CRIME SERIOUSNESS MEASURES
Several
researchers have attempted to obtain consensus on the relative seriousness
of criminal or deviant behaviors. In general, these measures are referred
to as crime seriousness scales. Acts on these scales range from serious
crimes such as "planned killing of a person for a fee," to acts that
some consider deviant, such as "proposing homosexual practices to an
adult."
An
early seriousness scale was developed by Sellin and Wolfgang (1964).
This scale included one sentence descriptions of crimes. In 1974, Rossi,
Waite, Bose, and Berk developed a 140 item scale, again with brief
descriptions of criminal acts. As with the Sellin and Wolfgang research,
strong societal consensus regarding crime seriousness was found by
Rossi et al.
Building
on this research, Wolfgang, Figlio, Tracy, and Singer (1985) conducted
an extensive survey of crime seriousness. This effort, known as the
National Survey of Crime Severity, resulted in seriousness scores for
204 acts. These acts were defined in more precise terms than those
in the previous scales. Variables including intent, relationship, gender,
and severity of injury were included in the descriptions.
Measuring
the seriousness scores of various acts can be more than an academic
exercise. Results of these measures can logically be used to determine
criminal justice policy. Since the criminal justice system does not
act independent of the wishes of society, broad agreement on the seriousness
of crimes can be used as a basis for the criminal code, sentencing,
and the actions of police (Warr, 1989; Hamilton and Rytina, 1980).
The
present research examines differing opinions about the seriousness
of drug related acts. Opinions about the seriousness of such acts may
be reflected in modification of criminal codes. In the area of drug
use and sale, these modifications may be as significant as the criminalization
or legalization of certain activities. These potential modifications
are likely to be influenced by opinions about seriousness as well as
the personalities of those in power.
Scale used in the present research
A
major difference between the scale used in the present research and
that used by others is a limitation in the type of acts. The present
research is limited to drug related activity. This is a much narrower
range of activity than is usually included on crime seriousness scales.
Drug
related items that were included on the Rossi et al. (1974) scale are
included in the present research. Other items are unique to this research.
The present research is limited to opinions about drug sale and use.
On Rossi's scale the seriousness of using marijuana is contrasted to
items such as "planned killing of a person for a fee." Drug use and
sale may seem trivial in comparison to other acts. By limiting the
scale to these items it is likely that a wider range of scores, related
only to drug sale and use, will be achieved.
AUTHORITARIANISM
AND POLITICAL IDEOLOGY
Interest
in authoritarian personalities began with scales designed in an effort
to understand the origins for mass support of the Nazi's. These scales
evolved into fascism, or F scales, which included measures of anti-Semitic
attitudes. In the late 1940's a link between fascism and authoritarianism
was proposed. Researchers were moving from general ideas about a culture
to specific ideas about the personalities of individuals in that culture.
(See Stone et al., 1993.)
The
psychoanalytical focus on authoritarian personalities was clear in "The
Authoritative Personality," or TAP, (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson,
and Sanford) which was published in 1950. Inadequacies in this scale,
as well as political changes, led to revisions in TAP. Many revisions
were concerned with measurement issues (Stone et al., 1993). In general,
researchers questioned whether TAP was a unique variable when compared
to ideology.
Due
in part to criticism related to an apparent connection of authoritarianism
to conservative political power, TAP research declined in the 1960's
(Stone et al., 1993). The inability to define a general authoritarianism,
lacking in political attachments, was seen as evidence that it was
not a unique construct. In the present research, the concepts of authoritarianism
and ideology are treated as unique constructs. That said, it seems
possible that these concepts, although conceptually distinct, are so
interrelated that attempts to separate them are futile.
Meleon
suggests that debate over the connection of the psychological concept
of authoritarianism and the sociological concept of political ideology
is little more that a turf war. The fact that sociologists and political
scientists do not give much credit to personal motivation and reasoning
should not be an excuse for ignoring a potentially viable construct.
