551211

research-article2014
EUC0010.1177/1477370814551211European Journal of CriminologyChen and Einat

Article

European Journal of Criminology

The relationship between

2015, Vol. 12(2) 169­–187
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
criminology studies and sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1477370814551211
punitive attitudes euc.sagepub.com

Gila Chen
Ashkelon Academic College, Israel

Tomer Einat
Bar-Ilan University, Israel

Abstract
Policymakers and researchers have long been interested in the punitive attitudes of police and
correctional officers. This research examined the punitive attitudes of 206 police and correctional
officers at the beginning and towards the end of academic studies. The results indicate that (a)
the police officers held more punitive attitudes compared with the correctional officers; (b) the
correctional officers, but not the police officers, held less punitive attitudes in the last year than
in the first year of studies; (c) male police officers generally held more punitive attitudes than
their female counterparts; (d) belief in classical theories, which was found to be the strongest
predictor of harsher punitive attitudes, was greater among police than correctional officers. The
implications of the results are discussed.

Keywords
Attitudes, correctional officers, police, punishment, year of study

Introduction
In the least three decades, a relatively large body of research has focused on the punitive
attitudes of the general public (Kutateladze and Crossman, 2009; Payne et al., 2004;
Payne et al., 2010) and of professionals in the criminal justice system (Fielding and
Fielding, 1991; Ortet-Fabregat and Perez, 1992; Young et al., 2009). As a whole, these

Corresponding author:
Gila Chen, Department of Criminology, Ashkelon Academic College, 12 Ben Tzvi St., Ashkelon, 78109,
Israel.
Email: chengila6@gmail.com

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

170 European Journal of Criminology 12(2)

studies revealed that police officers (Fielding and Fielding, 1991; Furnhan and Alison,
1994) and correctional officers (Young et al., 2009) held more punitive attitudes than the
general public did (Ortet-Fabregat and Perez, 1992).
Close examination of the research regarding police and correctional officers’ attitudes
towards punishment indicates that it has focused mainly on the relationships between
their different approaches and their occupational role. Consequently, and in contrast to
studies concentrating on the punitive attitudes of the general public (Applegate et al.,
2000; Dowler, 2003; Klama and Egan, 2011; Leiber, 2000; McCorkle, 1993), these stud-
ies have overlooked the possible interaction of several socio-demographic variables, the
causal attribution of crime and educational experience with punitive attitudes, crime pre-
vention and rehabilitation. Prior studies have shown clear associations between demo-
graphic factors (gender and age), the causal attribution of crime and attitudes towards
crime prevention and rehabilitation. For example, research has shown that women are
more supportive of crime prevention (Hurwitz and Smithey, 1998), rehabilitation efforts
(Hemmens and Stohr, 2000) and offender treatment (Applegate et al., 2002). Furthermore,
several studies found that higher education increased support for a rehabilitation orienta-
tion (Dowler, 2003; Sims and Johnston, 2004).Thus, it is reasonable to assume that these
variables, which were found to have an impact on the general public’s attitudes towards
punishment, crime prevention and rehabilitation, are particularly salient with regard to
police and correctional officers owing to their role in crime prevention and offender
rehabilitation, respectively (Ortet-Fabregat and Perez, 1992).
Hence, the purpose of this study is to contribute to the academic literature concerning
punitive attitudes by conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the attitudes of police
officers and correctional officers towards punishment. Specifically, our objectives were
to examine the interrelationships among punitive attitudes, demographic characteristics,
occupational roles, causal attribution and educational experience among police officers
and correctional officers at the beginning and near the end of their bachelor’s degree
criminology studies.

Literature review
Sources of punitive attitudes
Socio-demographic factors. Extensive research has shown that people’s perceptions of
punishment often vary by demographic characteristics (Applegate et al., 2000; Leiber,
2000; Payne et al., 2004; Worden, 1990), and that the relationships among the main
socio-demographic variables – age, gender and religiosity – and punitive attitudes are
inconsistent (Evans and Adams, 2003; Hartnagel and Templeton, 2012). For example,
some studies have found men to be more punitive than females (Applegate et al., 2002;
Evans and Adams, 2003; Schwartz et al., 1993; Sprott, 1999), but other studies have
found women to be more punitive than men (Cohn et al., 1991; Tsoudis, 2000).
Nonetheless, the majority of studies have revealed a positive relationship of gender
and age with punitive attitudes, where men are usually more punitive than women
(Applegate et al., 2002; Baker et al., 2005; Lambert, 2003; Unnever and Cullen, 2007;
Whitehead and Blankenship, 2000), and older more punitive than younger people

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

Chen and Einat 171

(Furnhan and Alison, 1994; McCorkle, 1993). As for the relationship between religiosity
and attitudes towards punishment, research has produced mixed findings: whereas some
studies found that religious people, compared with secular individuals, tend to support
harsher punitive attitudes towards criminals (Applegate et al., 1996) and that people with
more conservative religious beliefs, such as a literal interpretation of the Bible, tend to
advocate harsher criminal penalties (Cook and Powell, 2003; Grasmick et al., 1993), oth-
ers found a weak (Applegate et al., 2000) or no significant relationship (Blumstein and
Cohen, 1980) between religion and religious observance (among Catholics, Protestants
and Jews) and attitudes towards punishment. Hence, it is reasonable to argue that the
relationship between religion and punitive attitudes is complex and still unclear.

