|
|
| Citation |
- Permanent Link:
- https://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015650/00001
Material Information
- Title:
- Law Enforcement Officers' Endorsement of Bias Characterization of Crime Scenarios: A Prospective Study of Differences between Disability and Other Protected Categories
- Creator:
- LANE, FRANK J. ( Author, Primary )
- Copyright Date:
- 2008
Subjects
- Subjects / Keywords:
- Crime reporting ( jstor )
Crime victims ( jstor )
Crimes against the person ( jstor )
Criminal investigation ( jstor )
Criminal justice ( jstor )
Criminal motive ( jstor )
Disabilities ( jstor )
Disabled persons ( jstor )
Hate crimes ( jstor )
Psychological attitudes ( jstor )
Record Information
- Source Institution:
- University of Florida
- Holding Location:
- University of Florida
- Rights Management:
- Copyright Frank J. Lane. Permission granted to University of Florida to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
- Embargo Date:
- 8/31/2006
|
| Downloads |
This item has the following downloads:
|
| Full Text |
|
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' ENDORSEMENT OF THE BIAS
CATEGORIZATION OF CRIME SCENARIOS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DISABILITY AND OTHER PROTECTED CATEGORIES
By
FRANK J. LANE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2006
Copyright 2006
by
Frank J. Lane
"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period...was not the vitriolic
words and violent actions of the bad people but the appalling silence and indifference of
the good people" Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This dissertation is dedicated to all people
with disabilities who have been the victim of a crime--may the words contained on these
pages serve as a voice.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I extend my thanks to Sheriff Stephen M. Oelrich and the law enforcement officer
participants from the Alachua County Sheriff s department. Without these individuals
this research would not have been possible.
I am very fortunate to have conducted my doctoral studies at the University of
Florida. I am grateful to the members of my committee, Drs. Linda Shaw, Mary Ellen
Young, David Miller, Michael Scicchitano, and Steven Pruett, each of who have provided
valuable direction, criticism and support along my journey. I am forever indebted to
Michael Scicchittano who opened a door and made it possible to survey law enforcement
officers, thereby enhancing the quality and relevance of this study. I am also grateful to
Mary Ellen Young who ultimately recruited me to the rehabilitation science doctoral
program. Her work on abuse of women with disabilities established an important
foundation for research on crime against people with disabilities in the United States. I
owe many thanks to Steven Pruett whose friendship and mentoring was always available
during some of my darkest hours. His knowledge of attitudes and philosophy have been
most useful in developing my thoughts on the topic of hate crimes against people with
disabilities.
I am particularly indebted to Dr. Linda Shaw, my advisor, mentor and colleague.
Her guidance, support, and example have functioned to keep me motivated and grounded
during this research project. Her patience, generosity, passion, and work ethic have made
her an ideal supervisor. I am looking forward to future collaborations.
I am grateful to Dr. Brian McMahon for his foresight and wisdom in showing us a
dark area in the lives of people with disabilities that had to be brought into the light.
I owe most of my interest and passion in the area of attitudes to my late
grandmother, Cecelia Sorbera. Her stories about the struggles faced by Italian immigrants
while attempting to learn, work, and participate in society particularly, how her father,
Joseph Morelli, died of pneumonia from working long hours digging tunnels in the
subway system in Boston, leaving her family without the means to support themselves
helped to illuminate the importance of workers compensation laws in the early 1900s.
The courage and tenacity of my ancestors to transcend the attitudinal barriers of their
time serves to inspire and motivate my work during frustrating times.
To my parents, Marie and Jerry, for their constant support and belief in me, I am
grateful to you both. To my sister, Johanna, whose interest in my work and thoughts on
the subject never cease to expand my awareness.
To my best friend Rayford Riels who sat alone through many Gator tennis matches
at Scott Linder Stadium while I was writing. Thank you for your friendship and sacrifice
while I pursued this goal.
Finally, yet the most, I would like to thank my partner, Robbie Parish, and our
daughter Sophia. Without your tolerance, support, dedication, sacrifice, and unwavering
love the completion of this degree would not have been possible. I love you.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv
L IST O F T A B L E S .............. ...... ..................................... ......... ... ............ .. ix
A B ST R A C T ................. .......................................................................................... x
CHAPTER
1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..
State ent of the Problem ............................................................................. ........ 4
Significance of the Study .............................................................................. ...... .6
O verview of the L iterature............................................................................ ... ..........8
R research Q u estion s............ .......................................................... .... .. ... .... 10
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................ ...............12
Theoretical B ackground.................................................... .............................. 12
H um an R rights ...................................... .............................. ................12
N natural law ..................................................... ......... .. ......... 13
H um ans as social beings ........................................ ......................... 14
Social justice ....... .................................................. 16
Equality and bias ................................. .......... .. ........ ...... 17
Crim e .................................. ......................................... ........... 18
Crim e and protected classes ........................................ ...... ............... 20
Crime and people with disabilities.............................................................21
A ttitu d e s ...............................................................................2 5
D definition of attitude ............................................................................ 26
A attitude and behavior ................................................................. ............ 26
Attitudes towards persons with disabilities ..............................................31
Contact Theory ........................................... .. ... .... ............... 33
Bias Crime ............................. .................................. 35
W hat is a bias crim e? ...........................................................................35
W hy bias crime e is m ore serious ............................ ........................ .........37
R e alistic co n flict..................................................................................... 3 8
R elative deprivation ........................................ .......... .... ........ .... 38
S o c ia l id e n tity ......................................................................................... 3 8
S o cial learn in g .......................................................................... 3 9
P sychodynam ic........ .......................................................... .... .... .... ... 39
Perpetrators of B ias C rim e .............................. ............................................ 43
B ias C rim e R reporting ...................... .. .. .................. ................. ............... 44
Victim Selection .................................................................. ............. ........ .. ........ 45
Problem s w ith Bias Crim e D ata ........................................ ....... ............... 45
Bias Crime and People with Disabilities............... ................ .......... 47
B ias C rim e and G ender ........................................................... ............... 50
Vulnerability as a Negative Attitude ....................... ........ ............... 52
Summary and Conclusion......................................... 52
3 M E T H O D O L O G Y .......................................................................... .....................57
R research Q uestions.......... ..... .............................................................. ........ .. ... 57
R e se arch D e sig n ................................................................................................... 5 7
P a rtic ip a n ts ........................................................................................................... 5 7
Instruments .....................................................58
The Modified Hate Crime Survey ...................................... .......... 59
Attitudes toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP) ...........................................64
Contact with Disabled Persons Scale (CDP) ....................................................66
D em graphic Questionnaire ..................................................... ... ........... 67
Data Collection Procedure ................................. .......................... ....... 68
D ata A analysis ............................... .. ... ....... ............... 69
Analysis Related to Research Questions One, Two, and Three ........................69
Analysis Related to Research Question Four...................................................69
L im station s ................................................................ .... .... 70
4 RE SU LTS ................................ ............. ............. ........ 71
Research Questions................ ........... ................ ..... ........................... 74
Research question #1: Does law enforcement officer level of agreement with
hate crime classification vary across protected category? ...............................74
Research question #2: Does law enforcement officer mean level of agreement
with hate crime classification vary by gender? ................................ .............77
Research question #3: Is there an interaction between protected category and
gender on law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate
crime e enhance ent?............................. ........... ..................7...78
Research question #4: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities,
and contact with persons with disabilities provide predictive ability for law
enforcement officers' agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons
w ith disabilities? .................................... ................. ......... 78
A additional A nalyses................ ............... ....... .. ... .. ............ .................... 80
Variation of Mean Scores Across Protected Category for Race and Gender......80
Variation of Mean Scores Across Severity of Crime and Type of Crime
Indicator ................................... ................................ .........80
5 SUM M ARY AND CONCLU SION ................................... .....................................83
S u m m a ry ................................................................................................................ 8 3
D isc u ssio n .............................................................................................................. 8 5
Lim stations .............................. ......................................... ........ 92
Recommendations for Future Research ............... ...............................93
Im plications for Practice and Education.............................................. 96
C conclusion ....................................................................................................... ........ 98
APPENDIX
A M ODIFIED HATE CRIM E SURVEY ........................................ ............... 100
B DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................... 104
C ATTITUDE TOWARDS DISABLED PERSONS SCALE ..................................... 106
D CONTACT WITH DISABLED PERSONS SCALE .........................................109
E ASSESSMENT OF HEINOUSNESS SURVEY ...............................................111
L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ............................................................................................ 115
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............................................................................126
V111iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table page
4.1 Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores................................ 73
4.2 One-way Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Protected
C a te g o ry .......................................................................... 7 4
4.3 One-way Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Gender ......77
4.4 Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Level of
Agreement with Bias Crime Enhancement (N = 166) ...........................................78
4.5 Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Race, Gender, Race
X G en d er ............................................................................ 7 9
4.7 One-way Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Bias
C rim e In dictator ...................................................... .............. 82
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' ENDORSEMENT OF THE BIAS
CATEGORIZATION OF CRIME SCENARIOS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DISABILITY AND OTHER PROTECTED CATEGORIES
By
Frank J. Lane
August 2006
Chair: Linda R. Shaw
Major Department: Rehabilitation Science
People with disabilities were included in the Hate Crime Statistics Act in 1996.
Data available for the 7 years since inclusion in the act document 199 cases of bias
crimes committed against an individual because of his or her disability status. Odds ratio
analyses reveals that a person with a disability is 150 times less likely to be the victim of
a bias crime than for race. The disproportionately lower incidence of bias crimes for
people with disabilities is surprising considering people with disabilities experience a
70% unemployment rate, live in poverty at a rate 2-3 times greater than the general
population, and are victims of crime at a rate as high as 10 times the general population.
This research study modified a Hate Crime Survey that consisted of crimes
scenarios from each of four protected categories to include crimes scenarios where the
victim was a person with a disability. The survey was administered to 184 law
enforcement officers along with the Attitudes Towards Disabled Persons (ATDP) scale,
the Contact with Disabled Persons (CDP) scale, and a brief demographic survey. The
data were analyzed using a two-way, repeated measures ANOVA and a multiple
regression analysis.