In "light of the reappearance of ethnocentric and authoritarian attitudes
in the 1980's, this research is too important for petty quarrels about
the kind of insignificant side issues that have dominated the debate
on authoritarianism for too long" (Meleon, 1993:68). The present research
examines the potential impact of the increased participation of certain
individuals. The personalities of those individuals, and those who
support them, should not be ignored.
The
authoritarianism measure used in the present research is Altemeyer's
(1981) Right Wing Authoritarianism scale (RWA). This 24-item scale "has
the virtues of focusing on the core of authoritarianism, being counterbalanced
so that agreement prone respondents are not combined with ideologically
consistent respondents, and having high reliability" (Christie, 1993:97).
Altemeyer's
scale measures three variables directly related to the potential for
criminal justice policy changes as the result of increased participation
by, and support for, high authoritarian individuals. The scale measures
an orientation toward acceptance of established authority and law,
acceptance of law as a basis for morality, and punitiveness toward
legitimate targets (Christie, 1991).
Each
of these variables has a clear impact on policy choices made in an
effort to control drug sale and use. For example, the primary variable
under examination in the present research, the seriousness of drug
related behavior, is directly associated with legitimate use of authority
by government. It may be safe to assume that high authoritarian individuals
will be more in favor of increased governmental authority, and increased
punitive measures, to fight a war on drugs.
The
present research has adopted the RWA scale in its entirety, with one
minor alteration. One question was reworded in light of changes in
drug policy over the last decade. "The courts are right in being easy
on drug offenders" was changed to "The courts should be easy on drug
offenders." This change was made after a pretest with a 400 level criminal
justice course. Students who had studied mandatory sentencing laws
were understandably confused by a question that defined the courts
as lenient in drug cases.
METHODS
A
questionnaire was designed to collect data for this research. The first
section included descriptions of 25 drug related acts. This list included
activity that is legal as well as illegal. The RWA scale made up the
second section. The third section included a single question about
political ideology, questions about legalizing drugs, a measure of
church attendance, and several demographic variables.
Drug seriousness
items were scored on a 9-point scale anchored at each end by "most
serious" and "least serious." The RWA scale included a six-point likert
scale, three items indicating varying degrees of disagreement, and
three items indicating the degree of agreement with the statement.
The political ideology question was measured on a five-point scale
ranging from "extremely liberal" to "extremely conservative" with "moderate" as
the mid point.
Two
questions were related to attitudes about drug legalization. These
were simple yes or no questions. One question asked for an opinion
about legalizing all drugs. The second asked for the respondent's opinion
about legalizing marijuana. Church attendance was included as a measure
of religiosity. This variable was measured on an eight-point scale
with responses ranging from "zero" to "over 100" times in attendance
at religious services or other religion oriented events during the
past year.
The
survey was given during the first four weeks of the semester in criminal
justice classes offered at an upstate campus of a large Midwestern
university. A brief instruction sheet was attached to the front of
the survey, followed by the drug severity items, the RWA scale, and
the demographic items. Respondents were asked to read the first ten
descriptions in order to develop a general idea of the range of issues
covered before indicating their perceptions of the seriousness of drug
related acts. Respondents were asked to "rate the seriousness of the
acts based on your opinion. In other words, rate these acts without
consideration of the punishment prescribed by law." Participants were
assured that no effort would be made to identify individual respondents.
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
The
following discussion covers several variables of interest in this research.
First, the data is analyzed in the effort to clarify the relationship
of authoritarianism and political ideology. Next, the crime seriousness
rankings are discussed. Finally, the interactions of RWA and ideology
to seriousness scores and opinions about drug legalization are discussed.
Surveys
were completed by 157 students. Respondent age ranged from 18 to 50,
with 24.2 as the mean age. Thirty-two percent of the respondents were
freshmen, the remaining respondents were evenly split between sophomore,
junior, and senior classes. Eighty percent of the respondents classified
themselves as European American/White, 11 percent as African American/Black.
Fifty-eight percent of the respondents were men.
Authoritarianism and Political Ideology
The
mean score on the six point RWA scale was 3.92. Scores ranged from
1.83 to 5.46. Higher scores indicate a higher authoritarian attitude.
