The Role of Ambivalent Sexism, Punitiveness, and Ability to Recognize Violence in the Perception of Sex Offenders: A Gender-Perspective Analysis
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Public Attitudes and Perceptions about Sex Offenders
1.1.1. The Relevance of Studying Public Attitudes and Perceptions about Sex Offenders
1.1.2. Existing Research on Public Attitudes and Perceptions about Sex Offenders
1.2. Factors Influencing Public Attitudes and Perceptions about Sex Offenders
1.2.1. Sociodemographic Variables Influencing Public Attitudes and Perceptions about Sex Offenders
1.2.2. Other Attitudinal and Personal Factors Influencing Public Attitudes and Perceptions about Sex Offenders
2. Present Study
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Participants
3.2. Procedure and Measures
- The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory—short version [55,64] including 12 items measuring Hostile Sexism toward women, HS (6 items, e.g., “Once a woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually tries to put him on a tight leash”, Cronbach’s α = 0.85) and Benevolent Sexism toward women, BS (6 items, e.g., “Women should be cherished and protected by men”, Cronbach’s α = 0.82). The items were rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (0) to “strongly agree” (5).
- The Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory—short version [64,65] measuring Hostile Sexism toward men, HM (6 items, e.g., “Men will always fight to have greater control in society than women”, Cronbach’s α = 0.79) and Benevolent Sexism toward men, BM (6 items, e.g., “Men are more willing to put themselves in danger to protect others”, Cronbach’s α = 0.83). The items were rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (0) to “strongly agree” (5).
- The General Punitiveness Scale [40] including 8 items assessing agreement with popular statements about crime and punishment (e.g., “My general view towards offenders is that they should be treated harshly”, Cronbach’s α = 0.77). Items were rated on a 6-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (6).
- Two dimensions of the List of Behaviors Harming Women [59,60]: Limitation of Freedom and Emotional Abuse. Limitation of Freedom includes 6 items investigating participants’ ability to recognize specific behaviors as restrictions to women’s independence and autonomy (e.g., “Divesting a woman of her own earned money”, Cronbach’s α = 0.94). Emotional Abuse includes 6 items referred to verbally and emotionally aggressive behaviors aimed at humiliating women (e.g., “Yelling at a woman”, Cronbach’s α = 0.84). Participants were asked to evaluate if each specific behavior was a form of violence against women. The items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from “it is not at all violence” (0) to “it is certainly violence” (4).
- The Perceptions of Sex Offenders Scale, PSO [23] measuring attitudes toward sex offenders. It consists of 20 items that are scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). It has three subscales: sentencing and management (e.g., “People who commit sex offences should lose their civil rights—e.g., voting, privacy”, Cronbach’s α = 0.87), stereotype endorsement (e.g., “Most sex offenders do not have close friends”, Cronbach’s α = 0.83), and risk perception (e.g., “Only a few sex offenders are dangerous”—reverse scored, Cronbach’s α = 0.70).
- A list of sociodemographic items.
3.3. Data Analyses
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- World Report on Violence and Health. Available online: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42495/9241545615_eng.pdf;jsessionid=6F3F7DB2E8747AB0C9D0CAFE6143E14A?sequence=1 (accessed on 27 October 2021).
- Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. Available online: https://rm.coe.int/168008482e (accessed on 27 October 2021).
- National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2015 Data Brief—Updated Release. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf (accessed on 27 October 2021).
- Violence against Women: An EU-Wide Survey. Main Results Report. Available online: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-vaw-survey-at-a-glance-oct14_es.pdf (accessed on 27 October 2021).