The results of the study show that an individual's membership in a protected
category and law enforcement officer attitude towards people with disabilities contributes
to a law enforcement officer's agreement with classifying a crime as a hate crime. Future
research studies should seek to expand the scope of the study and replicate results in
addition to exploring the effect of law enforcement officer training on the investigation of
hate crimes committed against people with disabilities.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Persons with disabilities represent the largest single minority group in the United
States. Approximately 54 million Americans, or 20% of the United States population,
have a disability (National Council on Disability, 2000). It is anticipated that the
proportion of persons with disabilities will increase as the population ages (National
Council on Disability, 2000). US Census projected population data shows an increasing
trend in the proportion of individuals of retirement age, age 65 and up. Specifically, it is
anticipated that by the year 2030, approximately 20% of the United States population will
be retirees, compared to 12.5% currently (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). Considering that
approximately 50% of persons over the age of 65 report various health impairments, the
proportion of people with disabilities in the United States will increase exponentially.
Some of the problems experienced by people with disabilities include the highest rate of
unemployment (National Organization on Disability, 2003), abject poverty at a rate 2-3
times greater than the general population (National Organization on Disability), and
crime victimization at a rate 2-10 times greater than the general population and for longer
periods of time (Baladerian, 1991; Hiday, Swartz, Swanson, Borum, & Wagner, 1999;
Nosek, Howland, Rintala, Young, & Chanpong., 1997; Sobsey & Doe, 1991; Sullivan &
Knutson, 1998). As a result, the problems faced by people with disabilities will be
augmented on a national level as the population ages.
Persons with disabilities (PWD) experience a 68% unemployment rate, as a group
(National Organization on Disability, 2003). Only 32% of persons with disabilities are
employed on a full-time or part-time basis compared to 81% of people without a
disability (National Organization on Disability) and more people with disabilities are
working in part-time employment without benefits (National Council on Disability,
2000).
In addition to the low rate of employment, people with disabilities are 2-3 times
more likely to live in poverty (National Organization on Disability, 2003). Individuals
with disabilities live with higher levels of poverty, 29% versus 10% in the general
population (National Council on Disability, 2000) and persons with severe disabilities are
three times more likely (33%) to live at or below the poverty line ($15,000 or less) than a
person without a disability (10%) (National Organization on Disability). The 2004
Progress Report on National Disability Policy estimates that approximately 40% of the
persons receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), also known as
"Welfare," during 2003-2004 had a disability (National Council on Disability, 2004). The
same report projected the percentage to be much higher presently. Because persons with
disabilities often reside in poverty, they are forced to live in low income neighborhoods
(Burger & Youkeles, 2004). Low income neighborhoods are often associated with higher
rates of crime (Burger & Youkeles).
It is suggested in the literature that people with disabilities are victims of crime at a
rate that is higher than the general population; some conservative estimates suggest the
rate is between 2-3 times higher while others suggest the rate is as much as 10 times
higher (Baladerian, 2001; Hiday et al., 1999; Sobsey & Doe, 1991; Sullivan & Knutson,
1998). Moreover, people with disabilities experience victimization and abuse for longer
periods of time (Nosek et al., 1997). Although the rate of crime committed against people
with disabilities is estimated to be considerably higher than the general population, a
study conducted in Boston, Massachusetts estimated that approximately 5% of the
perpetrators of crimes against persons with disabilities are prosecuted compared to a 70%
prosecution rate for the general population (Mishra, 2001). He reported that some of the
reasons provided for the alarmingly low prosecution rate of perpetrators of crimes against
people with disabilities include: (1) police are concerned about how people with
disabilities will "hold up" in court; (2) police believe that people with disabilities have
poor memories and do not comprehend the importance of telling the truth; (3) prosecutors
are concerned that juries will disregard the testimony of a person with a disability; and
(4) victims with disabilities may embellish their accounts to the police. Mishra's
contentions that people with disabilities are believed to have poor memories and do not
comprehend the importance of telling the truth was supported by Bailey, Barr, and
Bunting (2001). The belief that people with disabilities may embellish their accounts to
the police was initially proposed by researchers at the Roeher Institute (1993).
People with disabilities were included as a protected category in the Hate Crime
Statistics Act in 1997 (McMahon, West, Lewis, Armstrong, & Conway, 2004). Since that
time, the number of hate crimes reported to the FBI where the victim was chosen because
of his or her disability status has been remarkably low. A recent study (McMahon et al.)
of hate crimes reported between 1997 and 2002 concluded that a person with a disability
is 350 times less likely to be the victim of a hate crime than if the victim was African
American (McMahon et al.). It is possible that people with disabilities simply are not
victims of hate or bias crime at a rate comparable to other protected categories. However,
if the reported rates are accurate indications, hate crimes represent less than one half of
one percent of the crimes committed against people with disabilities (McMahon et al.).
This statistic, although possible, is unlikely given the estimates of general crime
committed against people with disabilities.
This chapter will include: (1) the context of bias crimes committed against people
with disabilities; (2) a statement of the research problem and discussion of its
significance; (3) a brief overview of the literature; (4) how the proposed research will
address at least one of the theories proposed by McMahon et al.(2004); and (5) research
questions to be answered.
Statement of the Problem
It's possible that people with disabilities are victims of bias crimes at a
substantially lower rate than other protected groups. Although possible, the examples of
discrimination discussed previously contribute to disability theorists suggesting that this
is an unlikely explanation (McMahon et al., 2004). Merton's four factors that influence
crime reporting can be used to conceptualize the points at which alternative explanations
can be considered (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).
Robert Merton, a criminologist, used the term "successive layers of error" to
describe the problems associated with documenting and collecting records of crime from
law enforcement (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). McDevitt categorized Merton's
components of error into four categories: 1) factors which discourage victims from
reporting, 2) factors which affect police decision making, 3) political influences which
affect agency crime reporting, and 4) legislative differences in determining the type of
offense (Bureau of Justice Statistics).
Barriers to hate crime reporting can be further compartmentalized into two
categories: 1) individual inhibitors, and 2) police disincentives (Bureau of Justice
Statistics, 2000). Individual inhibitors consist of factors that affect a "person's
willingness and likelihood of contacting law enforcement" (Bureau of Justice Statistics,
p.34). Police disincentives consist of departmental or personal factors, "which interfere
with accurate law enforcement identification or recording of a bias crime" (Bureau of
Justice Statistics, p. 34). Individual inhibitors and police disincentives are of particular
concern when exploring possible explanations for why crimes committed against persons
with disabilities go unreported. These two categories of factors that affect victim
reporting and police decision making will be examined more closely.
Factors that affect whether a victim reports a crime or individual inhibitors,
include: 1) the victim's awareness that a crime has been committed (Block, 1974); 2) the
victim's belief that the crime is serious enough to warrant law enforcement attention
(Gove, Hughes, & Geerken, 1985); 3) The victim's belief that law enforcement can do
something about the crime, including the victim's confidence in law enforcement (Bureau
of Justice Statistics, 2000; Gove et al., 1985); and 4) the victim's relationship to the
perpetrator (Bureau of Justice Statistics).
It has been suggested that the ability of people with disabilities to comprehend the
criminal act (McMahon et al., 2004), community resources (McMahon et al.), and
mistrust that the criminal justice system will investigate, arrest and prosecute perpetrators
(Mishra, 2001) function as individual inhibitors to reporting a crime. Additionally,
reporting might be affected by the fact that perpetrators of crimes against persons with
disabilities are often family members, neighbors, and persons with whom the individual
is acquainted because of their disability (Baladerian, 2001; Sobsey & Doe, 1991).
Clearly, underreporting by a victim with a disability is a valid concern not just from the
perspective of disability rights activists but criminologists, as well.
The second category consists of police disincentives or those factors that affect
police decision making. These factors consist of: 1) whether the officer has sufficient
evidence to indicate a crime has been committed; 2) whether the victim wishes to
formally have the perpetrator charged; 3) the seriousness of the crime; and 4) the level of
professionalism of the department (Gove et al., 1985).
Significance of the Study
Research regarding possible explanations for underreporting of bias crimes
committed against people with disabilities is of particular significance to rehabilitation
researchers and educators because the reasons for including people with disabilities in the
act were based on a set of assumptions rather than hard data (McMahon et al., 2004).
Consequently, it is possible that legislators might conclude that the low number of crimes
reported since inclusion is evidence that the problem is not as large as was originally
anticipated. Given this possibility, it is important to determine whether there might be
competing explanations. Specifically, it is important to determine whether law
enforcement decision-making is affecting reported rates of bias crimes against persons
with disabilities and to determine what factors influence law enforcement judgment. At a
societal level, an enhanced understanding of criminal investigation provides insight into
the larger issue of accessibility to law enforcement by people with disabilities who are
victim of any crime. In addition, access to the criminal justice system is a fundamental
right necessary to guarantee the rights afforded to all citizens under the constitution
(Schneider, 2005).
Disability was included as a protected category over other groups such as gender,
children, police officers, union members, and the elderly who also lobbied for inclusion
under the act and whose request was denied. Disability was included in the act for four
reasons, the first and most persuasive was the enactment of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), which included disability as a standard in civil rights and
discrimination law within the federal government (McMahon et al., 2004). The other
reasons disability was included consist of: (1) the fact that there are approximately 54
million American citizens with a disability; (2) citizens with disabilities have a degree of
collective identity in American society (National Council on Disability, 2000; Shapiro,
1994); and (3) the historical evidence of discrimination.
The historical documentation of discrimination against persons with disabilities is
put succinctly by Smart (2001) who concluded that "No other racial, cultural, ethnic,
linguistic, religious, political, national, sexual orientation, or gender group has
experienced this pervasive degree of generalized prejudice and discrimination" (Smart,
p.72), which included killing babies with disabilities, forced sterilization of persons with
disabilities, institutionalization, mass murder, sexual abuse in families, assisted suicides,
physical abuse in institutions, aversive conditioning, electro-convulsive therapy,
psychosurgery, experimentation, excessive medication (Goffman, 1963; Lifton,
1986;;Smart). Because the primary purpose of the Hate Crime Statistics Act is to collect
data to determine the extent of the problem (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000), it is
possible that disability will be removed as a protected class due to the low numbers
reported. Moreover, although speculation exists as to the reason for the low numbers
(Berkeleyan, 2002; McMahon et al., 2004; Sherry, 2003; Sorensen, 2001), no research
has been conducted to date to substantiate the theories posited by disability advocates to
explain the possible reasons for the low numbers.