Occupational role.  Another variable that has been found to correlate with punitive atti-
tudes is occupational role (Applegate et al., 2000; Furnhan and Alison, 1994; Leiber et al.,
2002). Occupational role refers to the characteristics of the work environment and the
nature of the work (Applegate et al., 2000; Cullen et al., 1993; Robinson et al., 1993). In
an examination of theories of crime and attitudes towards punishment among three
groups – police officers, a sample of the general public and a group of offenders – Furnhan
and Alison (1994) found that police officers were more punitive than both the general
public and offenders. Similarly, Marshall and Mansson’s (1996) research indicated that
police academic trainees were more rigid and far more punitive than law students and
residents of a street settlement house. Furthermore, several studies have shown that the
attitudes of professionals in the criminal justice system regarding punishment vary
according to their professional role (Leiber et al., 2002; Ortet-Fabregat and Perez, 1992).
For example, Robinson et al. (1997b) found that therapeutic personnel were less likely to
support punishment compared with correctional officers, and Robinson and colleagues
(1997a) revealed that non-correctional personnel expressed less punitive attitudes com-
pared with correctional personnel. In contrast to these findings, Farkas (1999) found that
correctional officers did not express a punitive attitude towards inmates and generally
supported rehabilitation programmes for inmates. In addition, his research results showed
a strong correlation between work variables and attitudes towards punishment among
correctional officers.
These findings not only support the argument that occupational role shapes one’s
attitude towards punishment (Applegate et al., 2000; Furnhan and Alison, 1994) but also
indicate different views among people with different professional roles in the criminal
justice system (Leiber et al., 2002; Ortet-Fabregat and Perez, 1992).

Educational experience.  Several studies have focused on the relationship between educa-
tional background and punitive attitudes (Farnworth et al., 1988), suggesting that a col-
lege education – in general and in the social sciences in particular – would give students a
broader and more liberal understanding of crime and punishment, and thus affect their
punitive viewpoint (Leiber et al., 1993). This process has been described by various schol-
ars as the ‘liberalizing effect’ (Bohm and Vogel, 1994; Lane, 1997; McCorkle, 1993).
Although numerous studies have shown a correlation of academic seniority (that is,
number of years of academic study) with moderation and a decline in the level of puni-
tive attitudes and an increase in rehabilitative approaches, so that it serves as a significant

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

172 European Journal of Criminology 12(2)

predictor of punitive attitudes (Burton et al., 1991; Falco, 2008; Farnworth et al., 1988;
Mackey et al., 2006; Rossi and Berk, 1997; Tufts, 2000), prior research has shown in
general that education has little or no effect on punitive or rehabilitative attitudes
(Hensley et al., 2003; Lambert, 2005; Lambert et al., 2005). Research conducted with
students (Hensley et al., 2003; Lambert, 2005; Lambert et al., 2005), correctional offic-
ers (Hemmens and Stohr, 2000; Maahs and Pratt, 2001), wardens (Cullen et al., 1993)
and probation and parole officers (Whitehead and Lindquist, 1992) found no correlation
between academic seniority and punitive attitudes.

Causal attribution of crime. The causal attribution of crime provides individuals with

explanations regarding the sources of criminal behaviour. Research has shown that it is
related to punitive attitudes (Hartnagel and Templeton, 2012). In essence, different
explanations of crime and criminal behaviour are associated with different viewpoints
towards punishment (Flanagan, 1987).
Most studies on the causal attribution of crime have shown that it may be related to
societal or individual factors (Evans and Adams, 2003) or to an acceptance of and confi-
dence in criminological theories (Sims, 2003). Causal attribution may be based on belief
in a specific criminology theory – for example, classical theory; social process (including
social control, social disorganization and social learning items); labelling theory; struc-
tural positivism theory (including items of critical and strain perspectives); individual
positivism (a combination of psychological and biological theory) and learning theory
(Sims, 2003). In an examination of this type of causal attribution, Sims (2003) found that
(a) classical, social process and subcultural theories were positively related to punitive
attitudes, that is, a stronger belief in these theories was related to harsher punitive atti-
tudes; (b) structural positivism, individual positivism and labelling theories were nega-
tively related to punitive attitudes, that is, stronger acceptance of these theories was
related to less punitive attitudes; and (c) classical theories in criminology were the
strongest predictor of harsh punitive attitudes. According to the classical theories, indi-
viduals who engage in crimes are rational people who perceive such activity as better
satisfying their interests, maximizing their pleasure and minimizing their pain (Cullen
and Agnew, 2011: 23). Accordingly, crime is viewed as resulting from individual charac-
teristics and free will. People who attribute crime to individual characteristics or personal
choice tend to hold more punitive views than those who suggest environmental, eco-
nomic and societal causes of crime (Sims, 2003).
Several studies based on Evans and Adam’s (2003) study and on Sims’ (2003) causal
attribution scale have revealed a correlation between the attribution of crime to society and
less punitive attitudes and between the attribution of crime to individuals and more punitive
attitudes. Similarly, they have indicated a correlation between support for the principles of
classical theories and more punitive attitudes, in contrast to a correlation between an
acceptance of labelling theory assumptions and less punitive attitudes (Falco, 2008).

The present study

Punitive attitudes held by professionals in the criminal justice system are relevant to
crime control policies, punishment, crime prevention and the rehabilitation of offenders

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

Chen and Einat 173

(Farnworth et al., 1998; Ortet-Fabregat and Perez, 1992; Payne et al., 2004). Therefore,
it is particularly important to assess the attitudes of police and correctional officers
towards crime and the punishment of offenders. In addition, the present study moved
beyond simple demographic determinants and investigated how and to what degree other
factors, such as academic seniority and the causal attribution of crime, affect the punitive
attitudes of police and correctional officers.
Hence the present study attempts to provide comprehensive overview of punitive atti-
tudes among police and correctional officers at the beginning of their academic studies
and shortly prior to graduation. Specifically, the current research addresses four primary
questions:

(a) How punitive are police and correctional officers?

(b) What factors affect the punitive attitudes of police and correctional officers?
(c) Do the factors that affect punitive attitudes differ across gender, occupational
role and the causal attribution of crime?
(d) How and to what degree does academic seniority in criminology studies relate
to punitive attitudes?

Method
Participants
A total of 206 correctional officers and police officers who were studying criminology
(149 men and 57 women) participated in this study. According to the Israel Police and the
Israel Prison Service, officers who wish to enrol in regular undergraduate studies in
criminology or criminal justice must have at least seven years of experience in the ser-
vice. All the research participants were high-school graduates now majoring in criminol-
ogy or criminal justice. The majority of students were Israeli Jews (98.0 percent of the
police officers; 90.4 percent of the correctional officers) and the rest were Israeli Arabs
(2.0 percent and 9.6 percent, respectively).
The sample comprised 114 freshmen and 92 seniors, divided into two subgroups: 101
police officers (49 percent of the sample; 48 freshmen and 53 seniors) and 105 correc-
tional officers (51 percent of the sample; 66 freshmen and 39 seniors) Significant group
differences were found in terms of age, gender and family status.

