For this Discussion, interact in a free-flowing discussion of

© Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2018, 14(1)

IMPLICIT THEORIES OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR: FOSTERING PUBLIC SUPPORT

FOR EX-OFFENDER COMMUNITY REENTRY

Candalyn B. Rade Penn State Harrisburg

Sarah L. Desmarais, & Jeni L. Burnette North Carolina State University

Abstract Ex-offenders face many barriers during the process of community reentry, including

difficulty obtaining housing or employment. These barriers are often the result of stigma and discrimination that can negatively affect domains of functioning and well-being that are central to successful reintegration. Implicit theory suggests that stigmatizing attitudes may be explained through beliefs regarding the invariable (fixed mindset) or malleable (growth mindset) nature of human attributes. Prior work demonstrated how these mindsets can ex- plain attitudes toward ex-offenders and support for community reentry. In this manuscript, we report on two studies that examined whether attitudes toward ex-offenders and support for their reentry can be influenced through a brief mindset-based persuasive reading. In Study 1, we piloted a brief, experimental manipulation among a student sample (n = 352) to induce growth mindsets regarding criminal behavior to foster positive attitudes toward ex- offenders and their reentry. In Study 2, we replicated the first study in a community-based sample (n = 451) and tested ex-offender race as a potential moderator. Mediation analyses demonstrated a causal pathway between mindset condition, attitudes toward ex-offenders, and support for reentry, and provided empirical evidence that the mindset-based experi- mental manipulation can foster growth mindsets and support for ex-offender community reentry, regardless of ex-offender race. Findings present directions for developing a poten- tially low-cost and time-effective strategy that can be disseminated easily through online or other media platforms, and tailored to target specific barriers to reentry. Further research is needed to establish the persistence of effects on attitudinal changes over time.

Author Note: Candalyn B. Rade, PhD (Corresponding Author), Assistant Professor, School of Behavioral Sciences and Education, Penn State Harrisburg, 777 West Harrisburg Pike, W311-L Olmsted Building, Middletown, PA 17057, Phone: (717) 948-6041, Email: [email protected]

Sarah L. Desmarais, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, 714A Poe Hall, 2310 Stinson Drive, Raleigh, NC 27695-7650, Phone: (919) 515-1723, Email: [email protected] ncsu.edu, Web: ncsuforensicpsychology.com

Jeni L Burnette, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, 749 Poe Hall, 2310 Stinson Drive, Raleigh, NC 27695-7650, Phone: (919) 515-8260, Email: [email protected], Web: jeniburnette.com

© Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2018, 14(1)

RADE, ET AL. 15

Keywords: Mindsets, Implicit Theory, Ex-offender, Reentry, Attitudes

Most people who are incarcerated return to the community within their lifetime. To demonstrate, annually almost two-thirds of a million people are released from U.S. state and federal prisons (Carson, 2015), and one in every 36 American adults is under correc- tional system supervision (Kaeble, Glaze, Tsoutis, & Minton, 2015). However, the transi- tion back into community living presents barriers to adults who are released from jail or prison, including difficulty obtaining housing or employment. These barriers are frequently the result of stigma and discrimination that can adversely affect many domains of function- ing and well-being that are central to successful reintegration (Brooks, Visher, & Naser, 2006; Wakefield & Uggen, 2010). For example, when seeking employment, housing, or health care, ex-offenders often receive differential and discriminatory treatment due to their criminal history (Pager & Quillian, 2005; Wakefield & Uggen, 2010). In recognition of the number of ex-offenders returning to community living and the challenges they face, there is increasing national emphasis on policies and practices that reduce reentry barriers, thereby improving the likelihood of successful reintegration (Office of the Press Secretary, 2015).

Given the negative impact of stigma on reentry outcomes, research examining the mechanisms underlying negative attitudes toward ex-offenders may help inform evidence- based reentry practices and policies with the potential to facilitate more successful com- munity reintegration. Such research of these underlying mechanisms may contribute to the development of interventions and public education campaigns to improve public attitudes toward ex-offenders and increase support for their reentry. However, a point of distinction is needed between the constructs of public attitudes toward ex-offenders generally, and support for reentry specifically. Public attitudes toward ex-offenders is a general attitudinal construct, that often is operationalized to include an individual’s willingness to associate or spend time with an ex-offender and an overall assessment of ex-offenders’ character. Support for ex-offender reentry, in contrast, is a more specific behavioral measure of an individual’s endorsement of policies and practices to facilitate and improve community reentry, such as increased taxes to support transitional housing and employment program- ming. Thus, although related, the two constructs present distinct elements that must be considered when examining stigma and discrimination experienced by ex-offenders during reentry. To that end, we first review predictors of public attitudes toward ex-offenders and public support for reentry before detailing the theoretical approach—implicit theories— taken in the current work.