Overview of the Literature
Attitudes have been discussed in the literature as affecting law enforcement's
reporting of bias crimes (Levin, 1992; Nolan & Akiyama, 1999). In one study that
reviewed 452 criminal investigations, it was discovered that investigators missed
evidence of a bias crime in approximately 96% of the cases (Levin). Another study
consisting of a series of focus groups with police officers reported that individual
attitudes and beliefs about bias crimes was the second most influential factor in
determining whether a bias crime was reported by law enforcement (Nolan & Akiyama).
It has been suggested that attitudes are the most important construct to the field of
social psychology (Petty, Wegener, & Fabrigar, 1997). Attitudes, the "categorization of
an object along an evaluative dimension" (Fazio, Chen, McDonel, & Sherman, 1982, p.
341), are believed to influence behavior automatically (Ajzen, 2001; Fazio & Williams,
1986; Fazio et al., 1982; Fazio & Zanna, 1981) or through a complex deliberative process
that requires the opportunity and determination to evaluate information (Fazio & Towles-
Schwen, 1999; Kruglanski & Freund, 1983; Sanbonmatsu & Fazio, 1990). The
generalstudy of attitudes has been used by disability researchers to explain the pervasive
discrimination against people with disabilities.
Research on the study of attitudes it relates to disabilities has been robust with
particular emphasis on those factors that are associated with negative attitudes, and how
those attitudes impact the ability of people with disabilities to participate in society
(employment, independent living, and others.) Research on attitudes towards people with
disabilities suggests they tend to vary as a function of 1) gender (Chesler, 1965; Siller,
1963; Yuker, Block, & Campbell, 1960) with females reporting more positive attitudes
than males; 2) age (Ryan, 1981; Siller, 1963; Yuker, Block, & Younng, 1966) with
younger and middle aged individuals reporting more positive attitudes than post-
adolescent and seniors; 3) education (Gosse & Sheppard, 1979; Yuker et al., 1966) with
more positive attitudes being associated with higher education levels; and 4) occupation
(Chubon, 1982; English & Oberle, 1971; Pederson & Carlson, 1981; Wills, 1978) with
surprisingly more negative attitudes among individuals in the helping professions and
unequal status relationships.
Contact theory (Allport, 1954/1979) was originally proposed to understand what
factors prevent the formation of negative attitudes and, moreover, the mechanism
whereby negative attitudes can be changed. Research designed to understand the
conditions whereby contact functions to change attitudes also resulted in the development
of theories to explain the formation of negative attitudes. Specifically, it was theorized
that the absence of the conditions necessary for positive attitude change would result in
the formation of negative attitudes. For example, a series of research studies discovered
that individuals in the helping professions (Wills, 1978), including rehabilitation
personnel (Chubon; 1982; Pederson & Carlson, 1981), have more negative attitudes
towards people with disabilities. It has been suggested that any relationship where one
individual is in an inferior status or dependent relationship can function to increase
negative attitudes (Amir, 1969), which can be said of the nature of the relationship
between rehabilitation professionals and people with disabilities (Wills). Extending this
theory to law enforcement, the nature of the relationship between a member of law
enforcement and crime victim is one where the law enforcement officer is in a position of
authority and the crime victim in an inferior or dependent role. Therefore, it is logical to
hypothesize that police officers, like other helping professionals, can form negative
attitudes towards people with disabilities; and, these attitudes can influence their
behavior.
Research Questions
As mentioned previously, one possible explanation for the relatively low numbers
of hate crimes reported is the possibility that law enforcement officer's (LEO) may have
learned to regard people with disabilities as vulnerable (McMahon et al., 2004; Sorensen,
2001). Therefore, when presented with evidence of a crime committed against a person
with a disability, the individual focuses more on the victimization of the individual and
less on the bias aspect of the crime. If this is the case, when presented with an actual bias
crime scene scenario with key elements of bias motivation, the individual's level of
agreement about whether a crime should be classified as a hate crime will be lower when
the victim is a person with a disability that when the victim is an individual in another
protected category.Gender may also influence the level of agreement with classifying a
crime as a bias crime. Miller (2001) found a significant difference in the mean agreement
score on the Hate Crime Survey between male and female criminology students. The
literature on attitude and disability also documents a difference in attitude across gender
(Ryan, 1981; Siller, 1963; Yuker & Block, 1986; Yuker, et. al., 1966)
1. Research Question One: Does law enforcement officers' level of agreement with
hate crime classification vary across protected category?
2. Research Question Two: Does law enforcement officers' mean level of agreement
with hate crime classification vary by gender?
11
3. Research Question Three: Is there an interaction between protected category and
gender on law enforcement officers' mean level of agreement with hate crime
enhancement?
4. Research Question Four: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities,
and contact with persons with disabilities provide predictive ability for law
enforcement officers' agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with
disabilities?
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter is a review of the literature concerning bias crimes committed against
people with disabilities. The major theoretical areas that underlie this investigation
include discussions on basic human rights, crime, attitudes, contact theory, and bias
motivated crime. The conversation on human rights provides the foundation for the
discussion on crime, bias crime and the severity of bias crime relative to other forms of
crime. The discussion of attitude includes a general overview of attitudes, the
relationships between attitudes and behavior, particularly judgment, and contact theory as
it relates to the formation and change of attitudes. Once the theoretical framework is
established, a discussion on bias crime will include a definition of bias motivated crime,
why bias crimes are considered more serious than other forms of crime, profile(s) of hate
crime perpetrators, theories about why people commit bias crimes, and bias crime
reporting. Special focus will be placed on bias crimes committed against people with
disabilities.
Theoretical Background
Human Rights
Modem study of human rights are believed to have originated from the writings of
theorists like John Locke, St. Thomas Aquinas, and others, who believed that basic
human rights originated from natural law (Higgins, 1954; Pegis, 1948). As a result, basic
human rights consisted of freedom and equality. Higgins believed that natural law, which
guides humankind's behavior, also defines our existence as social beings, which is
inevitable.
However, man is incapable of always respecting the basic human rights of others,
which is why society requires laws and the authority to enforce laws, which is regarded
as part of a society's core value system. The core value system of the United States of
America is embedded in its constitution and guarantees that each citizen is free and equal.
Because freedom and equality represents an important aspect of American society, any
crime that violates these values strikes at the core of its value system. Society also places
a great emphasis on protecting the basic human rights of citizens who are incapable of
protecting their rights individually. As discussed previously, bias crimes, in particular,
are more serious because of the intent of the offender. But, when a bias crime is
committed against a protected class of citizens, it warrants particularly close attention.
Natural law
The historical underpinnings of basic human rights has been credited, in part, to
John Locke. Locke challenged what was referred to as the divine right of kings during his
lifetime, which stated that kings were chosen by God (Locke, 1690/1968; Miller, 1996).
Commoners were believed to be born into servitude and, as such, had no rights or
freedoms other than those granted by kings (Miller). Locke argued that natural law
"legislates freedom, equality, and therefore inherent rights for all." (Miller, p. 510).
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, natural law originates from the belief that human
beings are, by nature, rational beings, and this rationality is derived from God (Aquinas,
1264/1905; Higgins, 1954; Pegis, 1948). Further, human beings should behave in a way
that is consistent with their rational nature (Pegis). Artistotle had a different view of the
origin of natural law than Aquinas (Aristotle, 350 B.C./ 1962). He believed natural law
"is derived from the natural order of the world and (the) built-in tendencies of human
nature" (Miller, 1996, p.499). The difference in Aquinas' view of natural law can be
attributed to the influence of his Christian beliefs (Miller).
According to Higgins (1954), natural law commands that individuals treat other
human beings with the same regard they have for themselves. Higgins asserted that
humans are not required to love each other to the same degree they love themselves.
However, he believed that natural law requires human kind to love each other with the
same quality of benevolence (Higgins). This premise is embodied in the proverb, Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you. Higgins maintains that this is a basic
principle of human conduct that cannot be compromised for the good of society.
Humans as social beings
Humankind is considered by many theorists to be social beings (Higgins, 1954; Miller,
1996). The foundation of this belief lies in the understanding that humankind is not fully
self-sufficient, and requires interaction with other humans in a social setting (Higgins).
However, if humankind is to co-exist in a social setting, then individual needs must not
abound. In order to curtail the pursuit of individual rights lest they infringe upon the
rights of others, a social contract is required. A social contract is an agreement between
its members where, like any contract, each individual preserves certain rights at the cost
of others (Miller). "Thus I see it is to my advantage to submit myself to government, to
obey laws, etc., if thereby I can secure my fundamental rights and freedoms..." (Miller,
p. 511). Locke believed that the social contract logically followed the state of nature
(Locke, 1690/1968; Miller). The main purpose then of a social contract is the secure
freedom and equality for all.
In contrast to the view that humankind is basically rational, the Calvinist view
believes that man is naturally selfish, weak, and corrupt. (Clark, 1970; The Heidelberg
Catechism, 1563/1988; Higgins, 1954). For these reasons, humankind is unwilling to set
aside personal interests for the good of society (Higgins). Therefore, when an individual
violates the rights of another person, it is believed that permissiveness on the part of
society has brought out his basic selfish instincts (Clark). According to the Calvinist
view, humankind will respond to coercion (Higgins) as well as God's grace, which is
viewed as irresistible. However, it is the responsibility of society to respond to violations
with discipline to control humankind's basic selfish instincts (Clark).
Although the Calvinist view has a different premise from that of Locke, the
outcome was generally the same. Locke maintained that individuals cannot live in a state
of freedom and equality for three important reasons: (1) individuals don't pay enough
attention to the rational natural law; (2) the selfish concerns of individuals would result in
a biased application of the principles of natural law; and (3) individuals require authority
so natural law can be meaningfully enforced (Locke, 1690/1968; Miller, 1996).
