How does sanctioning context affect moral emotions and conformity? An examination of criminal identity negotiation in courts and restorative justice conferences

ABSTRACT

Recent research has shown how identities are affected by, and resistant to, reflected appraisals, or how individuals perceive others view them. Despite renewed interest in criminal identity negotiation, the implications that the sanctioning context has for affecting the identity verification process of offenders has been underresearched. Using a sample of 498 restorative justice and 475 court participants in the Australian Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE), we discover that the effect of discrepancies between reflected appraisals and offender self-views on emotions and projected conformity vary by conference and court processing. These findings suggest that identity processes need to be considered when examining how offenders are sanctioned.

Notes

¹ Identity here refers to role-related identities as detailed by identity theory, and not social identities, according to social identity theory. Although similar, role identities drive individual behavior and develop through a process of labeling, or defining self, due to membership in a structurally determined social category (Hogg, Terry, and White 1995: 257). In contrast, social identities derive from group membership and group comparisons in which in-group norms influence behavior (Hogg, Terry, and White 1995). As we examine the implications the labeling process has for offenders via the receipt of reflected appraisals, this study draws from identity theory to focus on criminal identity, a specific role identity.

² Although, individuals can perceive themselves as lawful even though they may engage in delinquent behaviors (Anderson 1999; Sykes and Matza 1957).

³ Despite certain differences, which derive from cultural and historical variations, such as a stronger emphasis on individual rights in the US compared to Australia, in both systems, less serious crimes are handled through lower courts with the assumption that: a suspect is innocent until proven guilty, confessions are taken from suspects voluntarily, and judges presiding over cases are impartial. Courts in both countries also emphasize the right to legal counsel, the importance of the appeals process for a fair system, and that courts are open to the community (Marcus and Waye 2004: 36 and 79).

⁴ All analyses exclude those participants who did not have valid treatment information.

⁵ Alpha reliability scores are reported for the combined sample. Alphas for both samples resembled those of the whole sample. Results available upon request.

⁶ Response categories roughly correspond to quartiles. The same pattern of results emerges when not using these categories.

⁷ These items overlap with disintegrative shaming. While reintegrative shaming may also be a form of RAs, disintegrative shaming focuses on the individual’s identity rather than the offense committed (Braithwaite 1989). Reintegrative shaming is included as a control as it can affect perceptions in RJCs (Scheuerman and Matthews 2014).

⁸ Correlations are available upon request.

⁹ For ease of interpretation, we include the unstandardized criminal identity and RAs measures in Table 1. We also include the means for the original, not the polytomous, conformity variable for conference and court.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Shelley Keith

Shelley Keith is an Associate Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Memphis. Her research centers on the social psychological causes of crime with an emphasis on the role of identity and emotions. Her recent work has appeared in Contemporary Justice Review, the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and Sociological Inquiry.

Heather L. Scheuerman

Heather L. Scheuerman is an Associate Professor in the Department of Justice Studies at James Madison University. She researches how social psychological concepts and processes affect behavior, including crime. Her recent work has appeared in Contemporary Justice Review, Law & Policy, and Sociological Inquiry.