First, findings of the extant research suggest that both public (e.g., sex, political orientation) and ex-offender (e.g., race, criminal history) characteristics are associated with attitudes toward ex-offenders. To demonstrate, men compared to women (Leverentz, 2011; Willis, Malinen, & Johnston, 2013; but see Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010) and non-White compared to White respondents (Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010; Leverentz, 2011) typically report more positive attitudes toward ex-offenders and their reentry. Self-reported affilia- tion with Christianity is associated with less favorable attitudes toward ex-offenders and reentry, however, religious beliefs such as forgiveness are associated with more positive attitudes (Park, 2010), illustrating the differences between religious affiliation and beliefs.

© Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2018, 14(1)

16 IMPLICIT THEORIES OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

Prior research also suggests that younger participants, those with lower incomes, and those with less years of education report more favorable attitudes toward ex-offenders, although findings are mixed (e.g., Comartin, Kernsmith, & Kernsmith, 2009; Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010; Willis et al., 2013). Moreover, a recent meta-analysis found that two public char- acteristics—political orientation and interpersonal contact—are more strongly associated with public attitudes toward ex-offenders. People with liberal political orientations and those who report interpersonal contact with an ex-offender express more positive attitudes toward ex-offenders, compared to those with conservative political orientations and no prior contact (Rade, Desmarais, & Mitchell, 2016). Moreover, endorsement of belief in a just world (i.e., people get what they deserve and deserve what they get) explains individ- ual differences in negative attitudes toward frequently discriminated against groups (Bizer, Hart, & Jekogian, 2012; Bègue & Bastounis, 2003; Furnham, 2003; Halabi, Statman, & Dovidio, 2015), punitive attitudes (Bègue & Bastounis, 2003; Mohr & Luscri, 1995), and lack of support for reentry (Rade, Desmarais, & Burnette, 2017). These findings suggest that one approach to improving support for ex-offender reentry may be through contact- based intervention, consistent with interpersonal contact theory (Allport, 1954); however, this is not an optimal approach due to limits regarding the generalizability of contacts and feasibility of implementing appropriate interventions (Brewer, 2016; Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2005; but see Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).

Second, prior research suggests that people generally express support for ex-of- fender reentry and associated services (Garland, Wodahl, & Schuhmann, 2013; Krisberg & Marchionna, 2006). However, this support may be limited to only some ex-offenders based on their criminal history (Garland et al., 2013). For example, members of the pub- lic report greater support for employment and housing programs when ex-offenders have participated in offense-related rehabilitation or educational training programs (Hardcastle, Bartholomew, & Gratham, 2011).

Collectively, extant research and theory provides only partial explanations for indi- vidual differences in attitudes toward ex-offenders and support for ex-offender reentry. We suggest that the literature on implicit theories and person perception may help complete this explanation. The theoretical framework of implicit theories (or person mindsets) posits that people hold beliefs about the nature of personal attributes (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Specifically, a growth mindset (incremental theory) is the belief that personal attributes are malleable and can develop over time; whereas, a fixed mindset (entity theory) is the belief that personal attributes are relatively invariable. Across multiple domains, research shows that mindsets predict various outcomes, including goal setting, self-regulation, self- esteem, weight loss, and employee appraisal (Burnette, O’Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, & Finkel, 2012; Burnette & Finkel, 2012; Heslin, Latham, & Don, 2005; Nussbaum & Dweck, 2008). Moreover, research suggests that these mindsets may predict attitudes toward crimi- nal justice policies and practices (Chiu, Dweck, Tong, & Fu, 1997; Gervey, Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1999; Tam, Shu, Ng, & Tong, 2013). For example, people who endorse growth mindsets, relative to fixed, are less likely to make internal attributions of criminal behavior, less likely to expect offenders to reoffend, and thus less punitive (Tam et al., 2013).

© Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2018, 14(1)

RADE, ET AL. 17

Building on this existing work, we seek to foster growth mindsets to improve at- titudes towards ex-offenders and support for reentry. Mindsets can be primed through single-session and long-term interventions. For example, reading a short article present- ing persuasive empirical evidence has been used to effectively induce either a growth or fixed mindset among student samples (Burnette, 2010; Nussbaum & Dweck, 2008). Multi- session interventions also have shown to effectively teach growth mindsets (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007). Further research suggests that interventions can create lasting change in mindsets and associated outcomes (Heslin, Latham, & Don, 2005; Yeager et al., 2014). Specifically, some studies have demonstrated that teaching growth mindsets is associated with less stereotypical thinking (Levy, Stroessner, & Dweck, 1998). Therefore, inducing a growth mindset may decrease stigmatizing attitudes and foster support for tradi- tionally marginalized populations, including ex-offenders, providing a potentially effective form of improving support for community reintegration.