Locke maintained that members of a society give tacit consent to its social contract.
Tacit consent is consent that is assumed by an individual's participation in a society
(Locke, 1690/1968; Miller, 1996). When humankind participates in society, they agree to
adhere to its laws and rules as well as give the state the authority and power to enforce its
laws and rules (Higgins, 1954).
Authority to secure human rights.According to Higgins (1954) society must have
the power to compel individual members to cooperate on a permanent basis. The power
granted to society to compel others to obey and enforce laws is authority (Higgins). The
need for authority is considered to be self-evident and an essential component of any
society (Higgins). Higgins asserted that in order for a society to work, its members must
be aware of the commonly agreed upon good sought individually and collectively and
how the laws are designed to safeguard these pursuits (Higgins). The laws of a particular
society therefore can be thought of as representing not only the rights of its citizens but
the authority of the state to enforce the laws and punish those citizens who violate the
rights of individual members of that society (Higgins).
Social justice
John Locke has been referred to as "the spiritual father of the constitution" (Miller, 1996,
p. 516) because Thomas Jefferson stated that his intent was to embody the social and
political principles of Locke in the Declaration of Independence (Miller). The philosophy
of individualism can be found in the first ten amendments to the constitution of the
United States (Miller) and it is clear that the values held by United States citizens at the
time the Declaration was written were deeply influenced by Locke's ideas (Miller).
Freedom for all individuals is a value that is guaranteed to all United States citizens in its
creed and is protected under the constitution as an inalienable right (Hutchins, 1952).
When the United States declared that all people are created equal as part of its foundation
for declaring independence, it became part of the country's core value system (Hutchins).
The liberties afforded American citizens under its constitution were considered necessary
for humankind to develop the qualities within each other regarded as good. As such, the
fundamental premise underlying the liberties afforded Americans is the previously
discussed belief that man is essentially good and if given the chance will develop into a
kind and gentle human being (Clark, 1970). These liberties also represent the American
citizen's emphasis on the individual's quest for actualization and individual liberty and
freedom as necessary for individuals to pursue self-actualization (Higgins, 1954).
The individual rights of a society are formalized and codified into what Artistotle
referred to as conventional law (Aquinas, 350 B.C./1962) and Aquinas referred to as
human law (Aquinas, 1264/1905); which are laws, created by citizens, to protect person
and property, also referred to as basic human rights derived from natural law (Higgins,
1954). These human or conventional laws are codified natural laws and first foundational
laws (Higgins; Miller, 1996).
The same declaration that guarantees equal rights also recognizes that governments
are instituted among men to secure these rights (Hutchins, 1952). Therefore, the United
States Constitution guarantees defense of its citizens against discrimination, abuse of
power, and harm to person or property (Hutchins). Citizens have the right to ask their
government to enforce their constitutional rights (Hutchins). As a result, government is
charged with upholding the rights of its citizens, which is the enforcement of human or
conventional laws (Miller, 1996). The enforcement of laws is how society guarantees that
the core value system is upheld and protected for all citizens. The process of ensuring
equal rights through enforcement is a major component of social justice (Higgins, 1954).
Equality and bias
The discussion on equality in the previous section is significant because it represents the
core value system of the United States. However, there are other means of identifying the
core value system of a society. According to Lawrence (1999), the range of bias that is
tolerated and accepted by a nation or other politically organized society is a statement of
what that society values and, more important, its sense of equality (Lawrence). Because
equality and bias are considered to be at opposite ends of the spectrum a society that
values equality cannot tolerate bias. In other words, society cannot theoretically value
equality and tolerate bias at the same time. Consequently, any time bias functions to
violate basic human rights, the act is considered a serious offense.
Crime
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) presented a general theory of crime in which they
asserted that discipline dependent definitions of crime reflect the interest of the
discipline. For example, economists view crime as being economically determined,
sociologists view crime as being socially determined, and psychologists view crime as
determined by psychopathology, etc. As a result, Gottfredson and Hirschi offered the
following general definition of crime: "behaviors that are attempts to satisfy immediate
needs rather than delaying gratification." Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory of crime has
been criticized in the literature because their theory of why people commit crime is based
solely on self-control (Baron, 2003). The intent here is to adopt the definition and not
discuss the merits of the theory by weighing the pros and cons of self-control as an
etiology of criminal behavior. Because, placed within the context of the previous
discussion on social justice, Gottfredson and Hirschi's definition of crime is consistent
with the idea that in general terms crime is a discourse to social justice. At the level of the
individual, crime is behavior that meets an individual need at the risk of violating the
social contract.Punishment
When an individual commits a crime against person or property, the act is said to
reflect not only on the character of the individual but also on that of society (Clark,
1970). Consequently, how a society responds to the criminal behavior is also a reflection
on society (Clark). Therefore, when an individual violates the rights of another person, it
is believed that permissiveness has brought out his basic selfish instincts (Clark).
Consequently, the individual is not acting according to the commonly agreed upon good
(Higgins, 1954) and society must respond with discipline to control the individual's basic
selfish instincts (Clark).
Two schools of punishment theory exist, the retributionist theory and the consequentialist
theory (Lawrence, 1999). The consequentialist theory is a utilitarian theory that believes
punishment is justified to the extent that it improves society, for example reducing crime.
The retribution theory is a deontological approach to punishment and supports giving the
criminal his "just desserts." Further, the retributionist believes that the offender deserves
to be punished because he has violated the norms of society (Lawrence). Theorists such
as Hegel supported punishment by asserting that the offender has the right to be punished
because society respects the individual as an autonomous being and punishes him for his
choice to break the law (Hegel, 1807/1967). Kant believed in the idea that an offender
has an obligation to society (Kant, 1797/1999). He believed there was a substantial
benefit to citizens for obeying the laws of society (Kant; Miller, 1996). When a citizen
breaks the law, he incurs a debt to society, which is repaid through punishment. It is clear
that widespread support exists for punishment across theoretical backgrounds. However,
it is also accepted that for punishment to be morally justifiable, the severity of the
punishment must fit the severity of the crime (Lawrence).
The notion that the severity of punishment must fit the crime is easier than the
adage "an eye for an eye." The measure used by criminal justice theorists is to place
punishment along the continuum of all punishment, if it falls at the same point on the
continuum occupied by the crime along the continuum of all crimes, then it is believed to
be just (Lawrence, 1999). In simpler terms, it is the "relative amount of punishment
corresponding to the relative amount of crime." (Lawrence, p. 48).
Theorists look to culpability and harm caused to society to evaluate the severity of
the crime. Culpability refers to the state of mind or mens rea, of the offender, the more
purposeful the conduct, the more severe the penalty (Lawrence, 1999). Conversely,
reckless conduct is considered less severe than conduct that is purposeful in nature.
Although culpability is a generally accepted principle in evaluating severity, criminal law
doctrine provides little direction about the issue of harm. As a result, evaluating harm
relies more heavily on theory (Lawrence).
Lawrence (1999) asserts that there are three theories that focus on how to measure the
harm committed by a particular crime, they is the ex-ante analysis, the ex-post facto
measuring of harm, and the living standard analysis. The ex-ante analysis is a means of
assessing the relative risk preference of a rational person. Applied, the analysis concludes
that the least harmful crime is the one that a rational person would risk facing. The ex-
post facto method ranks what the victim lost in the commission of the crime. The living
standards analysis (LSA) was designed to establish vocabulary for the discussion of harm
and form a set of principles or standards. The two key variables in establishing harm
based on the LSA are (1) the severity of the crimes invasion on personal interest, and (2)
the various kinds of interests that may be violated, such as personal safety, protection of
material possessions, etc. The discussion on crime severity will continue with the
application of theory to evaluate the severity of bias crime.
Crime and protected classes
Human kind generally agrees that "the rights of individuals persist even if their rights are
overridden by physical force" (Higgins, 1954, p. 492). In other words, rights exist for
individuals whether they have the physical ability to protect them or not. Examples of
citizens who are viewed as being particularly vulnerable and less able to protect their
rights are children, the elderly and people with disabilities (Behnke, Winick, & Perez,
2000). Because these groups of people are less able to protect themselves than other
groups in society, society places a high value on ensuring their health and well-being
(Behnke et al.). An example of this in practice is mandatory reporting laws. Most states
have mandatory reporting laws for healthcare professionals that require the reporting of
known or suspected abuse of individuals in these protected classes (Behnke et al.).
Society takes the interests of citizens in these protected classes so seriously that
mandatory reporting laws outweigh an individual's right to privacy and privileged
communication with healthcare professionals (Behnke et al.). Additionally, crimes
committed against individuals in protected classes are considered more severe in nature
(Higgins).
Crime and people with disabilities
A review of the literature suggests that the prevalence for violence among children and
adults with disabilities is higher than the general population in terms of the rate,
frequency, duration. Further, the offender profile is different when the victim has a
disability than for similar crimes where the victim does not have a disability. Moreover,
differences exist across age, type of abuse, and disability category.
Rate of crime. Researchers estimate that the incidence of violent crime in general
against adults and children with disabilities is two and a half times that in the general
population (Baladerian, 2001; Hiday, Swartz, Swanson, Borum, & Wagner, 1999; Sobsey
& Doe, 1991; Sullivan & Knutson, 1998). Regarding incidences of sexual abuse in
particular, the estimated prevalence is five to ten times that in the general population
(Sobsey & Doe). In an Australian study of individuals with intellectual disabilities,
Wilson and Brewer (1992) concluded that rate of sexual assault was 10.7 times higher,
robbery was 12.8 times higher, and overall violent crime was 4.2 times higher than the
general population.
Frequency. There is a fair amount of consistency in the research concerning the
frequency and duration of incidences of abuse sustained by persons with disabilities. In
the Sobsey & Doe (1991) study on sexual abuse, they reported that of the participants
reporting sexual abuse, approximately 20% reported a single incident, 20% reported
between five and ten incidences, and 49.6% reported greater than ten incidences (Sobsey
& Doe). In addition, 9.7% of the participants reported the abuse as "repeated" (Sobsey &
Doe). In a study conducted by Sullivan & Knutson (1998), persons with disabilities
experienced an increased duration of abuse and neglect.
