the experiences of people with nondominant identities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"From culture blind to culturally informed: Coverage of sociocultural identities in U.S.-based forensic psychology journals, 2016-2020.","authors":"Amanda M Fanniff,Leila N Wallach,Taylor York,Reilly E Gallin,Morgan Hester Howell,Annika I Arango","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000660","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000660","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEThis study aimed to assess the degree to and manner in which research published in four forensic psychology journals in the years 2016-2020 addressed sociocultural identities.HYPOTHESESThis was an exploratory content analysis with no a priori hypotheses.METHODAll empirical articles (n = 859) published in Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Law and Human Behavior, and Psychology, Public Policy, and Law in the years 2016-2020 (inclusive) were coded. Information on seven sociocultural identities was recorded, including whether the identity was mentioned, participant identities were reported, and participants with different identities were compared, among other information. Additional details were recorded for a randomly selected subset of articles (n = 401).RESULTSSociocultural identities were infrequently mentioned in titles and abstracts of these articles; for example, gender was mentioned in 31.5% abstracts, and race was mentioned in 13.2%. Almost all corresponding and first authors (97.4%) worked in a United Nations regional group that includes primarily high-income, democratic nations, many of which have predominantly White populations. Gender (95%), race and/or ethnicity (74%), and socioeconomic status (43%) were the identities most frequently reported in the articles; others were very rarely reported (e.g., sexual orientation, 2%). Few studies addressed cultural strengths and/or explicitly recognized the impact of systems-level biases. Few studies explicitly addressed within-group differences for any sociocultural identity group. There was minimal evidence of improvement in the inclusion of sociocultural identities over time.CONCLUSIONSThe articles in this content analysis were largely completed prior to the publication of updated guidance regarding addressing the sociocultural identities of participants in publications. The results indicate that despite progress since previous content analyses were published, there was considerable room for improvement as of 2020. Greater attention to sociocultural factors will facilitate our understanding of the generalizability of our research and of the experiences of people with nondominant identities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147751341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nishant Krishnan, Michael D. Trood, Janet Ruffles, Grant Blake, James R. P. Ogloff
OBJECTIVECompetency to stand trial evaluations represent the most common psycho-legal assessment in the United States. Notwithstanding, evaluators may face additional complexity when they suspect malingering or overreporting of psychopathology. Despite the importance of routine screening for overreporting, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the most appropriate screening tool for this context. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to evaluate the utility of three commonly used screening tools-Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST), Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised Atypical Presentation (ATP) Scales, and Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS)-in differentiating defendants who overreport psychopathology from those who do not ("comparators") in competency to stand trial evaluations.HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that all three tools would significantly discriminate between overreporters and comparators, with the ATP Scales demonstrating the largest effect size, and each tool would demonstrate high sensitivity but moderate specificity at their recommended cutoffs.METHODWe examined 14 research reports with 20 effect sizes, comprising a total of 1,929 participants (Mage = 31.22, SD = 3.98).RESULTSFindings showed that the pooled effect sizes for the M-FAST (k = 13, g = 2.75, 95% CI [2.18, 3.32]), ATP Scales (k = 5, g = 1.96, 95% CI [1.37, 2.54]), and SIMS (k = 2, g = 2.99, 95% CI [2.50, 3.48]) were all very large, far exceeding standards for interpreting effect sizes in malingering research. Owing to a paucity of data, further analysis of the SIMS was not feasible. Moreover, the M-FAST and ATP Scales demonstrated psychometric utility as screening tools, with sensitivity rates of .87 and .91, respectively.CONCLUSIONSBoth the M-FAST and ATP Scales appear to be effective screening tools for identifying examinees who do not require further symptom validity testing. However, considering the elevated false positive rate, positive results necessitate follow-up assessment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Are feigning screens “competent to stand trial”? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test, Atypical Presentation Scales, and Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology.","authors":"Nishant Krishnan, Michael D. Trood, Janet Ruffles, Grant Blake, James R. P. Ogloff","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000661","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000661","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVECompetency to stand trial evaluations represent the most common psycho-legal assessment in the United States. Notwithstanding, evaluators may face additional complexity when they suspect malingering or overreporting of psychopathology. Despite the importance of routine screening for overreporting, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the most appropriate screening tool for this context. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to evaluate the utility of three commonly used screening tools-Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST), Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised Atypical Presentation (ATP) Scales, and Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS)-in differentiating defendants who overreport psychopathology from those who do not (\"comparators\") in competency to stand trial evaluations.HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that all three tools would significantly discriminate between overreporters and comparators, with the ATP Scales demonstrating the largest effect size, and each tool would demonstrate high sensitivity but moderate specificity at their recommended cutoffs.METHODWe examined 14 research reports with 20 effect sizes, comprising a total of 1,929 participants (Mage = 31.22, SD = 3.98).RESULTSFindings showed that the pooled effect sizes for the M-FAST (k = 13, g = 2.75, 95% CI [2.18, 3.32]), ATP Scales (k = 5, g = 1.96, 95% CI [1.37, 2.54]), and SIMS (k = 2, g = 2.99, 95% CI [2.50, 3.48]) were all very large, far exceeding standards for interpreting effect sizes in malingering research. Owing to a paucity of data, further analysis of the SIMS was not feasible. Moreover, the M-FAST and ATP Scales demonstrated psychometric utility as screening tools, with sensitivity rates of .87 and .91, respectively.CONCLUSIONSBoth the M-FAST and ATP Scales appear to be effective screening tools for identifying examinees who do not require further symptom validity testing. However, considering the elevated false positive rate, positive results necessitate follow-up assessment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147667112","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Johanna Kindbom Land, Ronald van den Berg, Björn Hofvander, Martin Sellbom, Malin Pauli
OBJECTIVEThe Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is widely used in forensic and clinical contexts, yet its reliability in high-stakes legal settings remains uncertain. In Sweden, it is routinely applied in court-ordered assessments for life-sentenced prisoners seeking commutation, making score consistency crucial. Sturup et al. (2014) found lower interrater reliability in this context compared with controlled research studies. This study examines whether reliability has increased since their publication and evaluates the incremental contribution of these assessments to structured professional judgment risk classifications.HYPOTHESESDue to increased training and experience, we expected improved reliability compared with that of Sturup et al.'s study.METHODWe estimated interrater reliability of PCL-R total and facet scores using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for 76 life-sentenced prisoners (75 males, one female) who had participated in 217 risk assessments by the Swedish National Board of Forensic Medicine (2013-2023). Associations between PCL-R, Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20, and structured professional judgment risk classifications were tested with ordinal mixed-effects models.RESULTSThe results mirror those of Sturup et al., indicating no substantial improvement in interrater reliability over the last decade. Specifically, the PCL-R total score had an ICC = .73, and the facet-level ICCs were .88 (antisocial), .65 (interpersonal), .59 (affective), and .59 (lifestyle). Only 27% of score differences between assessments fell within one standard error of measurement, indicating more variability than expected based on the manual. Moreover, Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 scores were better predictors of the risk classification than the PCL-R scores, indicating limited incremental value of the latter.CONCLUSIONSReliability of the PCL-R in Swedish forensic assessments has not improved over the past decade and remains moderate. Moreover, structured violence risk factors may weigh more heavily in final judgments than psychopathy ratings. While this reliance may limit the impact of variability in PCL-R scoring, caution is warranted when using psychopathy assessments in high-stakes legal decisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Field reliability of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised among life-sentenced prisoners in Sweden: A follow-up study.","authors":"Johanna Kindbom Land, Ronald van den Berg, Björn Hofvander, Martin Sellbom, Malin Pauli","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000664","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000664","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEThe Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is widely used in forensic and clinical contexts, yet its reliability in high-stakes legal settings remains uncertain. In Sweden, it is routinely applied in court-ordered assessments for life-sentenced prisoners seeking commutation, making score consistency crucial. Sturup et al. (2014) found lower interrater reliability in this context compared with controlled research studies. This study examines whether reliability has increased since their publication and evaluates the incremental contribution of these assessments to structured professional judgment risk classifications.HYPOTHESESDue to increased training and experience, we expected improved reliability compared with that of Sturup et al.'s study.METHODWe estimated interrater reliability of PCL-R total and facet scores using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for 76 life-sentenced prisoners (75 males, one female) who had participated in 217 risk assessments by the Swedish National Board of Forensic Medicine (2013-2023). Associations between PCL-R, Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20, and structured professional judgment risk classifications were tested with ordinal mixed-effects models.RESULTSThe results mirror those of Sturup et al., indicating no substantial improvement in interrater reliability over the last decade. Specifically, the PCL-R total score had an ICC = .73, and the facet-level ICCs were .88 (antisocial), .65 (interpersonal), .59 (affective), and .59 (lifestyle). Only 27% of score differences between assessments fell within one standard error of measurement, indicating more variability than expected based on the manual. Moreover, Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 scores were better predictors of the risk classification than the PCL-R scores, indicating limited incremental value of the latter.CONCLUSIONSReliability of the PCL-R in Swedish forensic assessments has not improved over the past decade and remains moderate. Moreover, structured violence risk factors may weigh more heavily in final judgments than psychopathy ratings. While this reliance may limit the impact of variability in PCL-R scoring, caution is warranted when using psychopathy assessments in high-stakes legal decisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147667108","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Supplemental Material for Are Feigning Screens “Competent to Stand Trial”? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test, Atypical Presentation Scales, and Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000661.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000661.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147667111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
OBJECTIVEIn many public settings, legal notices communicate fines for minor violations, often using different phrasings such as "up to," "maximum," "or below," or "range." This research examines whether these wording differences influence perceived severity and deterrence intentions.HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that up-to and maximum frames would elicit higher perceived severity than or-below and range frames, with the range frame yielding the lowest severity perceptions. We further anticipated that these effects would be mitigated for more serious offenses.METHODThree preregistered between-subjects experiments (Study 1: N = 401; Study 2: N = 400; Study 3: N = 400; all U.K. adults) presented participants with public notice scenarios. Participants read a notice about a minor offense (littering) in Studies 1 and 2 and a more serious offense (vandalism) in Study 3. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four framing conditions and reported perceived severity, penalty estimates, and deterrence intentions.RESULTSFor the minor offense (Studies 1 and 2), up-to and maximum frames resulted in the highest perceived severity, followed by the or-below frame, with the range frame yielding the lowest. The range frame also resulted in significantly lower penalty estimates and weaker deterrence intentions. However, when the same framing manipulation was applied to a more serious offense (Study 3), these effects disappeared: framing did not significantly influence perceived severity, penalty expectations, or deterrence intentions.CONCLUSIONSFine-framing matters primarily when the offense is minor and the consequences are relatively ambiguous. As offenses become more serious, perceptions appear to be anchored by the inherent gravity of the violation, reducing sensitivity to wording differences. This research identifies a boundary condition for linguistic framing effects in legal communication and suggests that strategically chosen fine frames may serve as an effective, low-cost tool to promote compliance in everyday public behavior contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Framing legal fines: How message presentation affects severity perceptions.","authors":"Eunny Kim,Kwanho Suk","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000656","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000656","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEIn many public settings, legal notices communicate fines for minor violations, often using different phrasings such as \"up to,\" \"maximum,\" \"or below,\" or \"range.\" This research examines whether these wording differences influence perceived severity and deterrence intentions.HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that up-to and maximum frames would elicit higher perceived severity than or-below and range frames, with the range frame yielding the lowest severity perceptions. We further anticipated that these effects would be mitigated for more serious offenses.METHODThree preregistered between-subjects experiments (Study 1: N = 401; Study 2: N = 400; Study 3: N = 400; all U.K. adults) presented participants with public notice scenarios. Participants read a notice about a minor offense (littering) in Studies 1 and 2 and a more serious offense (vandalism) in Study 3. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four framing conditions and reported perceived severity, penalty estimates, and deterrence intentions.RESULTSFor the minor offense (Studies 1 and 2), up-to and maximum frames resulted in the highest perceived severity, followed by the or-below frame, with the range frame yielding the lowest. The range frame also resulted in significantly lower penalty estimates and weaker deterrence intentions. However, when the same framing manipulation was applied to a more serious offense (Study 3), these effects disappeared: framing did not significantly influence perceived severity, penalty expectations, or deterrence intentions.CONCLUSIONSFine-framing matters primarily when the offense is minor and the consequences are relatively ambiguous. As offenses become more serious, perceptions appear to be anchored by the inherent gravity of the violation, reducing sensitivity to wording differences. This research identifies a boundary condition for linguistic framing effects in legal communication and suggests that strategically chosen fine frames may serve as an effective, low-cost tool to promote compliance in everyday public behavior contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147619474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Objective: This study examines the robustness of a conceptual model, testing the influences of work pressure and other factors on job-related mental health outcomes in Dutch judges, providing insights for the judiciary, and bringing together organizational psychology and judicial well-being research.