- The Impact of Sexual Violence. Available online: https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/2016-01/saam_2016_impact-of-sexual-violence.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
- Ferraro, K.F. Fear of Crime: Interpreting Victimization Risk; State University of New York Press: Albany, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- León, C.M.; Butler, L.F.; Aizpurua, E. Correlates of fear of victimization among college students in Spain: Gender differences and similarities. J. Interpers. Violence 2020, 088626052091456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pryce, D.K.; Wilson, G.; Fuller, K. Gender, age, crime victimization, and fear of crime: Findings from a sample of Kenyan college students. Security 2018, 31, 821–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warr, M. Fear of victimization: Why are women and the elderly more afraid? Soc. Sci. Q. 1984, 65, 681–702. [Google Scholar]
- Cook, C.L.; Fox, K.A. Testing the relative importance of contemporaneous offenses: The impacts of fear of sexual assault versus fear of physical harm among men and women. J. Crim. Justice 2012, 40, 142–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lane, J.; Fox, K. Fear of property, violent, and gang crime. Crim. Justice Behav. 2013, 40, 472–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olver, M.E.; Barlow, B.A. Public attitudes toward sex offenders and their relationship to personality traits and demographic characteristics. Behav. Sci. Law 2010, 28, 832–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, S.; Deakin, J.; Spencer, J. What people think about the management of sex offenders in the community. Howard J. Crim. Justice 2008, 47, 259–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGhee, M. Two Strikes and You’re Dead: Public Opinion on Capital Punishment for Sex Offenders. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Mercado, C.C.; Alvarez, S.; Levenson, J. The impact of specialized sex offender legislation on community reentry. Sex. Abus. 2008, 20, 188–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeLuca, J.S.; Vaccaro, J.; Rudnik, A.; Graham, N.; Giannicchi, A.; Yanos, P.T. Sociodemographic predictors of sex offender stigma: How politics impact attitudes, social distance, and perceptions of sex offender recidivism. Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol. 2017, 62, 2879–2896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klein, J.L.; Cooper, D.T. Punitive attitudes toward sex offenders: Do moral panics cause community members to be more punitive? Crim. Justice Policy Rev. 2019, 30, 948–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shields, R.T.; Cochran, J.C. The gender gap in sex offender punishment. J. Quant. Criminol. 2020, 36, 95–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Höing, M.A.; Petrina, R.; Duke, L.H.; Völlm, B.; Vogelvang, B. Community support for sex offender rehabilitation in Europe. Eur. J. Criminol. 2016, 13, 491–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eagly, A.H.; Chaiken, S. The Psychology of Attitudes; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers: Orlando, FL, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Breckler, S.J. Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1984, 47, 1191–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hogue, T.E. Attitudes to Sex Offenders; University of Lincoln: Lincoln, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Harper, C.A.; Hogue, T.E. Measuring public perceptions of sex offenders: Reimagining the Community Attitudes Toward Sex Offenders (CATSO) scale. Psychol. Crime Law 2015, 21, 452–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jussim, L. Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harper, C.A.; Hogue, T.E.; Bartels, R.M. Attitudes towards sexual offenders: What do we know, and why are they important? Aggress. Violent Behav. 2017, 34, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Duncan, J. Public Perceptions Regarding Sex Offenders and Sex Offender Management. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, East Tennessee State University, Tennessee, TN, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Aizpurúa, E. Las Actitudes Punitivas de los Españoles: Alcance, Medición y Factores Explicativos. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Castilla-La Mancha, Spain, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Pickett, J.T.; Mancini, C.; Mears, D.P.; Gertz, M. Public (mis)understanding of crime policy: The effects of criminal justice experience and media reliance. Crim. Justice Policy Rev. 2015, 26, 500–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Manchak, S.M.; Fisher, L.R. An examination of multiple factors influencing support for sex offender policy. Crim. Justice Policy Rev. 2017, 30, 925–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heller, W. Poverty: The most challenging condition of prisoners release. Georget. J. Poverty Law Policy 2006, XIII, 219–248. [Google Scholar]