Duration. Research on abuse and neglect of women with disabilities identified similar
findings. In a study of 946 women with disabilities who participated in the National
Study of Women with Physical Disabilities, 62% of the women reported they had
experienced some form of sexual, emotional, or physical abuse (Nosek et al., 1997). The
percentage of women experiencing abuse was the same for a group of non-disabled
controls. However, women with disabilities reported experiencing the abuse for longer
periods of time (3.9 years) compared to women without a disability (2.5 years) (Young,
Nosek, Howland, Chanpong, & Rintala, 1997). In addition, women with disabilities
experienced forms of abuse that were disability related such as withholding: (1)
medication, (2) transportation, (3) assistance with activities of daily living, and (4)
equipment for ambulation (Nosek et al.).
Perpetrator characteristics. Research suggests that the perpetrators of crimes
against persons with disabilities are often family members, neighbors, and acquaintances
the person has because of their disability. The Federal Bureau of Investigation in their
hate crime data reporting guidelines state that reporting decreases when the victim knows
the perpetrator (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999b). Often, the victim fears
retribution from the perpetrator in the form of further abuse, neglect or an interruption of
services (Sobsey & Doe, 1991). In addition, victims may be reluctant to report crimes
because they believe the report lacks value and will not be taken seriously at any level of
the criminal justice system (Luckasson, 1992), a perception that appears to have some
validity (Mishra, 2001).
Sobsey and Doe (1991) found that in 56% of the reported cases of abuse the perpetrator
had a relationship to the person with a disability, which is consistent with data from non-
disabled victims. However, in the other 44% of the cases, the reported abusers had a
relationship with the victim that was specific to the disability. In 27.7% of the cases, the
perpetrator was a personal care attendant, residential care staff, hospital staff,
psychiatrist, and so on (Sobsey & Doe). Other perpetrator categories included
transportation providers, therapeutic foster parents, and other persons with disabilities
(Sobsey & Doe). Although the percentage of cases where the perpetrator is a family
member or friend is consistent with the national average, the results of this study suggests
the percentage of crime against persons with disabilities where the perpetrator in known to
the victim could be as high as 100%. This is not difficult to conceive when 2/3 of the
respondents to the Harris survey reported that their disability results in social isolation
(National Council on Disability, 2000). This places persons with disabilities almost
exclusively in contact with persons known to them such as family, friends, and
caregivers.
In the Sullivan and Knutson (1998) review of abuse of children with disabilities,
98% of the perpetrators were family members. In the Sobsey & Doe (1991) study,
although 95.6% of the victims knew of the perpetrator, 65.9% of the cases went
unreported to law enforcement by the victim (Sobsey & Doe). Other reasons for charges
not being filed included refusal by the police in 19% of the cases, refusal by the
prosecutors in 5.5% of the cases, and court dismissal in 2.2% of the cases (Sobsey &
Doe). Of the cases that were reported, 22% were charged and of the alleged perpetrators
charged, only 36% were convicted of the offense.
Disability category. Research has also found higher incidences of abuse in specific
disability categories. For example, Sullivan and Knutson (1998) found that 62.1% of the
children in the communicative disorder category of their study were abused by someone
in the family compared to 39.4% in the non-disabled group. The communication category
in the Sullivan and Knutson study included children who were deaf. This finding is
consistent with that of Sullivan, Vernon, and Scanlan (1987, as cited in Sobsey & Doe,
1991) who reported a review of research suggesting that 54% of deaf boys and 50% of
deaf girls have been sexually abused as children. Muccigrosso (1991) in a review of
literature suggested that 90-99% of individuals with developmental disabilities have been
sexually abused by the time they turn 18.
Much of the research conducted on abuse against persons with disabilities in the
United States has been on the prevalence of abuse in children with developmental
disabilities (Nosek, 1996). This may explain the passage of the Crime Victims with
Disabilities Awareness Act in 1998. The Act reported that research had been conducted
suggesting the incidence of abuse among individuals with developmental disabilities is
four to ten times higher than the general population. However, it was noted that the
studies were conducted in other countries (Canada, Australia, and England) and Congress
was not aware of the extent of the problem in the United States. Although Congress
mandated that data collection begin within two years of the passage of the act, the first
data collection for individuals with developmental disabilities in the National Crime
Victims Survey began in January, 2004 (Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act
of 1998, P.L. 105-301). However, the act is specific to developmental disabilities.
Presently, data is being collected in the United States on hate crimes committed against
all disability categories and any crime committed against individuals with developmental
disabilities.
Attitudes
Gordon Allport stated that attitudes are "the single most indispensable construct in social
psychology" (Allport, 1935 p. 798). The volume of research since that time on attitude
structure and function, attitude-behavior relationships, and attitude change supports
Allport's claim.
Attitude theorists have considered the role and function of attitudes for some time.
It is generally accepted that one of the major functions of attitudes is to organize or
structure an otherwise chaotic universe (Katz, 1960; Smith, Bruner, & White, 1956).
From an evolutionary perspective, attitudes represent a process whereby humankind can
"size-up" events or objects in the environment, what is referred to as an object-evaluation
association (Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986; Smith et al.). From an
evolutionary perspective, humankind used the object-evaluation association as a means to
forego reflective thought about an object and guide behavior quickly as a means of
survival. This section will address some working definitions of attitudes, the process
whereby attitudes are formed, and the complex association between attitudes and
behavior.
Definition of attitude
The most basic definition of attitude is a general evaluation or summary evaluation of an
object (Petty et al., 1997). Two early definitions were provided by Thurstone (1931) and
Allport (1935). Thurstone's early and well known (Petty et al., 1997) definition of
attitude was "affect for or against a psychological object" (Thurstone, 1931, p. 261). The
term affect was used by researchers at that time in the same way attitude is now used
(Ajzen, 2001). Today, affect is used to describe general moods and specific emotions
(Ajzen). In 1935, Allport offered an expanded definition as "a mental or neural state of
readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon
the individual's response to all objects and situations with which it is related" (Allport, p.
810). Ajzen & Fishbein (1980) reported that there were in excess of 500 definitions of
attitude. In an attempt to bring focus to the breadth of attitude definitions, Fazio et al.
(1982) suggested that all definitions of attitude include "the notion that an attitude
involves categorization of an object along an evaluative dimension." (Fazio et al., p.341).
Attitude and behavior
Fazio et al. (1982) suggested that earlier research was focused on I heIth'r there was
a relationship between attitudes and behavior (Corey, 1937; LaPiere, 1934; Wicker,
1969). Moreover, little evidence existed of congruence between attitude and behavior.
Conversely, evidence suggested the two may be incongruent (Wicker). Even though
evidence suggested an attitude-behavior relationship didn't exist, attitude research
continued as if there was a relationship (Ajzen, 2001). Since the research of LaPiere,
Corey (1937), and Wicker that focused on hediler a relationship existed, research has
focused on when attitudes might predict behavior or what are the moderators in the
attitude-behavior relationship (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999) and it was suggested by
Fazio et al. that future research in this are should focus on how attitudes guide behavior.
The MODE model of the attitude-behavior process is an example of the focus of how
attitudes guide behavior and is explained in greater depth in the next section.
Attitude-behavior processes. Two classes or attitude behavior processes exist that
provide a conceptual framework for understanding the mechanism of how attitude
influences behavior, a spontaneous process and a deliberative attitude to behavior process
(Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999). The difference between the two processes can be
conceptualized as the difference between a process whereby) there is an immediate
influence of attitude on behavior as with the spontaneous process or 2) a process whereby
a conscious evaluation occurs considering the alternatives of behavior as with the
deliberative attitude to behavior process (Fazio & Towles-Schwen).
Spontaneous process. Support for the theory of the automatic activation of
attitudes is present in the literature. The theory, originally proposed in the 1980s by Fazio
and his colleagues, is focused on the automatic activation of attitude from memories. Put
simply, the model asserts that an individual's behavior is influenced by an individual's
perception of an attitude object and the context or situation in which the object is
encountered (Fazio & Williams, 1986). According to the model, attitudes are also thought
to influence perception of the object such that a selective processing occurs (Fazio &
Williams). The processing of the attitude object is selective to the extent that it's
consistent with the individual' attitude (Fazio & Williams). The key component to the
model is the accessibility of the attitude from memory. When activated from memory, the
attitude is believed to affect both perception and behavior (Fazio & Williams).
Research on the spontaneous process has focused on the accessibility of attitude
from memory, the strength of association, speed of access, and the factors that influence
each of these. Fazio and Zanna (1981) suggest that the manner in which attitudes are
formed plays a large role in the extent to which attitudes influence behavior. If an attitude
is formed through direct contact with the attitude object, that attitude will have a stronger
influence on behavior than if the attitude was formed without a behavioral experience
(Devine, 1989). It is noteworthy that criticism emerged on the selective processing effects
of attitudes because research has failed to provide clear support for the theory with results
being inconsistent or weak (Ajzen, 2001).Fazio et al. (1982) maintained that an attitude
must first be accessed from memory for it to have any influence over behavior. Further,
the accessibility of an attitude from memory is directly related to the strength of
association. This led to an exploration of the factors that contributed to the strength of
association. Measures of attitude strength used in research studies consist of resistance to
counter-persuasion, the clarity and definition of the attitude, and reported confidence in
the attitude (Schuman & Johnson, 1979). Fazio and Zanna (1981) reported evidence that
of the three strength-indicators mentioned, an individual's reported confidence in an
attitude and the clarity and definition of the attitude have a positive correlation with the
number of direct behavioral experiences with the attitude object. Fazio et al. reported that
repeated attitudinal expression also functions to strengthen the association between the
attitude and object as evidenced by increased accessibility and behavior consistent with
the attitude. The results of this study are particularly relevant because as mentioned in
Fazio et al. the presentation of an attitude can elicit the same attitude the survey is
designed to assess. Fazio et al. also demonstrated that direct experience with the attitude
object is more likely than indirect experience to be accessed when later observing the
attitude object and more likely to influence behavior.