Age: The correctional officers were older. Their mean age was 31.66
(SD = 3.60), compared with the police officers, whose mean age
was 27.81 (SD = 5.38).
Gender: The majority of the correctional officers (90.5 percent) and only slightly
more than a half of the police officers (53.5 percent) were men.
Family status: Most of the correctional officers were married (79.0 percent);
among the police officers, the figure was approximately one-third
(33.7 percent).
Religiosity: About half of the participants perceived themselves as traditional
and almost one-third as secular. Table 1 shows the participants’
socio-demographic characteristics.

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

174 European Journal of Criminology 12(2)

Measures
We employed a socio-demographic questionnaire to obtain data concerning age, gender,
family status, ethnicity and religiosity; it also included questions about the student’s
occupation in order to identify which students were employed as police officers and
which as correctional officers.

Causal attribution of crime.  Causal attribution was measured using Sims’ (2003) causal
attribution scale. Participants were asked to respond to statements designed to assess
their opinions regarding criminal behaviour and the causes of crime based on crimino-
logical theories. The scale consists of 27 items on a five-point Likert scale ranging from
(1) ‘strongly disagree’ to (5) ‘strongly agree’. Examples of items include ‘people commit
crimes because they live in bad neighbourhoods that are run down and disorganized’ or
‘people are not forced to commit crimes; it is their choice’ (in other words, crime is the
product of a person’s free will).
The causal attribution of crime scale covers seven theoretical perspectives of crime
causation: social process (represented by items on social control, social disorganization,
and social learning items); structural positivism (represented by critical and strain theory
items); individual positivism (combined psychological and biological theory items);
labelling theory; classical theory; subcultural theory; and learning theory. Examples of
items based on classical theories in criminology were: ‘crime in this country occurs
because the criminal justice system does not make the punishment severe enough’; ‘the
main reason people break the law is that they think they can get away with it’; and ‘peo-
ple break the law because our criminal justice system does not punish criminals quickly
enough’.
In the present study, we performed factor analysis with Varimax rotation and Eigen
value greater than 1 on the 27 items of the scale (the analysis was performed on a larger
sample of criminology students (n = 657), of which the current sample is a part). We
removed three scales – subcultural theory, learning theory and labelling theory – owing
to their low internal consistency. This left four factors, which were found to explain
47.99 percent of the variance. In the present study, we found internal consistency relia-
bility coefficients (Cronbach’s alphas) of α = .73 for structural positivism; α = .62 for
individual positivism; α = .68 for classical theory; and α = .55 for social process, which
was also removed owing to low internal consistency. Other scales with α > .60 were
retained because of the convention that values of .60 to .70 are the lower limit of accept-
ability (Hair et al., 1998).

Punitive attitudes. Punitive attitudes were measured using Courtright and Mackey’s

(2004) punitive attitudes scale. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agree-
ment with each of 15 statements on a six-point Likert scale ranging from (1) ‘strongly
disagree’ to (6) ‘strongly agree’. Examples include ‘we are entirely too soft on people
convicted of crime’ and ‘using the death penalty helps us to better control crime’. Scores
were computed as the sum of items, ranging from 15 to 90. Higher scores on this scale
indicate more punitive attitudes. Courtright and Mackey (2004) reported an internal

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

Chen and Einat 175

consistency reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) of α = .85. In the present study, an

internal consistency of α = .86 was found.

Procedure
The heads of the criminology departments in the two academic institutions in which the
participants were enrolled approved the research. The researchers approached prospec-
tive participants (during class time) and informed them of the purpose of the study. They
also informed the students that their participation was completely voluntary and their
responses would be anonymous. The student participants were instructed not to place
any identifying information on their questionnaires. In addition, students were informed
that they could withdraw from the study any time they so chose. The researchers assured
the students that participation in the project, withdrawal or non-participation would have
no effect on the students in terms of any special privileges (monetary or otherwise con-
crete), benefits or sanctions.
The questionnaires were distributed in class in two stages. In Stage 1, during the first
month of their first academic year (November 2011), 115 questionnaires were distributed
in class to freshmen students. Only one student declined to participate, leaving a sample
of 114 freshmen. In Stage 2, 94 questionnaires were distributed in class to seniors during
the last month of their academic final year (May 2012). Two students declined participa-
tion, leaving a sample of 92 seniors. We chose to distribute the questionnaires during two
mandatory courses in the criminology programmes: a first-year course in criminology
theories and a final-year course in social deviance.
The final sample consisted of 206 criminology students. Assistant researchers distrib-
uted the questionnaires during class time. It took approximately 40 minutes to complete
the questionnaires.

Data analysis plan

The analytic approach of the research was threefold. First, nonparametric procedures
(chi-square) were employed to identify socio-demographic differences between the
groups (gender, family status and the like) and parametric procedures (T-test) were
employed to examine age differences. Second, two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was conducted to examine differences in punitive attitudes, and a two-way multivariate
analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to study the causal attribution of crime
by group and by year of study. Third, two multiple hierarchical regressions were per-
formed to find the predictors of punitive attitudes among police officers and correctional
officers, respectively. Gender, age and year of study were entered in the first step and the
causal attribution of crime was entered in the second step. The interactions of gender and
year of study with the causal attribution of crime were used to examine possible mediat-
ing effects. Missing values, which were few, were excluded listwise.
The dependent variable in the research was punitive attitudes; the independent varia-
bles were group, age, gender, year of study and causal attribution of crime.

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

176 European Journal of Criminology 12(2)

Table 1.  Participants’ socio-demographic characteristics (N = 206).