On the political ideology self report 5.1 percent defined themselves
as very liberal. Just over 20 percent identified themselves as liberal,
23.5 checked conservative, and 3.9 percent identified themselves as
very conservative. Forty-seven percent selected moderate.
Authoritarian
scores were highly correlated with ideology scores (r=.4238, p=.000).
Forward multiple regression was used to describe the relationship of
RWA and ideology. Results of the regression analysis, with RWA as the
dependent variable, are reported in Table 1. Political ideology is
the first variable entered, followed by gender and church attendance.
No other variables were significant predictors of RWA scores. A second
regression analysis, using a stepwise, or hierarchical variable entry,
indicates that political ideology remains a significant predictor of
authoritarian score even after the effects of other variables are statistically
controlled.
These
results support the first hypothesis. Authoritarianism and political
ideology are highly correlated. As expected, high authoritarians are
more conservative.
TABLE 1 - Multiple Regressions - Authoritarian Score
Forward Method
- RWA Score as Dependent Variable
Step Variable Multiple
R R Square Sig. of R Sq. Change
1. Political
Ideology .4219 .1780
2. Gender .4730 .2237 .0030
3. Church
Attendance .4943 .2444 .0427
Stepwise Method
- RWA Score as Dependent Variable
Step Variable Multiple
R R Square Sig. of R Sq. Change
1. Age,
Gender, Church Attendance .3190 .1018
2. Ideology .5064 .2565 .0000
In
spite of a significant relationship between political ideology and
RWA, there is evidence that the variables differ in some way. Three
respondents scoring above 4.5 on the RWA scale identified themselves
as liberal. Sixteen liberals scored below 3.5 on the RWA scale. Four
students who defined themselves as conservative scored below 3.5 on
the RWA scale, while 14 conservatives scored above 4.5. The data provides
evidence of liberal authoritarians, as well as low authoritarian conservatives.
These findings lend support to the suggestion that the RWA scale measures
a construct separate from political ideology. It is also possible that
these students, young and early in an education experience that often
results in ideological definition and consistency, are not able to
clearly define their political ideology.
Religiosity
is another variable related to authoritarianism and political ideology.
As we see in Table 1, number of days of church attendance is a significant
predictor of RWA scores. Church attendance correlates with RWA scores
(r=.1504, p=.063) and with political ideology (r=.0334, p=.674). While
it appears that conservatives and those scoring high on the RWA scale
attend church related events more often, the simplicity of religiosity
measures used in the present research prevents an in-depth analysis
of this issue.
Neither
of these correlations is statistically significant, yet the correlation
of church attendance with RWA is stronger that the correlation of attendance
and ideology. This finding provides additional evidence that RWA and
political ideology, although highly correlated with each other, may
differ in some way.
A
closer look at the specific religious beliefs of respondents may yield
a clearer picture of the relationship of church attendance and other
variables. In this sample, broad categories were used to describe religion.
Thirty-four percent of the respondents defined themselves as Protestant,
35.6 percent as Catholic. Other choices included Baptist (3.4 percent),
Atheist (2 percent), and other (21.5 percent). While there does not
appear to be significant ideological differences between these groups,
further analysis, directed toward a clearer definition of religious
preference, may provide interesting results. It seems equally possible
that further analysis would provide little information. Failure to
find a link between religion and other variables that are evident in
this group may provide support for the suggestion that the "religious
right" is falsely claiming moral superiority, as well as general support,
in the policy making arena.
Seriousness Scores
Seriousness
scores for all variables are listed in Table 2. Mean scores were computed
and the items were rank ordered. The most serious items are at the
top of the list. There is very little gender difference in seriousness
scores (r=.0010). There are slight gender differences on single items,
but for the entire scale there is little gender difference. Scores
on this list are not weighted to account for gender imbalance (males=58
percent).