Roskos-Ewoldsen and Fazio (1992) discovered that the strongest attitudes from memory
are more likely to attract the attention of the observer. In the Roskos-Ewoldsen and Fazio
study, when subjects were presented with a visual display of objects, the objects were
more likely to be noticed if there was an associated evaluation from memory. Roskos-
Ewoldsen and Fazio concluded that attitudes serve as an orienting function. Moreover,
attitudes can influence the processing of visual information. Conversely, the visual
stimulus can activate the attitude from memory (Roskos-Ewoldsen & Fazio).
Deliberative process. The deliberative process model focuses on the individual's
focus on the attributes or raw data instead of a preexisting attitude (Fazio & Towles-
Schwen, 1999). The most common deliberative process model is Ajzen's (1991) Theory
of Planned Behavior and its predecessor, the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980). The theory is based on the belief that human kind is rational and makes
use of available information (Ajzen & Fishbein). Further, that human kind weighs the
pros and cons of options available to them before making a decision (Ajzen & Fishbein).
The MODE model. MODE is an acronym for Motivation and Opportunity as
DEterminants (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999). The MODE model was developed by
Fazio in an attempt to integrate both the spontaneous and deliberative process theories
(Fazio, 1990). The MODE is considered an application of Kruglanski's theory of lay
epistemics (Sanbonmatsu & Fazio, 1990). Kruglanski's research on this theory attempted
to understand the general process whereby individuals acquire knowledge (Sanbonmatsu
& Fazio). Kruglanski theorized that knowledge consists of the content of knowledge and
the confidence each individual places in the content (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983). The
process whereby individuals gain confidence in the content is that of hypothesis
generation and validation (Kruglanski & Freund). Humankind has three individual needs
that motivate an individual to engage in the process of hypothesis formation and
validation: (1) 'fear of invalidity', (2) the need for structure, and (3) the need for specific
conclusions (Kruglanski & Freund) These needs provide the necessary motivation
necessary for an individual to engage in careful reflection and deliberation to arrive at a
valid conclusion (Sanbonmatsu & Fazio). Sanbonmatsu and Fazio concluded that the
same needs theorized by Kruglanski and Freund provided the motivation necessary for an
individual to engage in an attribute-based decision as opposed to an attitude-based
decision (Sanbonmatsu & Fazio). Opportunity is considered a prerequisite to deliberation
in the MODE model (Fazio & Towles-Schwen) and has been manipulated experimentally
with the use of time. (Kruglanski & Freund; Sanbonmatsu & Fazio).
Kruglanski and Freund (1983) experimentally manipulated motivation by
enhancing the fear of invalidity. In the study, participants were informed that their
selection would be compared to other participants and they would have to explain their
decisions to the other participants and the investigator (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999;
Kruglanski & Freund). In a similar study, Schuette and Fazio (1990) experimentally
manipulated the motivation of participants to engage in a deliberate process by informing
participants their responses to a survey would be compared to a panel of social scientists
and later discussed with them. The results of both studies provided evidence that
individuals can engage in careful and reflective deliberation and ignore potentially
biasing attitudes when motivated (Fazio & Towles-Schwen).
Kruglanski and Freund (1983) and Jamieson and Zanna (1989) experimentally
manipulated opportunity by adding time pressure to the participants. In both studies,
participant decision-making was influenced by personal attitudes when time-pressure was
a factor. This provides support for the belief that sufficient opportunity, time, is required
for careful and reflective deliberation to occur (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999).
Attitudes towards persons with disabilities
Attitudes towards people with disabilities tend to vary as a function of gender, age,
education, and occupation, to name a few. Although there are other correlates in the
literature such as personality, locus of control, and so on. the focus here will be on those
factors that may have a relationship to attitudes as they relate to perception of bias crime.
Research has demonstrated that women tend to report more positive attitudes
towards people with physical disabilities than do men (Chesler, 1965; Siller, 1963; Yuker
et al., 1960). A possible explanation for this difference was proposed by Siller who
theorized that women may feel a different amount of social pressure to convey a socially
acceptable attitude. However, the number of studies showing females with more positive
attitudes is decreasing over time with 20% of the studies showed positive attitudes in the
1980's versus 59% of the studies before 1970, resulting in the conclusion that the gap that
exists between men and women appears to be closing over time (Yuker & Block, 1986).
The relationship between age and attitudes towards people with disabilities is more
complex than gender. Ryan (1981) reviewed the literature and concluded that attitudes
are positive during early childhood through adolescence (Siller, 1963) at which point they
show a trend towards becoming more negative. Attitudes again show a change in a
positive direction from early to late adulthood and then decline when reaching senior
years (Ryan). Yuker et al. (1966) cautioned that the relationship between age and attitude
may be confounded by other variables. Yuker & Block (1986) suggested that education
level and contact with persons with disabilities were confounding with age.
Education is believed to be a confounding variable with age (Yuker & Block, 1986)
although the results are inconsistent (Tsang, Chan, & Chan, 2004). The number of years
of education an individual has appears to be related to more positive attitudes toward
people with disabilities (Gosse & Sheppard, 1979; Yuker et al., 1966). Yuker and Block
(1986) maintain after a review of the literature that the confounding effect of age and
education appears strongest under the age of 25. Education was not found to have a
significant effect on the attitudes of occupational therapy students in Hong Kong (Lee,
Paterson, & Chan, 1994). However, the positive effect of occupational therapy
curriculum on attitudes has been observed in America and Hong Kong (Estes, Deyer,
Hansen, & Russell, 1991; Lee et al.).
Attitudes towards persons with disabilities also vary with occupation. Although
many individuals believe a priori that individuals who work in the helping professions
have more positive attitudes that does not bear itself out in the literature. Data indicates
that individuals in the helping professions have a more negative attitude towards people
with disabilities than the general population (Brodwin & Orange, 2002; Chubon, 1982;
Livneh & Cook, 2005; Wills, 1978).
Pederson and Carlson (1981) and Chubon (1982) documented negative attitudes of
people with disabilities by rehabilitation personnel. It has been suggested that negative
attitudes among rehabilitation professionals may have to do with the nature of the contact
between the professional and client. Specifically, in rehabilitation settings the nature of
the relationship between the rehabilitation professional and client with a disability is one
of inferior status and dependence (Amir, 1969). Further, the person with a disability is
not necessarily at his/her best when working with the rehabilitation professional, which
can also contribute to the formation of a negative attitude (Wills, 1978).
In a study of professions other than human service professionals, English and Oberle
(1971) reported that attitudes towards persons with disabilities by airline stewardesses
were more negative than typists. The results of these studies support the hypothesis that
certain types of contact are related to increased negative attitudes towards persons with
disabilities. However, the relationship between contact and attitude is complex and
warrants a more detailed exploration.
Contact Theory
The idea of contact was originally discussed by Lee and Humphrey in their analysis
of the Detroit riot of 1943 (Allport, 1954/1979). At that time, it was observed that amidst
the riot, white and black workers in the war plants worked peacefully, white and black
students at Wayne University continued to attend classes together and white and black
neighbors avoided participating in riots (Allport, 1954/1979). This phenomenon,
provided the underpinnings for the development of a contact hypothesis in the 1950's and
1960's the goal of which was to integrate racial and ethnic minorities (Allport; Amir,
1969; Smart, 2001).
In the formative years of contact theory, it was believed that contact of any type between
members of the minority and majority group would change attitudes, resulting in
behavior change, particularly that of prejudice (Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2005;
Smart, 2001). However, Allport (1954/1979) emphasized that the relationship between
contact and out-group evaluations was not simple. As a result, he outlined a taxonomy of
'optimal' factors for contact. Dixon et. al. organized the factors as follows: Contact
should: (1) be regular and frequent; (2) involve a balance of in-group and out-group
members; (3) have genuine acquaintance potential; (4) occur across a variety of social
settings and situations; (5) be free from competition; (6) be evaluated by the participants
as important; (7) involve individuals regarding each other as having equal status; (8)
involve non-stereotypic members of the out-group; (8) be organized around a
superordinate goal; (9) be sanctioned by local or cultural norms and institutions; (10) be
free from negative emotions such as anxiety; (11) be personalized and involve genuine
friendship formation, and (12) be with an individual regarded as representative or typical
of the out-group.
A key component of Allport's (1954/1979) taxonomy is the recognition that quality
of contact was as important as quantity for positive changes in attitude to occur (Islam &
Hewstone, 1993), which was later supported by research (Amir, 1969). The contact
theory research paradigm has been very productive since the 1960's (Dixon et al., 2005).
Even though contact theory has been touted as the most effective strategy in psychology
for improving relations between in and out groups (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami,
2003), the theory is far from perfect.
Dixon et al. (2005) provide a critical evaluation of the research and remind contact
theorists that research since the 1960's has demonstrated the paradox of contact theory,
simply, some types of contact function to change attitudes in a positive direction whereas
other types of contact change attitudes in a negative direction (Dixon et al.). The process
whereby contact can serve to increase negative attitudes is multifaceted. Dixon et al.
recently suggested that there is a tendency for "informal systems of preferential
segregation" (p. 704) to re-emerge following optimal contact. Additionally, it is widely
accepted that any deviation from optimal contact can result in no change in attitude or a
change in a negative direction. Some of the conditions include: 1) whether the contact
was perceived as superficial or intimate, 2) pleasant or unpleasant, and 3) the person with
a disability is perceived as being representative of the disability group as a whole or
atypical (Islam & Hewstone, 1993). Additionally, contact where the outgroup member is
in an inferior or dependent status can function to increase negative attitudes (Amir, 1969)
a hypothesis that has been used to explain an increase in negative attitudes among health
care professionals (Wills, 1978).
Bias Crime
What is a bias crime?