The Present Research Despite the diverse literature investigating public attitudes toward ex-offenders and

their reentry, little research has investigated the mechanisms of these attitudes or points of intervention. To these ends, we proposed an integrative mediation model based on the well-established literature of implicit theory to explain public attitudes toward ex-offenders and support for community reentry (Rade et al., 2017). Results of this initial work showed that growth mindsets were associated with more positive attitudes toward ex-offenders, which, in turn, predicted greater support for reentry; however, findings were limited by the assessment of naturally occurring mindsets using a cross-sectional method, rather than experimentally manipulating mindsets of criminal behavior. The following two studies ex- tend this work to examine whether growth and fixed mindsets regarding criminal behavior can be induced in order to influence attitudes towards offenders and their reentry. In Study 1, we piloted a brief experimental manipulation with the aim of inducing growth mindsets to foster positive attitudes toward ex-offenders and support for their reentry. In the second study, we replicated the first in a more generalizable community sample, and additionally tested a potential moderator.

STUDY 1

In Study 1, we developed and piloted a brief, experimental manipulation to examine whether we can foster positive attitudes toward ex-offenders and support for their reentry by promoting growth mindsets. We hypothesized that the growth mindset condition, rela- tive to the fixed mindset condition, would encourage a stronger belief in the malleability of people’s behavior—a manipulation check. We also posited that those in the growth mind- set condition, compared to the fixed, would report greater support for ex-offender reentry, through more positive attitudes toward ex-offenders (see Figure 1).

© Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2018, 14(1)

18 IMPLICIT THEORIES OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

Figure 1. Study 1: Statistical diagram of mediation model of the direct and indirect effects of the mindset condition on support for ex-offender reentry through attitudes toward ex- offenders.

Method Participants. We recruited 400 undergraduate college students enrolled in an in-

troductory psychology course at a large university in a southeastern state. To participate, students needed to be over the age of 18 and not have previously participated in the study. Potential participants accessed the study through an online experiment recruitment plat- form utilized by the university and provided informed consent prior to engaging in the study. Students who participated received credit toward meeting a course research require- ment. Fourteen persons were removed for failing an attention check item and 34 for failing to complete all procedures in the study, resulting in a final sample of 352 students.

Procedures. All participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions, undergoing similar procedures to those of previous implicit theory research (e.g., Burnette, 2010; Hong, Chiu, Dweck, Lin, & Wan, 1999). Participants read a one page Psychology Today-type article that presented evidence either for a growth or fixed mindset of criminal behavior. Specifically, the growth mindset article emphasized the malleable nature of criminal behavior and the potential for successful rehabilitation, with the central message of “Criminal behavior tendencies are malleable.” Comparatively, the fixed mind- set article emphasized the unchangeable nature of criminal behavior, and the central mes- sage was, “Criminal behavior tendencies are fixed at an early age”. After reading one of the articles, participants were asked to complete a reading comprehension task, including items which determined the comprehensibility of the article for a high school audience and comments on the most salient evidence from the article. Participants were thanked for their participation in the reading task, and then advanced to complete the “real” study examin- ing beliefs about criminal behavior. Participants completed a survey including explanatory variables, outcome variables, and covariates (described below). The Institutional Review Board at NC State University approved all study procedures.

Measures. We administered an online survey comprised of items to assess mind- sets, attitudes toward ex-offenders, support for re-entry, and sociodemographic character- istics, described in the sections that follow.

© Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2018, 14(1)

RADE, ET AL. 19

Manipulation check. We included an item in the survey to ensure that participants understood the core mindset message of the reading conditions. Criminal behavior mind- sets were assessed using a single item which measured participant rating of the fixed or changeable nature of criminal behavior on a 7-point scale (ranging from 1 = fixed nature of criminal behavior, to 7 = changeable nature of criminal behavior), after completing the reading. Additionally, general person mindsets were assessed using the Implicit Person Theory measure (Levy et al., 1998), which measures beliefs about the fixed vs. malleable nature of human attributes using a 6-point scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree, to 6 = strongly agree). Four items were reverse coded, responses were summed, and mean scores were calculated, with larger scores indicating a growth mindset.