- Levenson, J.S.; Cotter, L.P. The impact of sex offender residence restrictions: 1,000 feet from danger or one step from absurd? Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol. 2005, 49, 168–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tewksbury, R. Collateral consequences of sex offender registration. J. Contemp. Crim. Justice 2005, 21, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calkins, C.; Colombino, N.; Matsuura, T.; Jeglic, E. Where do sex crimes occur? How an examination of sex offense location can inform policy and prevention. Int. J. Comp. Appl. Crim. Justice 2015, 39, 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pickett, J.T.; Mancini, C.; Mears, D.P. Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: Explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology 2013, 51, 729–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, M.; Jeglic, E.L. Sex Offender Legislation in the United States: What do we know? Int. J. Offender Ther. Comp. Criminol. 2007, 51, 369–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mancini, C.; Mears, D.P. Sex Offenders—America’s new witches? A theoretical analysis of the emergence of sex crime laws. Deviant Behav. 2016, 37, 419–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanson, K.R.; Morton-Bourgon, K.E. The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2005, 73, 1154–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Willis, G.M.; Malinen, S.; Johnston, L. Demographic differences in public attitudes towards sex offenders. Psychiatr. Psychol. Law 2013, 20, 230–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsieh, M.; Hamilton, Z.; Zgoba, K.M. Prison experience and reoffending: Exploring the relationship between prison terms, institutional treatment, infractions, and recidivism for sex offenders. Sex. Abus. 2018, 30, 556–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maruna, S.; King, A. Once a criminal, always a criminal? ‘Redeemability’ and the psychology of punitive public attitudes. Eur. J. Crim. Pol. Res. 2009, 15, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, D.L.; Ferguson, C.J. Punishment and rehabilitation attitudes toward sex offenders versus nonsexual offenders. J. Aggress. Maltreat. Trauma 2011, 20, 395–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Budd, K.; Desmond, S.A. Sex offenders and sex crime recidivism: Investigating the role of sentence length and time served. Int. J. Offender Ther. 2014, 58, 1481–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marteache, N. Deliberative processes and attitudes toward sex offenders in Spain. Eur. J. Criminol. 2012, 9, 159–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malinen, S.; Willis, G.W.; Johnston, L. Might informative media reporting of sexual offending influence community members’ attitudes towards sex offenders? Psychol. Crime Law 2014, 20, 535–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCartan, K.F. Student/trainee-professional implicit theories of paedophilia. Psychol. Crime Law 2010, 16, 265–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mancini, C.; Budd, K.M. Is the public convinced that “nothing works?” Predictors of treatment support for sex offenders among Americans. Crime Delinq. 2016, 62, 777–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shackley, M.; Weiner, C.; Day, A.; Willis, G.W. Assessment of public attitudes towards sex offenders in an Australian population. Psychol. Crime Law 2014, 20, 553–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higgins, C.; Ireland, C.A. Attitudes towards male and female sex offenders: A comparison of forensic staff, prison officers and the general public in Northern Ireland. Br. J. Forensic Pract. 2009, 11, 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kjelsberg, E.; Loos, L.H. Conciliation or condemnation? Prison employees’ and young peoples’ attitudes towards sexual offenders. Int. J. Forensic Ment. 2008, 7, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radley, L. Attitudes toward sex offenders. Forensic Update 2011, 66, 5–9. [Google Scholar]
- Katz-Schiavone, S.; Levenson, J.S.; Ackerman, A. Myths and facts about sexual violence: Public perceptions and implications for prevention. J. Crim. Justice Pop. Cult. 2008, 15, 291–311. [Google Scholar]