The
seriousness ranking of crimes roughly parallels the order of legal
or social sanctions which are intended to punish and/or control this
behavior. Sale of an item is seen as more serious than use. The seriousness
score is higher as frequency of use increases. Illegal drug use is
generally seen as more serious than the use of legal substances, although
excessive use of cigarettes and alcohol is seen as slightly more serious
than marijuana use.
The
second research hypothesis, that high authoritarians will provide higher
seriousness scores, is supported by the data. The relationship of authoritarianism
and seriousness scores is graphically depicted in Figure 1. As authoritarianism
increases, so do seriousness scores. Interestingly, this is especially
true for women. Further research may clarify the interaction of gender
and authoritarianism.
FIGURE 1 - Mean Scores of Drug Related Acts
The
relationship of authoritarianism and drug seriousness scores is also
demonstrated through the use of multiple regression. In a forward multiple
regression, with drug seriousness as the dependant variable, authoritarianism
is the only significant predictor of seriousness score (R=.3232). Authoritarianism
remains a significant predictor of seriousness score (R=.3607, significance
of change in R.Sq.=.0010) when the effects of covariates are statistically
controlled in a hierarchical regression analysis.
The
second hypothesis is supported in this research. Scores on the RWA
scale are significant predictors of drug seriousness scores. This relationship
is especially strong among women respondents in this sample. In separate
analyses, variables measuring the seriousness scores of drug related
activity categorized as sale, use, illegal, legal, cocaine related,
and marijuana related acts. Scores on the RWA are significant predictors
of seriousness scores on each of these variables.
Support
for the third hypothesis is found in an examination of Table 2. Rank
ordering of variables is similar for individuals who score high, medium
(those who score within +/- one standard deviation from the mean),
or low on the RWA scale. The third hypothesis states that rank ordering
of the seriousness of acts will be similar among high, medium, and
low authoritarians. Examination of Table 2 illustrates general agreement
among the three groups.
Spearman
correlation coefficients, which are used for rank order variables,
indicate that the rank order provided by high and medium authoritarians
correlate highly with the order of the group as a whole. These correlations
are .9508 for high authoritarians and .9969 for medium authoritarians.
Since the majority of subjects were in the medium authoritarianism
category, we would expect that their score with correlate highly with
the group as a whole. High authoritarian scores also correlate highly,
and there are only 21 subjects in this category.
TABLE 2 - Rank Order of All Acts - Authoritarian Differences
All Mean High Mean Med Mean Low Mean Variable
1 8.26 2 8.81 1 8.23 1 7.90 Selling
LSD to minors
2 8.04 1 8.86 2 8.04 4 7.29 Selling
heroin
3 7.99 10 8.33 3 8.03 2 7.43 Using
cocaine daily
4 7.98 6 8.52 4 7.99 3 7.38 Using
crack daily
5 7.92 4 8.57 5 7.99 5 6.86 Selling
cocaine
6 7.84 5 8.57 6 7.90 3 6.76 Selling
crack cocaine
7 7.79 3 8.62 7 7.82 6 6.81 Using
heroin
8 7.71 8 8.48 8 7.76 10 6.71 Using
crack
9 7.61 11 8.19 9 7.70 13 6.52 Using
cocaine
10 7.55 9 8.43 10 7.54 9 6.76 Using
LSD over 20 times per year
11 7.52 7 8.52 11 7.50 12 6.62 Selling
LSD
12 7.31 13 8.05 12 7.29 11 6.67 Inhaling
butane or other to get high
13 7.18 15 7.81 13 7.13 7 6.81 Getting
drunk nearly every day
14 6.68 14 7.86 19 6.75 15 5.14 Selling
marijuana
15 6.67 12 8.19 15 6.65 14 5.24 Using
LSD
16 6.25 16 7.29 16 6.26 16 5.14 Addicted
to pain pills
17 6.09 18 6.95 17 6.17 18 4.81 Daily
marijuana use
18 5.81 17 7.00 18 5.95 21 3.86 Growing
marijuana for personal use
19 5.55 21 6.10 21 5.57 17 4.95 Smoke
three packs of cigarettes a day
20 5.55 22 5.86 20 5.63 19 4.81 Drinking
alcohol daily
21 5.53 20 6.29 19 5.76 22 3.52 Smoking
marijuana
22 5.53 19 6.76 22 5.54 20 4.24 Being
drunk in public places
23 5.01 23 5.62 23 5.18 23 3.48 Minor
smoking cigarettes
24 4.30 24 5.52 24 4.38 24 2.62 19
yr old, drinking with fake ID
25 3.71 25 5.05 25 3.70 25 2.38 Smoking
cigarettes
The
biggest difference between the three authoritarianism categories is
found among the low authoritarians. The spearman correlation for the
rank order of this group, when compared to the group as a whole, was
.7822. There appear to be differences between the low and higher score
authoritarians, yet these differences do not have a strong impact on
the rank ordering of variables for all. This is most likely due to
the low number of individuals who scored low on the RWA scale (S=21,
the same number of subjects as in the high authoritarian category).