Police officers Correctional Difference

(n = 101) officers (n = 105)

  N Percent N Percent  
Gender Male 54 53.5 95 90.5 χ2(1) = 35.24***
Female 47 46.5 10 9.5
Family Single 64 63.4 19 18.1 χ2(1) = 44.86***
status Married 34 33.7 83 79.0 (for single vs.
Divorced, 3 3.0 3 2.9 married)
separated, widowed
Ethnicity Jewish 99 98.0 94 90.4 χ2(1) = 5.42*
Arab 2 2.0 10 9.6
Religiosity Religious 13 13.0 12 11.4 χ2(2) = 0.59
Traditional 48 48.0 56 53.4
Secular 39 39.0 37 35.2
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Results
The correlation tests between the study variables and age, family status (1 = married, 0 =
single) and religiosity (1 = secular, 0 = religious/traditional) revealed no significant
results. Therefore, it was unnecessary to control for these background variables in the
other analyses.
We present the means, standard deviations and correlations between punitive attitudes
and the causal attribution of crime in Table 2.
The findings showed positive and significant interrelationships between the causal
attribution of crime based on structural positivism and individual positivism. Classical
theories in criminology were strongly and positively related to punitive attitudes: the
stronger the belief in classical theories, the harsher the punitive attitudes.

Group differences
Table 3 presents the group differences in punitive attitudes and in the causal attribution
of crime. Two-way ANOVA was conducted for punitive attitudes and a two-way
MANOVA was conducted for the causal attribution of crime by group and year of study.

Punitive attitudes
The findings show stronger punitive attitudes among police officers (M = 62.10, SD
= 10.55) than among correctional officers (M = 59.35, SD = 11.43), owing to the sig-
nificant group-by-year interaction. Post hoc analyses of the significant interaction
revealed that punitive attitudes among the correctional officers were lower in the last
year of studies (M = 56.07, SD = 10.79) than in the first year (M = 61.24, SD = 11.44)

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

Chen and Einat 177

Table 2.  Means, standard deviations and correlations between punitive attitudes and the causal
attribution of crime (N = 206).

M SD 2. 3. 4.
1. Punitive attitudes 60.68 11.07 .12 .09 .50***
2. Structural positivism 2.98 0.69 .35*** .07
3. Individual positivism 2.93 0.53 .10
4. Classical theories 3.69 0.83  
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

(F(1,202) = 5.41, p = .021, η2 = .027), but no such difference was found among the
police officers.

Causal attribution of crime

The causal attribution of crime was found to differ significantly by group: Fgroup (3, 200)
= 4.84, p = .003, η2 = .070; by year of studies: Fyear (3, 200) = 2.83, p = .040, η2 = .042;
and by the interaction: Fgroup × year (3, 200) = 2.88, p = .037, η2 = .043.

Structural positivism
The scores on structural positivism were higher among correctional officers (M = 3.04,
SD = 0.61) than among police officers (M = 2.87, SD = 0.72).

Individual positivism
The scores on individual positivism were higher among correctional officers (M = 2.98,
SD = 0.50) than among police officers (M = 2.87, SD = 0.55). They were also higher
among students in their last year of studies (M = 3.03, SD = 0.52) than among those in
the first year (M = 2.85, SD = 0.52). A significant interaction was indicated regarding
individual positivism. The analysis revealed that the scores among correctional officers
on causal attribution based on this perspective were higher in the last year of studies
(M = 3.24, SD = 0.41) than in the first year (M = 2.83, SD = 0.49) (F(1,202) = 15.35, p
< .001, η2 = .073). However, no difference was found by year of studies among the police
officers.

Classical theories in criminology

The scores on classical theories were higher among the police officers (M = 3.82, SD =
0.83) than among the correctional officers (M = 3.53, SD = 0.81).

Prediction of punitive attitudes

Table 4 presents the results of the two multiple hierarchical regressions that were con-
ducted to find which variables predict punitive attitudes among police and correctional

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

 178

Table 3.  Means, standard deviations and F-values by group and year of study for punitive attitudes and the causal attribution of crime (N = 206).
Year: Police officers Correctional officers Year Fgroup Fyear Fgroup x year

First Last Total First Last Total First Last (1,202) η2 (1,202) η2 (1,202) η2
(n = 48) (n = 53) (n = 101) (n = 66) (n = 39) (n = 105) (n = 114) (n = 92)

  M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD  

Punitive attitudes 61.55 10.87 62.62 10.32 62.10 10.55 61.24 11.44 56.07 10.79 59.35 11.43 61.37 11.16 59.79 10.96 4.77* .024 1.71 .009 3.95* .020
Structural positivism 2.80 0.74 2.92 0.71 2.87 0.72 3.00 0.65 3.12 0.54 3.04 0.61 2.92 0.69 3.00 0.65 4.08* .021 1.56 .008 0.01 .001
Individual positivism 2.87 0.56 2.88 0.54 2.87 0.55 2.83 0.49 3.24 0.41 2.98 0.50 2.85 0.52 3.03 0.52 5.02* .025 8.16** .040 7.64** .038
Classical theories 3.82 0.98 3.83 0.67 3.82 0.83 3.56 0.83 3.48 0.78 3.53 0.81 3.67 0.90 3.69 0.74 6.44* .032 0.08 .001 0.12 .001

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

European Journal of Criminology 12(2)
Chen and Einat 179

Table 4.  Hierarchical regressions of gender, age, year of study and the causal attribution of
crime on punitive attitudes (N = 206).

Police officers (N = 101) Correctional officers (N = 105)

  B SE β B SE β
Step 1  
Constant 54.39 5.93 45.45 10.63  
Gender 8.02 2.22 .36*** – – –
Age 0.10 0.22 .05 0.55 0.34 .17
Year of study –0.03 2.31 –.01 –6.94 2.54 –.29**
  R2 = .13** R2 = .09*
Step 2  
Constant 22.97 8.52 26.95 12.73  
Gender 5.81 2.00 .26** – – –
Age 0.06 0.19 .03 0.47 0.32 .15
Year of study –0.19 2.03 –.01 –5.42 2.58 –.23*
Structural positivism 1.12 1.40 .08 2.17 1.94 .12
Individual positivism 2.70 1.86 .14 –2.03 2.27 –.09
Classical theories 5.95 1.19 .45*** 5.51 1.59 .36***
  Δ R2 = .23*** Δ R2 = .16**
  R2 = .36 F(6, 94) = 8.04, R2 = .25 F(5, 99) = 5.37,
p < .001 p < .001
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