Explanatory variables. Attitudes toward ex-offenders were assessed using a modi- fied 6-item scale measuring attitudes toward people who have been incarcerated (Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010). Items measured participant agreement (ranging from 1 = strongly disa- gree, to 6 = strongly agree) with statements regarding ex-offender characteristics (e.g., dis- honest, dangerous, innocent) and willingness to associate with an ex-offender. Four items were reverse coded, responses were summed, and mean scores were calculated, with larger scores indicating more positive attitudes toward ex-offenders.

Outcome variable. We assessed the primary outcome, support for ex-offender reen- try, using seven items drawn from the Attitudes toward Prisoner Reentry scale (Park, 2010). Items assessed participant agreement (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree, to 5 = strongly agree) with statements about ex-offender reentry programming (e.g., job training, drug treatment), policy (e.g., early release, funding for reentry programs), and public safety. One item was reverse coded, responses were summed, and mean scores were calculated, with larger scores indicating greater support for ex-offender reentry.

Covariates. Sociodemographic information was also collected and tested for in- clusion in the mediation analyses. Participant characteristics included, race/ethnicity (di- chotomized; 0 = White, 1 = other), sex (0 = male, 1 = female), arrested since the age of 18 (0 = yes, 1 = no), convicted since the age of 18 (0 = yes, 1 = no), incarcerated since the age of 18 (0 = yes, 1 = no), age (in years), annual household income (1 = US$0- US$20,000, 2 = US$20,000- US$40,000, 3 = US$40,000- US$60,000, 4 = US$60,000- US$80,000, 5 = US$80,000-US$100,000, 6 = US$100,000-US$150,000, 7 = >US$150,000), political ori- entation (ranging from 1 = extremely liberal, to 7 = extremely conservative), and religious affiliation (1 = Agnosticism, 2 = Atheism, 3 = Buddhism, 4 = Christianity-Protestant, 5 = Christianity-Catholic, 6 = Christianity-Orthodox, 7 = Hinduism, 8 = Islam, 9 = Judaism, 10 = None, 11 = Other). Additionally, we assessed religious beliefs using the 5-item Duke University Religions Index (Koenig & Bussing, 2010), which measures religiosity and en- gagement in religious activities and practices (e.g., prayer, meditation, service attendance). Belief in a just world was assessed using the Global Belief in a Just World Scale (Lipkus, 1991). Seven items measured respondent agreement (ranging from 1 = strong disagree- ment, to 6 = strong agreement) and were summed to produce possible total scores ranging from 7 to 42, with larger scores indicating stronger belief in a just world. Interpersonal contact with an ex-offender was assessed using a 14-item Level-of-Contact Report (adapt-

© Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2018, 14(1)

20 IMPLICIT THEORIES OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

ed from Holmes, Corrigan, Williams, Canar, & Kubiak, 1999) ranging from no contact (i.e., “I have never observed a person that I was aware had previously been incarcerated”) to personal contact (i.e., “I have been previously incarcerated”).

Data analysis. A priori power analyses indicated that the recruited sample size of 400 participants provided ample power to detect at least a small (α = 0.14) and medium (β = 0.26) path (power = .80; Fritz & Mackinnon, 2007)2007. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables, including frequencies and percentages for dichotomous vari- ables and means and standard deviations for continuous variables. We conducted bivari- ate correlations to investigate the associations between the independent variable (mind- set condition), mediator (attitudes toward ex-offenders), and dependent variable (support for ex-offender reentry). Additionally, we conducted independent sample t-tests, one-way ANOVAs, Spearman’s rho correlations, and Pearson’s correlations to examine the asso- ciations between covariates and support for ex-offender community reentry. Significant covariates were retained in the mediation analyses. We conducted mediation analyses us- ing PROCESS model 4 (Hayes, 2013) examining the associations between mindset condi- tion and reentry support, and the indirect effects after adding the mediator to the model. We used bootstrapping procedures (10,000 bootstrap resamples) to create an approxima- tion of the sampling distribution and generate 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals for the indirect effects in the mediation analyses (Hayes, 2013; Preacher & Hayes, 2004). All analyses were conducted using SPSS v.20 (IBM, Armonk, NY) and mediation analyses were conducted using the SPSS PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013; Preacher & Hayes, 2004).