The
third hypothesis predicts that ranking will be similar, but there will
be significant differences between the three categories of authoritarianism.
This hypothesis is partly supported by the present research. While
not reaching a level of statistical significance, there are differences
between low authoritarians and others. The small size of the current
sample may limit the significance of between groups differences. Yet
even with a larger sample, the size of the low and high authoritarian
groups may not change relative to the medium authoritarian group.
A
primary interest in the present research is the political impact of
varying levels of participation among the three categories of authoritarians.
The impact of low authoritarians may be limited by their numbers. This
impact may also be limited to the extent that medium and high authoritarians
are more likely to agree with each other than with low authoritarians.
The potential for a natural coalition of high and medium authoritarians
is indicated in the present research.
Authoritarianism and Drug Legalization
The
last two hypotheses are related to the interaction of scores on the
RWA scale and opinions about drug legalization. Only 7.7 percent of
the respondents supported legalization of all drugs for use by adults.
High authoritarians were less likely to agree with this statement (r=.3253,
p=.000). Conservatives also disagreed with this statement (r=.2191,
p=.007).
Unusual
results were found in relation to the interaction of RWA scores and
opinions about the legalization of all drugs. As we saw in the previous
section, the relationship of authoritarianism and certain variables
is stronger for women than it is for men. In the case of drug legalization,
the only group that favored legalization of all drugs was low authoritarian
women. High authoritarian men were 100 percent opposed to legalization
of all drugs. This finding should lead to caution in assuming a relationship
of authoritarianism and opinions about drug legalization. While this
result may be unique to this sample, it is impossible to ignore the
strong gender difference in regard to this issue. In short, while the
data supports the fourth hypothesis, it is apparent that this relationship
is more complex than is indicated by the correlation of RWA and drug
legalization.
Respondents
in this sample were open to the idea of marijuana legalization. In
response to this question, 41.7 percent favored legalization. Again,
high authoritarians were less supportive of legalization (r=.3011,
p=.000). The correlation of ideology and attitudes about marijuana
legalization is slightly higher (r=.3037, p=.000). These findings support
the fifth hypothesis, this time without unusual gender differences.
Multiple
regression was also used to describe the relationship of variables
to drug legalization opinions. Results of two of these analyses are
reported in Table 3. The first regression analysis used a forward entry
of variables. In this method only significant variables are entered
into the analysis. If a second or third variable is entered, this variable
must account for a significant amount of variance above that accounted
for by other variables. In this analysis, with drug legalization as
the dependant variable, drug seriousness score is the best predictor
of opinion about legalizing all drugs. Authoritarianism is also a significant
predictor of legalization attitude.
TABLE 3 - Multiple Regressions - Drug Legalization Attitudes
Forward Method
- Drug Legalization as Dependent Variable
Variable Multiple
R R Square Sig. of R Sq. Change
1. Drug
Seriousness Score .4197 .1761
2. Authoritarian
Score .4661 .2172 .0000
Stepwise Method
- Drug Legalization as Dependent Variable
Step Variable Multiple
R R Square Sig.of R.Sq.Chg.