officers. The first step concerning police officers included age, gender (1 = men, 0 =
women) and year of study (1 = last, 0 = first); the first step concerning correctional officers
included only age and year of study, because the group was 90 percent composed of men.
Religiosity and family status were excluded because earlier examination indicated that
these variables were unrelated to punitive attitudes for the total sample and for each group
separately. The second step in each regression included the causal attribution of crime.
The results revealed that 36 percent of the variance in punitive attitudes among police
officers was explained by the study variables, with gender and the attribution of causes
consistent with the classical theories being statistically significant. Specifically, the male
students and those with a greater belief in the classical theories held correspondingly
harsher punitive attitudes. Among the correctional officers, 25 percent of the variance in
punitive attitudes was explained by the study variables. Significant predictors were year
of study and the causal attribution of crime consistent with the classical theories.
Therefore, freshmen students who were correctional officers and had a stronger belief in
the classical theories held more punitive attitudes.
It should be noted that the moderating effect of year of study in both groups and the
moderating effect of gender on the prediction of punitive attitudes by the attribution of
causes to crime among the police officers were not statistically significant. Similarly,
among the police officers, neither the interaction of year of study and gender nor the non-
linear effects of age were significant.

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

180 European Journal of Criminology 12(2)

It should also be noted that the model for the sample as a whole was found significant
(R2 = .28, F(7, 198) = 9.54, p < .001). The most significant predictor of punitive attitudes
in the total sample, beyond group and demographic variables, was the causal attribution
of crime based on the classical theories (β = .43, p < .001). A stronger belief in classical
theories was related to harsher punitive attitudes.

Discussion
The aim of the current study was to examine the punitive attitudes of police officers
and correctional officers who were enrolled in undergraduate studies in criminology
and criminal justice, and to analyse the interrelationships between different socio-
demographic characteristics, occupational roles, causal attributions of crime and puni-
tive attitudes at the beginning of their academic undergraduate studies in criminology
and close to the time of graduation.
The present study revealed that the only socio-demographic variable related to puni-
tive attitudes was gender. It was found that policemen were more punitive than police-
women (most of the correctional officers in the sample were male). Thus the current
findings support previous research showing that punitive attitudes are positively related
to gender, with men usually more punitive than women (Applegate et al., 2002; Baker
et a1.2005; Hartnagel and Templeton, 2012; Lambert, 2003; Unnever and Cullen, 2007;
Whitehead and Blankenship, 2000).
One possible explanation of the present findings, which are consistent with those of
several other studies (Cullen et al., 1985; Haghighi and Lopez, 1998; Sprott, 1999), is
that men and women use different moral reasoning: men base their decisions about right
and wrong on an ‘ethic of justice’ (Applegate et al., 2002: 90), but women base their
moral decisions on ‘sensitivity to the needs of others and the assumption of responsibil-
ity for taking care’ (Gilligan, 1982: 16). This position predicts a particular pattern in the
attitudes of men and women, respectively, towards punishment. The ethic of care, which
characterizes women, predicts greater support for offender treatment and opposition to
offender punishment.
Gender differences in punitive attitudes among policemen and policewomen can be
also attributed to gender differences in socialization experiences. According to this view,
gender differences are socially constructed rather than essential sex traits (Gilligan,
1993). The process of social construction means that women face different expectations
and norms than men do. Society socializes women to possess different qualities than
men; the former are expected to perform different gender roles, especially those that
Gilligan (1982) defined as familial and nurturing roles, which are associated with a dis-
tinctive set of attitudes, values and personality traits (Poteyeva and Sun, 2009). In this
context, Martin and Jurik (1996) discussed the ‘different’ approach. The authors argued
that differential socialization of men and women shapes the gender differences in the
characteristics, values and attitudes of police officers.
An additional significant finding of the study concerns group differences in punitive
attitudes: it was found that the police officers maintained more punitive attitudes than the
correctional officers did. This is consistent with the results of previous research that police
officers were more punitive than the general public (Furnhan and Alison, 1994; Marshall

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

Chen and Einat 181

and Mansson, 1996). However, in contrast to our findings, other research has shown that
correctional officers expressed more punitive attitudes compared with the general public
and with other staff groups that were employed in prison (Larivière and Robinson, 1996;
Melvin et al., 1985; Ortet-Fabregat and Perez, 1992; Robinson et al., 1997a, 1997b).
One possible explanation for the present finding, consistent with the work-role model
that argues that ‘punitive attitudes are influenced by the work environment and the kind
of work performed’ (Leiber et al., 2002: 304), is that the occupational role of police offic-
ers is a strong determinant of their punitive attitudes. On this basis, it might be expected
that the attitudes of police officers would be coherent with their professional role of
fighting crime, crime prevention, law enforcement and levels of risk (Fielding and
Fielding, 1991; Furnhan and Alison, 1994; Ortet-Fabregat and Perez, 1992). By the same
logic, the less punitive attitudes of the correctional officers may reflect the duality and
ambiguity of their work, which involves both punishment and rehabilitation, leading
them to support both treatment-oriented and retributive responses (Leiber et al., 2002).
Interestingly, similar findings were revealed in Applegate et al.’s (1997) study of the
demands among the general public and college students for the punishment and/or reha-
bilitation of offenders.
Another possible explanation is based on the daily experience and intensive contact
of correctional officers (in contrast to police officers) with offenders, which exposes
them to the distress, deficits and problematic biographies of many prisoners. Such inten-
sive contact may have a softening impact on the correctional officers’ punitive attitudes
(Young et al., 2009). In light of the significant impact that correctional officers have on
inmates’ conduct, it may be desirable that they hold less punitive attitudes and that they
convey messages of support and empathy to prisoners, thus encouraging them to reha-
bilitate and develop pro-social attitudes (Gendreau, 1996; Young et al., 2009). Support
for such a scenario can be found in the results of Glaser (1969), which indicated that
correctional officers’ positive attitudes towards prisoners were one of the major factors
that contributed to successful reintegration.
Another important finding of this research is that the punitive attitudes of correctional
officers were lower in their last undergraduate academic year than in their first academic
year. It is noteworthy that previous research has revealed inconsistent results regarding
the effect of student’s academic level on punitive attitudes: some studies found a correla-
tion between students’ academic seniority and a decrease in punitive attitudes, as well as
an increase in rehabilitation objectives (Burton et al., 1991; Falco, 2008; Farnworth et al.,
1988; Mackey and Courtright, 2000, Mackey et al., 2006), but others found no link
between these factors (Hensley et al., 2003; Lambert, 2005; Lambert et al., 2005). These
inconsistent results notwithstanding, the majority of studies on this subject have found
no effect of academic studies on punitive orientations among correctional officers
(Hemmens and Stohr, 2000; Maahs and Pratt, 2001), wardens (Cullen et al., 1993) or
probation and parole officers (Whitehead and Lindquist, 1992).
In contrast to the change in the punitive attitudes of correctional officers in the course
of their studies, no such change was found among police officers. This is consistent with
the results of the study by Farnworth and colleagues (1988), which revealed that college
education and specialization in the social sciences did not enhance police officers’ views
regarding rehabilitation.