The term bias crime is synonymous with hate crime. The terms are used
interchangeably in the literature although bias crime is generally considered the most
appropriate name (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000; Federal Bureau of Investigation,
1999b; Lawrence, 1999; McMahon et al., 2004). "Bias is a preformed negative attitude
toward a group based on race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, sexual orientation, or
disability status" (McMahon et al., p. 68) A bias crime is a crime against person or
property that is motivated in whole or in part based on the offender's bias." (McMahon et
al., p. 68)
The process of determining if a crime is a bias crime is a two tiered process (Federal
Bureau of Investigation, 1999b). The investigating officer determines whether there was
any indication that bias was the motivation of the alleged perpetrator. If the answer to the
question is yes, then the case is designated as a "suspected bias incident." A second
review is conducted by an officer trained in the investigation of bias motivated crimes
and he or she makes the final decision. The criteria for categorizing a crime as a hate
crime at the second tier is more stringent. To classify a crime as a hate crime, the
objective facts must lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the
perpetrator's actions were motivated by bias. The victim- related criteria for classification
include: (1) membership in a targeted group; (2) active role or advocacy in a community
group; (3) representation of victims group in the community; (4) previous records of
victimization; or (5) visitation to a high tension community. The perpetrator-related
criteria are: (1) presence or comments, gestures or written statements supporting bias; (2)
appreciation of crime impact upon the victim; (3) membership in a hate group; or (4)
previous record as a perpetrator.
Bias crimes are also two-tiered in nature (Lawrence, 1999). The first tier consists of
a crime that is committed against person or property, such as assault and battery or
robbery, which Lawrence also refers to as parallel crimes. The second tier involves the
addition of bias motivation, also referred to as an enhancement. It is important to clarify
that a bias crime is not a category by itself. If a crime is determined beyond a reasonable
doubt to have been motivated by bias, then the bias motivation carries a sentence
enhancement. For example, an offender may be found guilty of the crime of assault and
battery, which carries a minimum sentence of 5 year in prison. However, if the offender
is found guilty of choosing the victim based on his or her membership in a protected
group bias, the sentence can be enhanced to a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years.
In 1990, then President George Bush signed into law the Hate Crime Statistics Act
(HCSA), which requires the Attorney General to collect data on crimes committed where
the victims are chosen based on their membership in a race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual
orientation (Perry, 2001). In 1997, disability was included as a protected category in the
Act (McMahon et al., 2004). However, there is disparity across states in terms of what
constitutes a protected class. Minnesota, for example, includes gender, age, and national
origin in their legislation. Oregon protects based on "perceived" race, sexual orientation,
color, religion, national origin, marital status, political affiliation of beliefs, membership
or activity in or on behalf of a labor organization or against a labor organization, age,
physical or mental handicap, economic or social status, or citizenship. In 2001, Perry
noted that of the 50 states, only 21 included disability in the hate crime statutes.
Why bias crime is more serious
The idea that bias crimes are more severe and require sentence enhancements is a
controversial topic. Proponents of sentencing enhancement for bias crimes argue that bias
crimes are more severe thus warranting more severe sentences. The following analysis
will show the logic of the argument.
Applying the features of a bias crime to the theory of determining crime severity
discussed previously, Lawrence (1999) asserts that the increased severity of bias crimes
becomes clear. In terms of culpability, offenders who are motivated by bias are more
likely to cause harm (more likely to commit assaults and the assaults are often more
violent). Moreover, the motivation of the perpetrator of a hate crime violates the equality
principle, which is one of the most deeply held tenets in our culture and, consequently
our legal system (Lawrence). When the Ex-Ante Analysis is applied, the question is
"would a rational person risk a parallel crime before he or she would risk a bias crime?"
The answer to the question is almost certainly yes. The living standards analysis applied
to bias crimes results in a potential threat to dignity, autonomy, and perceived threat to
physical safety. Theories of Why People Commit Bias Crime
Realistic conflict
The realistic conflict theory maintains that competition for scarce but necessary
resources results in hostility and conflict between groups (Levine & Campbell, 1972).
The realistic conflict theory is a matter of economics (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2005). If
one group acquires more resources, such as land, homes, jobs, etc, the group with less
resources becomes frustrated (Brehm et al.). The group with resources becomes
protective over their possessions and the resulting conflict escalates.
Relative deprivation
The theory of relative deprivation suggests that there is more to prejudice than
conflict, as suggested in the realistic conflict model (Brehm et al., 2005). The theory of
relative deprivation supports the idea that the mere perception of an imbalance in
resources, power or opportunity will result in conflict (Davis 1959; Katz, 1981; Walker &
Smith, 2002). For example, what matters to the proverbial Jones' is not the type of car
they drive, but whether their car is smaller in size than the one the Brady's drive. The
theory can also be extended to the perception of job opportunities for one group versus
another, etc.
Social identity
The theory of social identity is predicated on the research of Henry Tajfel (Tajfel,
Billing, Bundy, and Flament, 1971). Tajfel et al. conducted an experiment with high
school boys in Bristol, England. The young male participants were randomly assigned to
one of two groups. The groups did not compete for scarce resources nor were they
frustrated by perceived differences. The boys had no history together as a group and yet
Tajfel et al. found that participants consistently awarded more points to members of their
in-group than their out-group, a pattern he termed in-group favoritism. Tajfel and Turner
developed the theory of social identity to explain the in-group favoritism they observed
(Brehm et al., 2005; Tajfel, 1982). The theory is based on the premise that each
individual strives to enhance his or her self-esteem. Further, self- esteem can be enhanced
through personal identity or social identity (Brehm et al.). Personal identity can be
achieved through personal achievement whereas social identity is achieved through the
achievements of the group and favoritism towards the in-group. Similarly, favoritism can
also be enhanced by disparaging the out-group (Turner, Brown, & Tajfel, 1979).
Social learning
Social learning theory was originally proposed by Albert Bandura (1977) to
explain how behavior is learned. Influenced by the results of the classic Bobo doll
experiment where Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961) observed that children who watched
adults aggressing on an inflatable doll (punching, kicking, etc) displayed more aggression
towards the doll later than controls who did not observe the parents treatment of the doll.
Social learning theory claims that behavior is not learned merely through reinforcement
schedule of reward and punishment. Rather, behavior is also learned by observing others
and being reinforced vicariously. Consequently, targeted violence towards specific
groups is observed and the violence is modeled.
Psychodynamic
Much research has been devoted to describing the "prejudiced personality" as the agent
of hatred (Allport, 1979). Some controversy exists over the investigation of the
prejudiced personality. For one, although many acts of hatred are committed by
individuals with a prejudiced personality, not all individuals with prejudiced personalities
commit acts of hatred. Therefore, identifying a personality type can create the same
stereotypes this line of research aims to eliminate. Further, Yuker (1988) asserts that
research efforts are better spent elsewhere as personality types are relatively intractable to
change. That said, the psychodynamics of the prejudice personality warrant some
attention for a comprehensive discussion of bias crime.
Insecurity appears to be at the root of the prejudiced personality (Allport,
1954/1979). Theoretically, insecurity stems from a fear of: self, instincts, consciousness,
change, and the social environment. The etiology of insecurity stems from unmet needs
from parents resulting in unresolved infantile conflicts or a persistent pattern of failure in
adult life. Regardless of the etiology, an observable personality pattern appears to emerge
from the described "threat orientation." (Allport, p.396). Allport asserted that any
personality that feels threatened is most likely going to develop patterns of ego-alienation
and a longing for definiteness, safety, and authority. "the ego simply fails to integrate the
myriad of impulses that arise within the personality and the myriad of environmental
presses without. This failure engenders feelings of insecurity, and these feelings
engender, in turn, repression." (Allport, p. 397).
The individual with a prejudiced personality is unable to consciously cope with
conflicts as they arise, so he represses then, in whole or in part, which results in them
being fragmented, forgotten or not faced at all. The consequences of repression are: 1)
ambivalence towards parents; 2) moralism; 3) dichotomization; 4) a need for
definiteness; 5) externalization of conflict; 6) institutionalism; and 7) authoritarianism.
(Allport, 1954/1979). Ambivalence. According to Allport (1954/1979) research shows
that individuals who are ambivalent towards their parents have a tendency to come from
homes where punishment, obedience, and threat of rejection abound, an environment
where power prevails instead of love. The individual learns from reward and punishment
that he or she is incapable of full acceptance of the self because he or she must constantly
avoid failure. Identification with parents is often difficult because parents from this type
of environment often do not meet the needs of the child. In a family situation such as this,
threat hangs over the child at all times.
Moralism. Allport (1954/1979) also asserted that prejudiced personalities often take
a strict moral view. These individuals insist on conventional mores and virtues such as
cleanliness, good manners and purity. Conversely, prejudiced personalities are intolerant
of transgression of the conventional mores and virtues. This can be viewed also as
intolerance of weakness and of minority groups. For example, the Nazis charged the Jews
with violating conventional codes by accusing them of dirtiness and immorality. Allport
asserts that this widespread propaganda was used to justify the torture and exportation of
the Jews.
Dichotomization. Research also suggests that both prejudiced children and adults
more than non-prejudiced controls tend to polarize the world into good and bad (Allport,
1954/1979). For example, there are only two kinds of women, good and bad. Further, the
belief exists that there is only one correct way of doing anything. Consequently, there is
little room for ambiguity; rather, the world is viewed categorically as being good or bad.
Needfor definiteness. It has been observed that prejudiced individuals have a thought
pattern consistent with their way of thinking (Allport, 1954/1979). Put more simply,
individuals who are prejudiced, are prejudice in their way of thinking about everything.
In a study of memory traces using truncated pyramids, Fisher (1951) observed that
individuals who were higher in prejudice tended to form simplified memory traces of an
unusual object such as the truncated pyramid. Individuals lower in prejudice were more
likely to identify the object as unusual and not easy to classify. Other studies
demonstrated that individuals high in prejudice were less likely to say "I don't know"
during an experiment and more likely to cling to known images for longer periods of time
(Frenkel-Brunswik, 1949). This line of research led to the theory that individuals high in
prejudice have a perseverative thought process, meaning that "old and tried solutions are
considered safe anchorage." (Allport, 1954/1979, p.402).