Results Descriptive statistics. Participants in Study 1 were between 18 and 50 years of age

(see Table 1). A majority were White and female. About a third of participants reported at least “slightly” liberal political orientations (35.0%), whereas a quarter reported a moder- ate orientation (26.8%), and the remainder reported at least “slightly” conservative politi- cal orientations. Religious affiliations of the respondents were varied, with Christianity as the most prevalent (Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox; 69.2%), followed by no religious affiliation and Agnosticism. Over a third of participants (38.9%) reported rarely or never engaging in private religious activities (e.g., prayer, meditation, reading religious text), although many attended church or religious meetings at least a few times a month (45.7%). Over half of respondents reported personally knowing an ex-offender (56.8%) and one third had a relative who was incarcerated (34.9%). Few reported a personal history of ar- rest, conviction, or incarceration.

Table 1. Sample Characteristics by Support for Ex-offender Reentry

Sample Characteristics Study 1 Study 2 Categorical Variables % t-value % t-value Sex

Male 42.7 0.33 51.6 -1.00 Female 57.3 48.4

© Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2018, 14(1)

RADE, ET AL. 21

Sample Characteristics Study 1 Study 2 Categorical Variables % t-value % t-value Race/ethnicity

White 76.1 -1.79 78.5 0.44 Other 23.8 21.5

Arrested 0.02 0.89Yes 0.3 16.9

No 99.7 83.1 Convicted

0.03 0.40Yes 0.6 10.9 No 99.4 89.1

Incarcerated — -0.07Yes 0.0 6.3

No 100.0 93.8 % F % F

Religious Affiliation

6.09*** 3.59***

Agnosticism 8.8 18.0 Atheism 7.1 19.1 Buddhism 1.1 2.2 Christianity, Protestant 45.9 25.1 Christianity, Catholic 17.7 15.1 Christianity, Orthodox 5.7 1.6 Hinduism 0.6 0.4 Islam 0.9 0.9 Judaism 1.1 1.3 None 9.7 12.6 Other 1.4 3.8

Geographic Region

— 1.43 Northwest — 18.1 Midwest — 20.3 South — 40.9 West — 20.8

Continuous Variables M (SD) r M (SD) r Belief in a Just World 22.81 (5.14) -0.24*** 23.98 (7.37) -0.18*** Age 19.21 (2.68) -0.02 35.04 (11.60) 0.01 Religiosity 9.76 (4.28) -0.29*** 7.43 (4.49) -0.17***

M (SD) rs M (SD) rs

Income 4.07 (2.11) -0.06 3.11 (1.58) -0.10* Education 3.27 (1.02) 0.01 4.31 (1.16) 0.05 Contact 8.65 (3.24) -0.01 9.78 (3.30) 0.11* Religious Meeting Attendance 3.36 (1.62) -0.18** 2.06 (1.47) -0.14** Private Religious Activity 2.81 (1.79) -0.16** 2.20 (1.69) -0.15** Political Orientation 4.01 (1.56) -0.42*** 3.34 (1.70) -0.42***

Notes. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

© Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2018, 14(1)

22 IMPLICIT THEORIES OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

Manipulation check. Participants assigned to the growth mindset condition (M = 5.89, SD = 0.99) rated criminal behavior as more malleable compared to participants in the fixed mindset condition [M = 2.32, SD = 1.29; t(350) = -29.11, p < .001]. Although our experimental manipulation was designed to induce a fixed or growth mindset regard- ing criminal behavior specifically, we anticipated influencing general person mindsets as well. Indeed, those in the growth mindset condition (M = 3.94, SD = 0.89), compared to the fixed condition (M = 3.47, SD = 0.96), expressed beliefs consistent with a general growth mindset [t(349) = 4.82, p < .001].

Bivariate analyses. Bivariate analyses of covariates revealed significant differences in supportive attitudes toward ex-offender reentry as a function of belief in a just world, political orientation, religious affiliation, and religious practices (see Table 1). Participants who reported less belief in a just world and more liberal political orientations reported greater support for reentry, compared to those with stronger beliefs in a just world and mod- erate or conservative political orientations. Generally, participants who reported less religi- osity (e.g., experience presence of the divine, religious beliefs influence other areas of life), those who attended religious meetings less frequently, and those who engaged in private religious activities less frequently tended to report more support for ex-offender reentry. Additionally, participants from various religious affiliations reported differing levels of sup- port for reentry. Specifically, people affiliated with Agnosticism and Atheism reported more support for reentry compared to participants affiliated with Christianity and Judaism. All other covariates were not associated with supportive attitudes toward ex-offender reentry.

As anticipated, we found direct associations between criminal behavior mindsets, general person mindsets, attitudes toward ex-offenders, and support for ex-offender reentry (see Table 2). That is, people with growth mindsets specific to criminal behavior also held general growth mindsets. Participants who held these growth mindsets reported more posi- tive attitudes

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.