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

182 European Journal of Criminology 12(2)

One possible explanation is that occupational role has a stronger impact on the atti-
tudes of police officers towards punishment, compared with the effect of academic stud-
ies in criminology and criminal justice. Numerous scholars have asserted that very few
professions involve such a high degree of occupational role identification as that of
police officers (Brown, 1988; Van Maanen, 1978). Fielding and Fielding (1991) found
that the general tendency of police officers to hold conservative views regarding crime
and punishment is derived from their experience of police work.
Fekjaer, et al. (2014) found that the attitudes of Swedish police recruits towards non-
legalistic police did not change during their academic training period (that is, in-service
training). However, their views about non-legalistic police practice became more posi-
tive as they gained field experience. In another study, Poteyeva and Sun (2009: 513)
noted that ‘officers’ individual characteristics are drowned by the formal and informal
socialization processes, which produce an extremely salient occupational culture’.
Finally, Rydberg and Terrill (2010) examined the effect of officer education on three key
decision-making points: arrest, search and use of force. The results indicated that higher
education had no influence on the probability of an arrest or search occurring in a police–
suspect encounter. College education, however, did significantly reduce the likelihood of
the use of force.
Three additional interesting findings of this research concern the greater acceptance
and belief in classical criminology theories (that is, more punitive attitudes) among
police officers compared with correctional officers; correctional officers’ greater support
of structural and individual positivism (less punitive attitudes) compared with police
officers; and greater support of individual positivism (less punitive attitudes) among cor-
rectional officers in their senior year of academic studies compared with correctional
officers in their freshman year. The causal attribution of crime provides individuals with
explanations for criminal behaviour and is related to punitive attitudes. These findings
strengthen our earlier findings that correctional officers are less punitive compared with
police officers and that police work helps shape the punitive attitudes of those engaged
in this field. Moreover, these findings may also reflect the complexity of the occupa-
tional role of correctional officers in the Israeli Prison Service, where policy demands the
implementation of both punitive and rehabilitative orientations (Timor, 2011). Similar to
the present findings, previous research has shown that classical theories are related to
more punitive attitudes (Falco, 2008; Sims, 2003) and that structural and individual posi-
tivism are related to less punitive attitudes (Falco, 2008).
Finally, the findings of the present study indicate that (a) male gender and the accept-
ance and support of classical theories in criminology are associated with harsher punitive
attitudes among police officers; (b) the acceptance and support of classical theories of
criminology and being in the first year of studies are related to more punitive attitudes
among correctional officers; and (c) the support and acceptance of classical theories in
criminology are the strongest predictor of punitive attitudes (beyond group and demo-
graphic variables). Consequently, individuals who view offenders as rational and respon-
sible human beings who have chosen to commit crime of their own free will are much
more likely to express punitive attitudes compared with individuals who place part of the
blame for criminal behaviour on environmental and social factors (Kennedy and Homant,

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

Chen and Einat 183

1986; Sims, 2003). Hence, the causes to which individuals attribute criminal behaviour
function as a more significant variable in explaining their punitive attitudes than do
socio-demographic characteristics or education level. Overall, these findings are consist-
ent with those of previous research (Falco, 2008; Kennedy and Homant, 1986; Leiber et al.,
2002; Sims, 2003).
Some limitations associated with this research should be acknowledged. First, this
study was conducted among Israeli police and correctional officers – a unique population
that deals with both criminal and highly intense security issues in Israel on daily basis
and is thus subject to high levels of stress and possible bias towards (security and crimi-
nal) crimes and criminals. Thus, generalization of the research findings is relatively lim-
ited. Second, a number of causal attribution scales had lower Cronbach’s alpha levels
than expected, probably because these scales included a small number of items; therefore
the results should be interpreted cautiously. Third, the effects of gender could not be fully
estimated because the correctional officers were predominantly male.
In order to overcome some of the aforementioned limitations and expand academic
knowledge in this area, we suggest that future research should (a) compare and analyse
punitive attitudes among other criminal justice system personnel (such as probation
officers, magistrates and clinical criminologists); (b) increase the reliability of the causal
attribution scales of crime by including additional items and improving the item word-
ing; (c) integrate qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews and field observations,
with quantitative methods, which can offer valuable insights into the sources of punitive
attitudes among personnel in the criminal justice system; furthermore, (d) it may also be
interesting to examine the attitudes of the teachers and their role in shaping the students’
punitive attitudes and causal attribution.
Despite its limitations, the current research may advance our understanding of the
relationship between criminology and criminal justice studies and the punitive atti-
tudes of police and correctional officers, as well as the diverse sources of these views
among these populations. From a more practical perspective, the interesting finding of
a decrease in the level of punitive attitudes among correctional officers in their last
year of academic studies in criminology compared with their first year of studies may
indicate the significance of such academic studies for the revision and modification of
correctional officers’ attitudes towards punishment, from relatively harsh and punitive
to more rehabilitative. Such a transformation of attitudes may lead the prison service
in Israel, as well as other prison services that have adopted rehabilitation objectives, to
allow as many correctional officers as possible to enrol in academic studies and to
promote a policy of employing solely such graduates in certain correctional tasks.
Eventually, correctional officers with less punitive attitudes may make a greater and
more positive contribution to the humanization of the prison environment and prison
conditions and, consequently, to the reduction of violence, aggression and hostility in
such facilities.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

