IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/xybj9.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Racial Sympathy and Support for Capital Punishment: A Case Study in Concept Transfer

Author

Listed:
  • Hannan, Kellie
  • Cullen, Francis T.
  • Butler, Leah C.
  • Graham, Amanda

    (Georgia Southern University)

  • Burton, Alexander L.
  • Burton, Velmer S. Jr.

Abstract

Beliefs about race, especially racial resentment, are key predictors of public support for capital punishment and punitiveness generally. Drawing on a conceptual innovation by political scientist Jennifer Chudy, we explore the utility of transferring into criminology her construct of racial sympathy—or Whites’ concern about Blacks’ suffering. First, across three data sets, we replicate Chudy’s finding that racial sympathy and resentment are empirically distinct constructs. Second, based on a national-level 2019 YouGov survey (n = 760 White respondents) and consistent with Chudy’s thesis, racial sympathy is then shown to be significantly related to the race-specific view that capital punishment is discriminatory but not support for the death penalty or harsher courts. Racial sympathy also is positively associated with advocacy of rehabilitation as the main goal of prison. Notably, in all models, racial resentment has robust effects, increasing punitive sentiments. Taken together, the results suggest that racial sympathy is a concept that can enrich criminologists’ study of how race shapes crime policy preferences in the United States and beyond.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannan, Kellie & Cullen, Francis T. & Butler, Leah C. & Graham, Amanda & Burton, Alexander L. & Burton, Velmer S. Jr., 2020. "Racial Sympathy and Support for Capital Punishment: A Case Study in Concept Transfer," SocArXiv xybj9, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:xybj9
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/xybj9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5ed81437a87773000c6c8224/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/xybj9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Schaffner, Brian F., 2014. "Does Survey Mode Still Matter? Findings from a 2010 Multi-Mode Comparison," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 285-303, July.
    2. Johnson, Devon, 2008. "Racial prejudice, perceived injustice, and the Black-White gap in punitive attitudes," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 198-206, May.
    3. Sanders, David & Clarke, Harold D. & Stewart, Marianne C. & Whiteley, Paul, 2007. "Does Mode Matter For Modeling Political Choice? Evidence From the 2005 British Election Study," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 257-285, July.
    4. Kerry O’Brien & Walter Forrest & Dermot Lynott & Michael Daly, 2013. "Racism, Gun Ownership and Gun Control: Biased Attitudes in US Whites May Influence Policy Decisions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-10, October.
    5. Alexandra Filindra & Noah Kaplan, 2017. "Testing Theories of Gun Policy Preferences Among Blacks, Latinos, and Whites in America-super-," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 98(2), pages 413-428, June.
    6. Stanley Feldman & Leonie Huddy, 2005. "Racial Resentment and White Opposition to Race‐Conscious Programs: Principles or Prejudice?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(1), pages 168-183, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Christopher G. Ellison & Margaret S. Kelley & David Leal & Pablo E. Gonzalez, 2022. "How do veterans view gun policies? Evidence from the Guns in American Life Survey," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(3), pages 752-768, May.
    2. Shawn Ratcliff, 2022. "Presidential firepower: The effect of the presidential party on gun ownership, 1980–2018," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(3), pages 737-751, May.
    3. Alexandra Filindra & Loren Collingwood & Noah J. Kaplan, 2020. "Anxious About Social Violence: The Emotional Underpinnings of Support for Gun Control," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(5), pages 2101-2120, September.
    4. Xavier Medina Vidal & Rocío A. Páez & Todd G. Shields, 2022. "Identity and the racialized politics of violence in gun regulation policy preferences," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(6), pages 1342-1358, November.
    5. Rinscheid, Adrian & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2018. "Divesting, Fast and Slow: Affective and Cognitive Drivers of Fading Voter Support for a Nuclear Phase-Out," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 51-61.
    6. John Iceland & Eric Silver & Kerby Goff, 2023. "Moral intuitions and vaccine hesitancy during the COVID‐19 pandemic," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(3), pages 230-247, May.
    7. Thomas Craemer, 2007. "An Evolutionary Model of Racial Attitude Formation: Socially Shared and Idiosyncratic Racial Attitudes," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 614(1), pages 74-101, November.
    8. Mark Anderson, D. & Sabia, Joseph J. & Tekin, Erdal, 2021. "Child access prevention laws and juvenile firearm-related homicides," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    9. Helbling, Marc & Jungkunz, Sebastian, 2020. "Social divides in the age of globalization," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 43(6), pages 1187-1210.
    10. Sakshaug Joseph W. & Wiśniowski Arkadiusz & Ruiz Diego Andres Perez & Blom Annelies G., 2019. "Supplementing Small Probability Samples with Nonprobability Samples: A Bayesian Approach," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 35(3), pages 653-681, September.
    11. Piatak Jaclyn, 2023. "Do Sociocultural Factors Drive Civic Engagement? An Examination of Political Interest and Religious Attendance," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 185-204, April.
    12. Baumberg, Ben, 2016. "Benefit `myths'? The accuracy and inaccuracy of public beliefs about the benefits system," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103512, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. David M. Konisky & Llewelyn Hughes & Charles H. Kaylor, 2016. "Extreme weather events and climate change concern," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 134(4), pages 533-547, February.
    14. Michael A. Cacciatore & Glen J. Nowak & Nathaniel J. Evans, 2018. "It's Complicated: The 2014–2015 U.S. Measles Outbreak and Parents’ Vaccination Beliefs, Confidence, and Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2178-2192, October.
    15. McFadden, Brandon R. & Malone, Trey, 2018. "How will mandatory labeling of genetically modified food nudge consumer decision-making?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 186-194.
    16. Stephens-Davidowitz, Seth, 2014. "The cost of racial animus on a black candidate: Evidence using Google search data," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 26-40.
    17. Craig F. Berning & Brian E. Roe, 2017. "Assessing the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard of 2016: Can Americans Access Electronic Disclosure Information?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, May.
    18. Anderson, Brilé & Bernauer, Thomas, 2016. "How much carbon offsetting and where? Implications of efficiency, effectiveness, and ethicality considerations for public opinion formation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 387-395.
    19. Aaron Martin & Timothy B Gravelle & Erik Baekkeskov & Jenny Lewis & Yoshi Kashima, 2019. "Enlisting the support of trusted sources to tackle policy problems: The case of antimicrobial resistance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-9, March.
    20. Timmons, Shane & Barjaková, Martina & Robertson, Deirdre & Belton, Cameron & Lunn, Pete, 2020. "Public understanding and perceptions of the COVID-19 Test-and-Trace system," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number SUSTAT96.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:socarx:xybj9. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.