1. Age,
Gender, Church Attendance .1048 .0110
2. Ideology .2477 .0614 .0460
3. Drug
Seriousness Score .4506 .2030 .0000
4. Authoritarian
Score .4742 .2248 .0000
It
is not surprising that opinion about the seriousness of drug related
acts are significant predictors of drug legalization attitudes. Those
who believe that drug use and sale are serious acts could be expected
to reject the idea of legalization. As we saw above, seriousness scores
are highly correlated with RWA scores. As a result, it would be logical
to assume that authoritarianism would be a good predictor of legalization
attitude due to a high correlation with seriousness scores. The first
regression analysis in Table 3 indicates that RWA accounts for a significant
amount of variance, even after the effect of seriousness has been removed.
In other words, the effect of RWA is not the result of variance shared
with seriousness scores.
Opinion
about marijuana legalization was the dependent variable in a second
forward multiple regression. The marijuana seriousness score, which
includes opinions about the seriousness of growing, smoking, and selling
marijuana, was the only significant predictor of marijuana seriousness
score (R=.6927, R.Sq.=.4799). Another regression analysis was run with
the same variables. The only change was that marijuana seriousness
score was not included as an independent variable. In this analysis
ideology was the best predictor of marijuana legalization attitude.
Authoritarian score was the only other significant variable. Multiple
R increased from .3077 to .3623 when authoritarianism was added.
This
is the only analysis in which ideology appeared to be superior to RWA
score. It is possible that this is a result of an effort to be ideologically
consistent. The political ideology question directly preceded questions
about drug legalization. An individual who marked liberal on the ideology
question can easily appear to be ideologically consistent by favoring
marijuana legalization. When the individual reaches the question regarding
legalization of all drugs, he or she may reason that everyone, regardless
of ideology, disapproves of this idea.
It
is difficult to remain ideologically consistent on the RWA items. As
a result, this scale remains a significant predictor in regard to drug
legalization attitudes. When marijuana legalization is the dependent
variable, the predictive value of RWA scores is lessened by the fact
that individuals can easily remain consistent by checking what they
see as the appropriate political ideology. This consistency, although
perhaps not based in reality, increases the predictive power of ideology
and minimizes the effect of RWA scores.
The
second regression analysis reported in Table 3 uses a stepwise variable
entry. A number of items correlate with authoritarianism. These include
church attendance (r=.1504), age (-.0907), gender (-.2775), and ideology.
Since each of these variables is also related to drug seriousness scores,
the relationship of authoritarianism and drug legalization attitudes
may be the result of variance shared with other variables.
Stepwise
multiple regression was used to test the unique contribution of authoritarianism
to opinions about drug legalization. In this analysis, with drug legalization
as the dependent variable, church attendance, age, and gender were
entered as a block variable. This was followed by ideology, which remained
a significant predictor of drug legalization attitudes once the effect
of covariates was statistically controlled. Next, the drug seriousness
variable was added. Addition of this variable increased multiple R
from .2477 to .4506. Finally, the RWA authority variable was added
in order to test the unique contribution of this variable once the
interaction of all other variables is controlled. Multiple R increased
from .4506 to .4742 with a significance level of .0000. This analysis
indicates that authoritarianism is a significant predictor of opinions
about drug legalization after the effects of other variables have been
controlled.
Policy implications
The
relationship of authoritarianism and seriousness scores can have major
implications for criminal justice policy. We can look at crime and
deviance as a spectrum of activity, anchored at one end as more serious
(e.g., mass murder) and at the other end by less serious (e.g., nipple
piercing). Through legislation we have drawn a line, somewhat arbitrarily,
on this spectrum. Items on one side of the line are illegal, items
on the other side of the line are legal and are not officially controlled
or reacted to by the criminal justice system. That line can shift as
a result of constant pressure on each side. If the pressure on one
side is reduced in relation to the other, the line may shift. The result
of this shift could be legislation directed toward activity that has
suddenly ended up on the other side of the line.