184 European Journal of Criminology 12(2)

References
Applegate BK, Cullen FT and Fisher BS (1997) Public support for correctional treatment: The
continuing appeal of the retributive ideal. The Prison Journal 77: 237–258.
Applegate BK, Cullen FT and Fisher BS (2002) Public views toward crime and correctional poli-
cies: Is there a gender gap? Journal of Criminal Justice 30: 89–100.
Applegate BK, Cullen FT, Fisher BS and Vander Ven T (2000) Forgiveness and fundamentalism:
Reconsidering the relationship between correctional attitudes and religion. Criminology 38:
719–753.
Applegate BK, Cullen FT, Link BG, Richards PJ and Lanza-Kaduce L (1996) Determinants of
public punitiveness toward drunk driving: A factorial survey approach. Justice Quarterly 13:
57–79.
Baker D, Lambert E and Jenkins M (2005) Racial differences in death penalty support and opposi-
tion: A preliminarily study of White and Black college students. Journal of Black Studies 35:
201–224.
Blumstein A and Cohen J (1980) Sentencing of convicted offenders: An analysis of the public’s
view. Law and Society Review 14: 223–261.
Burton VS, Ju X, Dunaway RG and Wolfe NT (1991) The correctional orientation of Bermuda
prison guards: An assessment of attitudes toward punishment and rehabilitation. International
Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 15: 71–80.
Bohm RM and Vogel RE (1994) A comparison of factors associated with uninformed and informed
death penalty opinions. Journal of Criminal Justice 22: 125–143.
Brown M (1988) Working the Street: Police Discretion and the Dilemmas of Reform. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Cohn SF, Barkan SE and Halteman WA (1991) Punitive attitudes toward criminals: Racial consen-
sus or racial conflict. Social Problems 38: 287–296.
Cook KJ and Powell C (2003) Christianity and punitive mentalities: A qualitative study. Crime,
Law & Social Change 39: 69–89.
Courtright KE and Mackey DA (2004) Job desirability among criminal justice majors: Exploring
relationships between personal characteristics and occupational attractiveness. Journal of
Criminal Justice Education 15: 311–326.
Cullen F and Agnew R (2011) Criminological Theory: Past and Present, 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cullen FT, Clark GA, Cullen GB and Mathers RA (1985) Attribution, salience and attitudes
toward criminal sanctioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior 12: 305–331.
Cullen F, Latessa E, Burton VS and Lombardo LX (1993) The correctional orientation of prison
wardens: Is the rehabilitative ideal supported? Criminology 31: 69–92.
Dowler K (2003) Media consumption and public attitudes toward crime and justice: The relation-
ship between fear of crime, punitive attitudes, and perceived police effectiveness. Journal of
Criminal Justice and Popular Culture 10: 301–331.
Evans TD and Adams M (2003) Salvation or damnation? Religion and correctional ideology.
American Journal of Criminal Justice 28: 15–35.
Fielding NG and Fielding J (1991) Police attitudes to crime and punishment –certainties and
dilemmas. British Journal of Criminology 31: 39–53.
Falco DL (2008) Assessing students’ views toward punishment: A comparison of punitiveness
among criminology and non-criminology students. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania,
Indiana, USA.
Farkas MA (1999) Correctional officer attitudes toward inmates and working with inmates in a
‘get tough’ era. Journal of Criminal Justice 27: 495–506.

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

Chen and Einat 185

Farnworth M, Frazier C and Neuberger A (1988) Orientations to juvenile justice: Exploratory

notes from a statewide survey of juvenile justice decision makers. Journal of Criminal Justice
16: 477–491.
Farnworth M, Longmire DR and West VM (1998) College students’ views on criminal justice.
Journal of Criminal Justice Education 9: 39–57.
Fekjaer AB, Petersson O and Thomassen G (2014) From legalist to dirty Harry: Police recruits’
attitudes toward non-legalistic police practice. European Journal of Criminology 11(6):
745–759.
Flanagan TJ (1987) Change and influence in popular criminology. Journal of Criminal Justice 15:
231–242.
Furnhan A and Alison L (1994) Theories of crime, attitudes to punishment and juror bias amongst
police, offenders and the general public. Personality and Individual Differences 17: 35–48.
Gendreau P (1996) Offender rehabilitation: What we know and what needs to be done. Criminal
Justice and Behavior 23: 144–161.
Gilligan C (1982) In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gilligan C (1993) Replay to critics. In: Larrabee MJ (ed.) An Ethic of Care: Feminist
Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 207–214.
Glaser D (1969) The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Grasmick HG, Cochran JK, Bursik RJ and Kimpel M (1993) Religion, punitive justice, and sup-
port for the death penalty. Justice Quarterly 10: 289–314.
Haghighi B and Lopez A (1998) Gender and perception of prisons and prisoners. Journal of
Criminal Justice 26: 453–464.
Hair JE, Anderson RE, Tatham RL and Black WC (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edn.
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Hartnagel TF and Templeton LJ (2012) Emotions about crime and attitudes to punishment.
Punishment and Society 14: 452–474.
Hemmens C and Stohr MK (2000) The two faces of the correctional role: An exploration of the
value of the correctional role instrument. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology 44: 326−349.
Hensley C, Koscheski M and Tewksbury R (2003) College students’ attitudes toward inmate pro-
grams, services, and amenities. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law,
and Society 16: 295–304.
Hurwitz J and Smithey S (1998) Gender differences on crime and punishment. Political Research
Quarterly 51: 89–115.
Kennedy DB and Homant RJ (1986) Security managers’ attitudes toward locus of responsibility
for crime. Psychological Reports 59: 199–205.
Klama EK and Egan V (2011) The big-five, sense of control, mental health, and fear of crime as
contributory factors to attitudes toward punishment. Personality and Individual Differences
51: 613–617.
Kutateladze B and Crossman AM (2009) An exploratory Analysis of gender differences in puni-
tiveness in two countries. International Criminal Justice Review 19: 322–343.
Lambert E (2003) The views of women and men on terrorism and the punishment of terrorists: A
preliminary study among Midwestern college students. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical
Journal of Crime, Law, and Society 16: 217–321.
Lambert EG (2005) Worlds apart: The views on crime and punishment among white and minority
college students. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and Society 18:
99–121.

