IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jcjust/v33y2005i6p573-584.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can information change public opinion? Another test of the Marshall hypotheses

Author

Listed:
  • Cochran, John K.
  • Chamlin, Mitchell B.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Cochran, John K. & Chamlin, Mitchell B., 2005. "Can information change public opinion? Another test of the Marshall hypotheses," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 573-584.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jcjust:v:33:y:2005:i:6:p:573-584
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047-2352(05)00062-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bohm, Robert M. & Vogel, Ronald E., 1994. "A comparison of factors associated with uninformed and informed death penalty opinions," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 125-143.
    2. Bohm, Robert M. & Vogel, Ronald E. & Maisto, Albert A., 1993. "Knowledge and death penalty opinion: A panel study," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 29-45.
    3. Bohm, Robert M., 1989. "The effects of classroom instruction and discussion on death penalty opinions: A teaching note," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 123-131.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Galasso, Vincenzo & Profeta, Paola & Billari, Francesco & Pronzato, Chiara, 2013. "The Difficult Case of Persuading Women: Experimental Evidence from Childcare," CEPR Discussion Papers 9682, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Daniele Archibugi & Martina Bavastrelli & Marco Cellini, 2018. "Does discussion lead to opinion change? An experiment in deliberative democracy," Management Working Papers 14, Birkbeck Department of Management, revised Feb 2021.
    3. Vincenzo Galasso & Paola Profeta & Chiara Pronzato & Francesco Billari, 2017. "Information and Women’s Intentions: Experimental Evidence About Child Care," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 33(1), pages 109-128, February.
    4. Martina Bavastrelli, 2015. "(English) Democracy and deliberation. Can discussion changes opinions? (Italiano) Democrazia e deliberazione. Discutere fa cambiare opinione?," IRPPS Working Papers 76:2015, National Research Council, Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies.
    5. Payne, Brian K. & Tewksbury, Richard & Mustaine, Elizabeth Ehrhardt, 2010. "Attitudes about rehabilitating sex offenders: Demographic, victimization, and community-level influences," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 580-588, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bohm, Robert M. & Vogel, Brenda L., 2004. "More than ten years after: The long-term stability of informed death penalty opinions," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 307-327.
    2. Vogel, Brenda L. & Vogel, Ronald E., 2003. "The age of death: Appraising public opinion of juvenile capital punishment," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 169-183.
    3. Jennings, Wesley G. & Richards, Tara N. & Dwayne Smith, M. & Bjerregaard, Beth & Fogel, Sondra J., 2014. "A Critical Examination of the “White Victim Effect” and Death Penalty Decision-Making from a Propensity Score Matching Approach: The North Carolina Experience," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 384-398.
    4. Daniele Archibugi & Martina Bavastrelli & Marco Cellini, 2018. "Does discussion lead to opinion change? An experiment in deliberative democracy," Management Working Papers 14, Birkbeck Department of Management, revised Feb 2021.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jcjust:v:33:y:2005:i:6:p:573-584. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jcrimjus .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.