Hypotheses: We predicted (a) that the conceptual model fits the data well and is robust and (b) that an increase in the job demands, work pressure, and work-home interference would be associated with more burnout; an increase in the job resources, autonomy, and social support would be associated with more work engagement and job satisfaction; higher neuroticism would be related to more burnout and to more workaholism; and higher extraversion would be related to more work engagement.
Method: Dutch judges (N = 257; 165 females [64%]; mean age: 51 years old, range = 34-67 years old, SD = 7.90) completed questionnaires.
Results: (a) After modifications, the conceptual model was robust. (b) An increase in job demands (work pressure and work-home interference) was associated with more burnout (β = .20 and .23). Autonomy was not significantly associated with work engagement and job satisfaction (β = <.01 and .07). An increase in the job resource social support was positively associated with heightened work engagement and job satisfaction (β = .22 and .27). Higher neuroticism related to more burnout and workaholism (β = .17 and .19), whereas higher extraversion was related to more work engagement (β = .20 and .12). All results mentioned here reflect small to medium effect sizes.
Conclusions: Both job characteristics and personality factors influence burnout, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Implications for judges include vigilance regarding high work pressure and recognizing influences on mental health. Courts can play an important role in implementing strategies to reduce work pressure and in facilitating adequate job resources to improve judges' mental well-being. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Impact of work pressure, job characteristics, and personality on job-related well-being in Dutch judges: A conceptual model.","authors":"Tineke Hagen, Elien De Caluwé, Stefan Bogaerts","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000657","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000657","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study examines the robustness of a conceptual model, testing the influences of work pressure and other factors on job-related mental health outcomes in Dutch judges, providing insights for the judiciary, and bringing together organizational psychology and judicial well-being research.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We predicted (a) that the conceptual model fits the data well and is robust and (b) that an increase in the job demands, work pressure, and work-home interference would be associated with more burnout; an increase in the job resources, autonomy, and social support would be associated with more work engagement and job satisfaction; higher neuroticism would be related to more burnout and to more workaholism; and higher extraversion would be related to more work engagement.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Dutch judges (<i>N</i> = 257; 165 females [64%]; mean age: 51 years old, range = 34-67 years old, <i>SD</i> = 7.90) completed questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>(a) After modifications, the conceptual model was robust. (b) An increase in job demands (work pressure and work-home interference) was associated with more burnout (β = .20 and .23). Autonomy was not significantly associated with work engagement and job satisfaction (β = <.01 and .07). An increase in the job resource social support was positively associated with heightened work engagement and job satisfaction (β = .22 and .27). Higher neuroticism related to more burnout and workaholism (β = .17 and .19), whereas higher extraversion was related to more work engagement (β = .20 and .12). All results mentioned here reflect small to medium effect sizes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both job characteristics and personality factors influence burnout, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Implications for judges include vigilance regarding high work pressure and recognizing influences on mental health. Courts can play an important role in implementing strategies to reduce work pressure and in facilitating adequate job resources to improve judges' mental well-being. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2026-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147291422","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Supplemental Material for Impact of Work Pressure, Job Characteristics, and Personality on Job-Related Well-Being in Dutch Judges: A Conceptual Model","authors":"","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000657.supp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000657.supp","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2026-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146260931","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article reflects on Law and Human Behavior's creation and a potential direction for its evolution. It starts by recounting seminal events in the journal's creation and its relationship to the creation of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. It then argues that the time has come for the journal to stimulate and systematically publish empirical research on the operation of all criminal and civil law and its relationships to human behavior. The resulting refocusing and writings will advance our understanding of law in books and law in action, as well as why psychological science is critical to understanding law, and highlight potential opportunities for improving law domestically and globally. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Law and human behavior: Reflections on its creation and future.","authors":"Bruce D Sales","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000648","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000648","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article reflects on <i>Law and Human Behavior</i>'s creation and a potential direction for its evolution. It starts by recounting seminal events in the journal's creation and its relationship to the creation of <i>Psychology, Public Policy, and Law</i>. It then argues that the time has come for the journal to stimulate and systematically publish empirical research on the operation of all criminal and civil law and its relationships to human behavior. The resulting refocusing and writings will advance our understanding of law in books and law in action, as well as why psychological science is critical to understanding law, and highlight potential opportunities for improving law domestically and globally. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"50 1","pages":"3-4"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147327390","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号