Drug
use, especially marijuana use, is an activity that is just over the
line that separates criminal from legal behavior. It may also be said
that excessive use of alcohol or cigarettes is just on the other side
of this line. Any movement in the line may result in policy changes
regarding these behaviors. If high authoritarian individuals become
more active in the political process, either as actors or supporters
of other actors, we can expect changing pressures on either side of
this line. Behaviors that are just barely legal, in the minds of the
high authoritarians, may suddenly become criminalized. Greater participation
by any group has the potential for increasing pressure on either side
of the line that separates legal from illegal behavior.
Authoritarianism
may be a variable that influences this pressure to change. As we know,
there are many variables involved in a decision to support a particular
candidate or issue. Further research may demonstrate the relative importance
authoritarianism.
CONCLUSION
The
relationship of authoritarian attitudes to drug seriousness scores
was evaluated in this research. There is a clear relationship. Drug
seriousness scores are higher for high authoritarians. We have also
found marginal support for the suggestion that low authoritarians rank
order the behaviors in a different way. Knowledge about the opinions
of low authoritarians may be of little use in an effort to understand
the current direction of drug control policy. The opinions of low authoritarians
may have little effect on drug control policy since this group has
been politically marginalized.
RWA
scores and opinions about the seriousness of crime are both significant
predictors of drug legalization attitudes. This is evident in the statistical
analysis of these variables as well as in the fact that over 40 percent
of the respondents in this group favored marijuana legalization while
less than 10 percent favored legalization of all drugs.
High
authoritarians are less likely to support drug legalization. It is
likely that high authoritarians will favor punishment as an effort
to deter the use of drugs. It may be safe to assume that low authoritarians
would see the potential for treating drug use as a medical rather than
a criminal problem. Future research could more closely examine the
potential impact of increased political power and participation of
low authoritarians.
A
major question in this research involves the potential for changes
in criminal justice policy as the result of increased participation
and support for a particular type of policy maker. Results of this
research suggest that more behavior could be criminalized. Future research
could specifically address questions regarding crime and punishment.
For example, are high authoritarians more likely to increase sanctions
for illegal drug use? Would punishment for criminal behaviors become
more severe as the result of increased participation of high authoritarians?
Is it possible that this change could result in the criminalization
or legalization of certain drug related activity? As is often the case,
this research raises more questions than answers. Each of these questions
should be addressed in future research.
REFERENCES
Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., and Sanford, R.N.
(1950). The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and
Row.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right Wing Authoritarianism. Winnepeg:
University of Manitoba Press.
Christie, R. (1993). Some experimental approaches to authoritarianism:
I. A retrospective on the Einstellung (rigidity?) Paradigm.
In Stone, W.F., Lederer, G. and Christie, R. (1993). Strength and
weakness: the authoritarian personality today. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Christie, R. (1991). Authoritarianism and related constructs. In Robinson,
J.P., Shaver, P.R. and Wrightsman, L.S. Measures of Personality
and Social Psychological Attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press.
Evans, S.S. and Scott, J.E. (1984). The seriousness of crime cross-culturally. Criminology,
22(1) 39-59.
Hamilton, V.L. and Rytina, S. (1980). Social consensus on norms of
justice: Should the punishment fit the crime? American Journal
of Sociology, 85(5), 1117-1144.
Meleon, J.D. (1993). The F scale as a predictor of fascism: An overview
of 40 years of authoritarianism research. In Stone, W.F., Lederer,
G. and Christie, R. (1993). Strength and weakness: the authoritarian
personality today. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Rossi, P.H., Waite, E., Bose, C.E. and Berk, R.E. (1974). The seriousness
of crimes: Normative structure and individual differences
Sellin, T. And Wolfgang, M.W. (1964). The Measurement of Delinquency.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Stone, W.F., Lederer, G. and Christie, R. (1993). Strength and
weakness: the authoritarian personality today. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Warr, M. (1989). What is the perceived seriousness of crime? Criminology,
27(4), 795-821.
Wolfgang, M.E., Figlio, R.M., Tracy, P.E. and Singer, S.I. (1985). The
National Survey of Crime Severity. Washington DC: Bureau of
Justice Statistics.