- Sahlstrom, K.J.; Jeglic, E.L. Factors affecting attitudes toward juvenile sex offenders. J. Child Sex. Abus. 2008, 17, 180–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bosworth, M. Deportation, detention and foreign-national prisoners in England and Wales. Citizsh. Stud. 2011, 15, 583–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frost, N.A. Beyond public opinion polls: Punitive public sentiment & criminal justice policy. Sociol. Compass 2010, 4, 156–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glick, P.; Fiske, S.T. The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 70, 491–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rollero, C.; De Piccoli, N. Myths about Intimate Partner Violence and moral disengagement: An analysis of sociocultural dimensions sustaining violence against women. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamawaki, N. Differences between Japanese and American college students in giving advice about help seeking to rape victims. J. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 147, 511–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Viki, G.T.; Abrams, D.; Masser, B. Evaluating stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent sexism in perpetrator blame and recommended sentence length. Law Hum. Behav. 2004, 28, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rollero, C.; Bergagna, E.; Tartaglia, S. What is violence? The role of sexism and social dominance orientation in recognizing violence against women. J. Interpers. Violence 2019, 0886260519888525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ortabag, T.; Ozdemir, S.; Bebis, H.; Ceylan, S. Perspectives of young adult men regarding violence against women: A cross-sectional study from Turkey. J. Fam. Violence 2014, 29, 665–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LeBel, T.P.; Burnett, R.; Maruna, S.; Bushway, S. The ‘chicken and egg’ of subjective social factors and desistance from crime. Eur. J. Criminol. 2008, 5, 131–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shaver, K.G. Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1970, 14, 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suarez, E.; Gadalla, T.M. Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. J. Interpers. Violence 2010, 25, 2010–2035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rollero, C.; Glick, P.; Tartaglia, S. Psychometric properties of short versions of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory. TPM Test. Psychom. Methodol. Appl. Psychol. 2014, 21, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glick, P.; Fiske, S.T. The ambivalence toward men inventory. Psychol. Women Quart. 1999, 23, 519–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gluck, M.; Heesacker, M.; Choi, H.D. How much of the dark triad is accounted for by sexism? Personal. Individ. Differ. 2020, 154, 109728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- León, C.M.; Aizpurúa, E. Do sexist attitudes persist in college students? An analysis of its prevalence, predictors, and gender differences. Educación XX1 2020, 23, 275–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colémont, A.; Van Hiel, A.; Cornelis, I. Five-Factor Model personality dimensions and right-wing attitudes: Psychological bases of punitive attitudes? Personal. Individ. Differ. 2011, 50, 486–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Emmers-Sommer, T.M. College student perceptions of hypothetical rape disclosures: Do relational and demographic variables pose a risk on disclosure believability? Sex. Cult. 2017, 21, 664–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powers, R.A.; Leili, J.; Hangman, B.; Cohn, A. The impact of college education on rape myth acceptance, alcohol expectancies, and bystander attitudes. Deviant Behav. 2015, 36, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vonderhaar, R.L.; Carmody, D.C. There are no “innocent victims” the influence of just world beliefs and prior victimization on rape myth acceptance. J. Interpers. Violence 2015, 30, 1615–1632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allport, G.W.; Clark, K.; Pettigrew, T. The Nature of Prejudice; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 1954. [Google Scholar]
- Cochran, J.C.; Toman, E.L.; Shields, R.T.; Mears, D.P. A uniquely punitive turn? Sex offenders and the persistence of punitive sanctioning. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 2021, 58, 74–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cochran, J.K.; Chamlin, M.B. Can information change public opinion? Another test of the Marshall hypotheses. J. Crim. Justice 2005, 33, 573–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mean | SD | T | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