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

186 European Journal of Criminology 12(2)

Lambert EG, Pasupuleti S and Allen R (2005) Punishment and rehabilitation views of social work
majors and non-social work students: An exploratory study. Journal of the South Carolina
Academy of Science 3: 31–42.
Lane JS (1997) Can you make a horse drink? The effects of a corrections course on attitudes
toward capital punishment. Crime and Delinquency 43: 186–202.
Larivière M and Robinson D (1996) Attitudes of Federal Correctional Officers toward Offenders.
Report for the Correctional Service of Canada. Report no. R-44. Ottawa, Ontario.
Leiber MJ (2000) Gender, religion, and correctional orientations among a sample of juvenile jus-
tice personnel. Women and Criminal Justice 11: 15–44.
Leiber MJ, Crew BK, Wacker MK and Nalla MK (1993) A comparison of transfer and non-
transfer students majoring in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice
Education 4: 133–152.
Leiber MJ, Schwarze K, Mack KY and Farnworth M (2002) The effects of occupation and educa-
tion on punitive orientations among juvenile justice personnel. Journal of Criminal Justice
30: 303–316.
Maahs J and Pratt T (2001) Uncovering the predictors of correctional officers’ attitudes and behav-
iors: A meta-analysis. Corrections Management Quarterly 5: 13–19.
McCorkle R (1993) Research note: Punish and rehabilitate? Public attitudes toward six common
crimes. Crime and Delinquency 39: 240–252.
Mackey DA and Courtright KE (2000) Assessing punitiveness among college students: A com-
parison of criminal justice majors with other majors. The Justice Professional 12: 423–441.
Mackey DA, Courtright KE and Packard SH (2006) Testing the rehabilitative ideal among col-
lege students. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and Society 19:
153–170.
Martin S and Jurik N (1996) Doing Justice Doing Gender. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marshall J and Mansson H (1996) Punitiveness, recall, and the police. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency 3: 129–139.
Melvin KB, Gramung LK and Gardner WM (1985) A scale to measure attitudes toward prisoners.
Criminal Justice and Behavior 12: 241–253.
Ortet-Fabregat G and Perez J (1992) An assessment of the attitudes toward crime among profes-
sionals in the criminal justice system. British Journal of Criminology 32: 193–207.
Payne BK, Tewksbury R and Mustaine EE (2010) Attitudes about rehabilitating sex offenders:
Demographic, victimization, and community-level influences. Journal of Criminal Justice
38: 580–588.
Payne BK, Gainey RR, Triplett RA and Danner MJE (2004) What drives punitive beliefs?
Demographic characteristics and justifications for sentencing. Journal of Criminal Justice
32: 195–206.
Poteyeva MP and Sun IY (2009) Gender differences in police officers’ attitudes: Assessing current
empirical evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice 37(5): 512–522.
Robinson D, Porporino FJ and Simourd L (1993) The influence of career orientation on support for
rehabilitation among correctional staff. Prison Journal 73: 162– 177.
Robinson D, Porporino FJ and Simourd L (1997a) Do different occupational groups vary on atti-
tudes and work adjustment in corrections? Federal Probation 60: 45– 53.
Robinson D, Porporino FJ and Simourd L (1997b)The influence of educational attainment on the
attitudes and job performance of correctional officers. Crime and Delinquency 43: 60–77.
Rossi P and Berk RA (1997) Just Punishments: Federal Guidelines and Public Views Compared.
New York: De Gruyter.
Rydberg J and Terrill W (2010) The effect of higher education on police behavior. Police Quarterly
13(1): 92–120.

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015

Chen and Einat 187

Schwartz IM, Guo S and Kerbs JJ (1993) The impact of demographic variables on public opinion
regarding juvenile justice: Implications for public policy. Crime and Delinquency 39: 5–28.
Sims B (2003) The impact of causal attribution on correctional ideology: A national study.
Criminal Justice Review 28: 1–25.
Sims B and Johnston E (2004) Examining public opinion about crime and justice: A statewide
study. Criminal Justice Policy Review 15(3): 270–293.
Sprott JB (1999) Are members of the public tough on crime? The dimensions of public ‘punitive-
ness’. Journal of Criminal Justice 27: 467–474.
Timor U (2011) Rehabilitating rehabilitation in the prisons. Glimpse into Prison 14: 72–85.
Tsoudis O (2000) Does majoring in criminal justice affect perceptions of criminal justice? Journal
of Criminal Justice Education 11: 225–236.
Tufts J (2000) Public attitudes toward the criminal justice system. Juristat 20: 1–22.
Young JL, Antonio ME and Wingeard LM (2009) How staff attitude and support for inmate treat-
ment and rehabilitation differs by job category: An evaluation of findings from Pennsylvania’s
Department of Corrections employee training curriculum ‘Reinforcing Positive Behavior’.
Journal of Criminal Justice 37: 435–441.
Unnever JD and Cullen FT (2007) Reassessing the racial divide in support for capital punish-
ment: The continuing significance of race. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
44: 124–158.
Van Maanen J (1978) The asshole. In Blumberg A and Niderhoffer E (eds) The Ambivalent Force:
Perspectives on the Police. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 146–157.
Whitehead J and Blankenship M (2000) The gender gap in capital punishment attitudes: An analy-
sis of support and opposition. American Journal of Criminal Justice 25: 1–13.
Whitehead JT and Lindquist CA (1992) Determinants of probation and parole officer professional
orientation. Journal of Criminal Justice 20: 13–24.
Worden R (1990) A badge and a baccalaureate: Policies, hypotheses, and further evidence. Justice
Quarterly 7: 565–592.

Downloaded from euc.sagepub.com by guest on December 8, 2015