HS | Men | 2.01 | 1.08 | −9.89 ** |
Women | 1.30 | 1.05 | ||
BS | Men | 2.25 | 1.15 | −3.09 ** |
Women | 1.97 | 1.22 | ||
HM | Men | 2.09 | 1.05 | 4.17 ** |
Women | 2.43 | 1.11 | ||
BM | Men | 1.83 | 1.10 | −8.64 ** |
Women | 1.16 | 1.00 | ||
General Punitiveness | Men | 3.62 | 0.94 | −1.84 |
Women | 3.48 | 1.00 | ||
Limitation of Freedom | Men | 3.34 | 1.79 | 2.61 * |
Women | 3.50 | 0.83 | ||
Emotional Abuse | Men | 2.38 | 0.99 | 2.16 * |
Women | 2.52 | 0.85 | ||
Sentencing and Man | Men | 3.14 | 1.19 | −0.58 |
Women | 3.09 | 1.09 | ||
Stereotype Endorsement | Men | 2.78 | 0.98 | −5.64 ** |
Women | 2.36 | 0.98 | ||
Risk Perception | Men | 4.74 | 0.95 | 7.97 ** |
Women | 5.22 | 0.70 |
2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. | 8. | 9. | 10. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. HS | 0.54 ** | 0.41 ** | 0.73 ** | 0.40 ** | −0.20 ** | −0.09 | 0.39 ** | 0.49 ** | −0.28 ** |
2. BS | 0.53 ** | 0.67 ** | 0.40 ** | −0.13 ** | 0.10 * | 0.48 ** | 0.40 ** | −0.12 * | |
3. HM | 0.46 ** | 0.29 ** | −0.05 | 0.11 * | 0.41 ** | 0.27 ** | −0.07 | ||
4. BM | 0.37 ** | −0.23 ** | 0.02 | 0.42 ** | 0.48 ** | −0.27 ** | |||
5. Punitiveness | −0.22 ** | −0.09 | 0.67 ** | 0.26 ** | 0.16 ** | ||||
6. Limitation of Freedom | 0.46 ** | −0.13 ** | −0.14 ** | 0.04 | |||||
7. Emotional Abuse | 0.05 | 0.08 | −0.14 ** | ||||||
8. Sentencing and Management | 0.37 ** | 0.14 ** | |||||||
9. Stereotype Endorsement | −0.33 ** | ||||||||
10. Risk Perception |
Men | Women | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Beta (SE) | T | Beta (SE) | T | |
Age | 0.08 (0.00) | 1.84 | 0.12 ** (0.00) | 3.56 |
Have met a victim | 0.00 (0.13) | 0.03 | −0.03 (0.09) | −0.74 |
Have met an offender | 0.03 (0.16) | 0.58 | −0.01 (0.11) | −0.27 |
HS | 0.21 ** (0.07) | 3.27 | −0.14 ** (0.05) | −2.90 |
BS | 0.07 (0.06) | 1.25 | 0.18 ** (0.05) | 3.21 |
HM | 0.01 (0.06) | 0.21 | 0.16 ** (0.04) | 3.80 |
BM | 0.04 (0.08) | 0.59 | 0.09 (0.06) | 1.72 |
General Punitiveness | 0.52 ** (0.06) | 10.80 | 0.57 ** (0.04) | 15.58 |
Limitation of Freedom | −0.07 (0.07) | −1.40 | 0.07 (0.05) | 1.76 |
Emotional Abuse | 0.19 ** (0.06) | 3.96 | −0.03 (0.05) | −0.70 |
Adjusted R2 = 0.55 ** | Adjusted R2 = 0.55 ** | |||
F(10, 277) = 34.38 ** | F(10, 444) = 54.17 ** |
Men | Women | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Beta (SE) | T | Beta (SE) | T | |
Age | −0.00 (0.00) | −0.06 | 0.02 (0.00) | 0.58 |
Have met a victim | −0.03 (0.14) | −0.47 | −0.01 (0.10) | −0.18 |
Have met an offender | 0.14 * (0.17) | 2.43 | −0.04 (0.13) | −0.83 |
HS | 0.39 ** (0.07) | 4.74 | 0.22 ** (0.06) | 3.70 |
BS | 0.08 (0.06) | 1.21 | 0.08 (0.06) | 1.18 |
HM | −0.02 (0.06) | −0.33 | 0.02 (0.05) | 0.42 |
BM | 0.09 (0.08) | 1.05 | 0.20 ** (0.07) | 2.87 |
General Punitiveness | −0.02 (0.07) | −0.25 | 0.09 (0.05) | 1.84 |
Limitation of Freedom | −0.07 (0.07) | −1.24 | −0.09 (0.06) | −1.76 |
Emotional Abuse | 0.17 ** (0.06) | 2.76 | 0.13 ** (0.06) | 2.63 |
Adjusted R2 = 0.27 ** | Adjusted R2 = 0.27 ** | |||
F(10, 275) = 11.14 ** | F(10, 443) = 17.17 ** |
Men | Women | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Beta (SE) | T | Beta (SE) | T | |
Age | −0.02 (0.00) | −0.28 | −0.01 (0.00) | −0.12 |
Have met a victim | −0.09 (0.13) | −1.55 | −0.04 (0.07) | −0.67 |
Have met an offender | −0.11 (0.16) | −1.87 | 0.00 (0.09) | 0.05 |
HS | −0.020 * (0.07) | −2.43 | −0.28 ** (0.04) | −4.36 |
BS | 0.16 * (0.06) | 2.42 | 0.03 (0.04) | 0.42 |
HM | −0.13 (0.06) | −1.87 | 0.10 (0.04) | 1.75 |
BM | −0.16 (0.08) | −1.84 | −0.18 * (0.05) | −2.39 |
General Punitiveness | 0.43 ** (0.06) | 7.09 | 0.25 ** (0.03) | 4.82 |
Limitation of Freedom | 0.10 (0.07) | 1.67 | 0.04 (0.04) | 0.81 |
Emotional Abuse | −0.28 ** (0.06) | −4.54 | −0.12 * (0.04) | −2.30 |
Adjusted R2 = 0.27 ** | Adjusted R2 = 0.13 ** | |||
F(10, 280) = 11.33 ** | F(10, 447) = 7.44 ** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Leon, C.M.; Rollero, C. The Role of Ambivalent Sexism, Punitiveness, and Ability to Recognize Violence in the Perception of Sex Offenders: A Gender-Perspective Analysis. Sexes 2021, 2, 495-508. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes2040039
Leon CM, Rollero C. The Role of Ambivalent Sexism, Punitiveness, and Ability to Recognize Violence in the Perception of Sex Offenders: A Gender-Perspective Analysis. Sexes. 2021; 2(4):495-508. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes2040039
Chicago/Turabian StyleLeon, Carmen M., and Chiara Rollero. 2021. "The Role of Ambivalent Sexism, Punitiveness, and Ability to Recognize Violence in the Perception of Sex Offenders: A Gender-Perspective Analysis" Sexes 2, no. 4: 495-508. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes2040039