Externalization. Individuals high in prejudice have also been found to project or
externalize more than individuals low in prejudice (Allport, 1954/1979). Allport
maintained that individuals suffering from ego-alienation avoid introspection in favor of
looking outward, "it is better to think of things happening to him rather than caused by
him" (p. 404), consequently, individuals high in prejudice do not view themselves as
injuring or hating others, rather it is others who injure or hate them.
Institutionalization. Individuals high in prejudice like order but more importantly,
social order (Allport, 1954/1979). Consequently, these individuals are more dedicated to
institutions than those lower in prejudice (Allport). Stagner (1944) discussed nationalism
as a form of membership in an institution. Further, prejudiced individuals would distrust
those with liberal political perspectives and political reformers because they are
attempting to destroy the institution that functions to provide protection to a way of life
and, ultimately, to protect the individual (Allport; Stagner, 1944)Authoritarianism. The
prejudiced personality is prone to authoritarianism. That is, society should be orderly,
powerful and authoritative. To this end, nationalism, as discussed in the previous section,
is consistent with this belief. A society that places emphasis on the individual results in
uncertainty and change. According to Allport "the consequence of personal freedom they
find unpredictable." (1954/1979, p.406). The prejudiced personality looks to hierarchy in
authority to remedy the messiness of individualism. Power structures are definite and
function to make life predictable.
Ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism maintains that "one group is the center of
everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it "(Sumner, 1960, p. 27).
Therefore, if one's group is believed to be superior intellectually, psychologically and
physically (Atkinson, Morten, & Sue, 1998) all other groups are inherently inferior. In its
extreme form, ethnocentrism can lead to bias or discrimination, of which hate crime is an
example (McMahon et al., 2004).
Perpetrators of Bias Crime
The theories of why people commit hate crimes can be seen to emerge in what is known
about the typology of offenders of bias crime. Hate crime offenders tend to be white
males between the ages of 13 and 24 (Anderson, Dyson, & Brooks, 2002; McDevitt,
Levin, & Bennett, 2002). Levin and McDevitt (1993) suggested that offenders who
commit bias crimes are motivated by three different factors that result in three separate
typologies. These three typologies include: 1) the thrill seeker, who is motivated by
power and excitement, 2) the defensive who is motivated by defending ones turf or
resources, and 3) the mission, who believes he or she is on a crusade to rid the world of
groups considered evil or inferior. In 2002, McDevitt (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000)
included retaliatory as a fourth typology of hate crime offender. The retaliatory offender
is motivated by a desire to avenge their group as a result of a perceived assault or
degradation.
Bias Crime Reporting
McDevitt (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000) outlined a process of bias crime
reporting, which can be conceptualizedd as a series of decision points." (Bureau of
Justice Statistics, p. 34). The following is a list of the decision points:
1. Victim understanding that a crime has been committed
2. Victim Recognition that hate may be a motivating factor
3. Victim or another party solicits law enforcement intervention
4. Victim or another party communicates in ilh law enforcement about motivation of
the crime
5. Law enforcement recognizes the element of hate
6. Law enforcement documents the element of hate, and as appropriate, charges
suspect with civil rights of hate/bias offense
7. Law enforcement records the incident and submits the information to the Uniform
Crime Reports (UCR), Hate Crime Reporting Unit.
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 34).
In a 1987 study conducted by McDevitt and his colleagues (Bureau of Justice Statistics,
2000), 452 bias incidents handled by the Boston Police Department were examined.
McDevitt found that only 19 or 4.2% of the cases were appropriately identified as bias
incidents by reporting officers (Levin, 1992). Levin asserted that critics of police officer
reporting cite prejudice as the main factor influencing misidentification of bias
incidences. Nolan and Akiyama (1999) conducted a series of focus groups with 147
police officers from four jurisdictions from the Northeast, West, Central and Southern
United States. Two precincts participated in bias crime reporting and two precincts did
not participate. The results of the study consisted of variables that affected whether the
agency and the individual reported a bias crime. The number one factor affecting whether
an agency participated in bias crime reporting was "Shared attitudes/heIiej\ about hate
crime reporting." (Nolan & Akiyama, p. 120). The number one factor affecting individual
reporting was supportive organizational policies and procedures. The number two factor
affecting whether an individual officer reported a hate crime was "individual attitudes
and beliefs about hate crime reporting." (Nolan & Akiyama, p.121).
Victim Selection
Another aspect of criminal investigation is that of perpetrator motivation.
McMahon et al. (2004) discussed the differences between crimes motivated by group
animus and those by motivated by actuarial opportunity. An actuarial crime refers to the
offender's evaluation of potential crime victims in terms of their ability to defend
themselves (McMahon et al.). Although these crimes may appear to be spontaneous in
nature, the predatory nature of the offender still engages in a process whereby he or she
selects prey.
In contrast to actuarial crimes, group animus refers to the offender's selection of a
crime victim because of their membership in a group; rather what that potential victim
symbolizes (McMahon et al., 2004). Animus is an important component of victim
selection to bias crime classification because according to law enforcement, if animus is
not present, then a bias crime has not been committed (McMahon et al.).
Problems with Bias Crime Data
Many problems exist with the reporting and collection of bias crime data (Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 2000). Some of the problems that interfere with the accurate reporting
of bias crimes include: 1) voluntary reporting by law enforcement agencies; 2) variability
in definition and reporting format by state and local jurisdiction; and 3) Supreme Court
decisions that affect the criminal investigation itself.
Although the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 requires the Federal government to
collect data on bias crimes, participation in the reporting is voluntary. Moreover, of those
agencies that participate, 83% "reported 'zero' hate crimes occurred in their jurisdiction"
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000, p. 13). More importantly, McDevitt's research study
involved interviews of police officers from "zero" reporting agencies who reported "they
had been directly involved in bias crime investigations and had recorded them as such"
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 37). Specifically, 31% of the respondents who worked in
jurisdictions that reported 'zero' hate crimes believe that their department investigated
one or more hate crimes (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Even more interesting, 37.1% of
the respondents who worked in jurisdictions that did not report to the UCR believed their
jurisdiction had investigated one or more hate crimes (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).
Another problem related to hate crime statistics is the definition. The definition of a
bias crime often varies from state/local jurisdiction (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000).
Further, although the FBI has started moving away from the UCR, which collects more
summary data, to the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which collects
incident specific data, there is much variability across states/jurisdictions as to which
reporting system is used (Bureau of Justice Statistics). As a result, crimes are reported
using either the UCR or the NIBRS system, resulting in significant variability in the data
collected.
Prior to the US Supreme Court Decision on Apprendi v. New Jersey, the sentencing
enhancement for a crime suspected to be based on animus was presented by the
prosecuting attorney and determined by the sentencing judge, which requires a
preponderance of the evidence (Hoffman, 2003). In Apprendi v. New Jersey, Apprendi's
sentence was enhanced from a 5-10 year minimum to a 10-20 year minimum after the
sentencing judge determined the preponderance of evidence supported the victims were
chosen based on group animus. Apprendi appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court
and the sentence was overturned. The majority decision written by Justice Paul Stevens
stated that due process required by the fourteenth amendment requires that any
enhancement of sentence beyond that allowed by statute must be submitted to the jury
and proved beyond a reasonable doubt (Hoffman, 2003; Oyez, 2000). If prosecutors are
required to collect evidence of group animus, which is difficult to prove, to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt, then it is possible prosecuting attorneys will scrutinize cases more
closely. Although no investigation has been conducted to look at this, anecdotal
comments from a Florida LEO investigating hate crimes supported the difficulty in
substantiating bias motivation to a prosecuting attorney (M. Endara, personal
communication, August 7, 2005).
Bias Crime and People with Disabilities
As discussed previously, people with disabilities were included in the Hate Crime
Statistics Act in 1996 although data collection didn't begin until 1997. McMahon et al.
(2004) collected the entire universe of data from the period 1997-2001, a total of five
years. Although lack of complete participation of law enforcement agencies prevents a
complete universe, McMahon et al. estimated that the 12,000 law enforcement agencies
that participated across 49 states represented jurisdictions that cover approximately 85%
of the U.S. population.A total of 41,442 bias crimes were reported for the five-year
period (McMahon et al., 2004). The majority of the crimes were committed because of
race (22,030), followed
by religion (7,846), sexual orientation (6,371), ethnicity (5,428), and disability (127). The
relative risk of victimization was assessed by calculating a within-group odds-ratio for
type of hate crime and location. The relative risk for a racially based bias crime (1.19)
was 350 times that of disability (.002) (McMahon et al.). The most common types of hate
crimes were simple assault, intimidation, and property damage, which was consistent
across all categories. However, the risk for simple assault was greater for people with
disabilities than for any other group (McMahon et al.). The top three locations where bias
crimes were committed were personal residence, street, and other. Although these top
three were consistent across categories, people with disabilities were at greatest risk in
their residence, followed by college campuses and government buildings.
McMahon et al. (2004) asserted that it is unlikely people with disabilities
experience bias crimes at a rate lower than other protected categories. In fact, many
disability theorists are looking to the issue of underreporting as a possible explanation for
the relatively low risk of bias crime for people with disabilities (Berkeleyan, 2002;
McMahon et al.; Sherry, 2003; Sorensen, 2001).
McMahon et al. (2004) offers the following possible explanations for
underreporting of bias crimes:
(1) Disability was included as a protected category almost six years after the development
of the initial system for hate crime reporting, consequently, only half of the states
included disability in their hate crime legislation; (2) the marginal status of people with
disabilities results in lack of accessibility to the criminal justice system so law
enforcement has little experience working with people with disabilities and people with
disabilities lack attention from law enforcement; (3) the lack of appellate cases dealing
with disability in hate crime legislation; (4) the perpetrators of crimes against people with
disabilities are often known to them e.g. family members, caretakers, etc. and victims are
less likely to report a crime to law enforcement when the offender is know to the victim;
and (5) if reports to law enforcement do not result in prosecution and conviction, people
with disabilities will lose faith in law enforcement and the benefits of reporting will not
outweigh the risk association with # 4. Problems with bias crime data discussed
previously, also apply to people with disabilities. An analysis of the problems with bias
crime data for people with disabilities will be presented below.
As mentioned previously, people with disabilities are included in bias crime legislation in
approximately 21, roughly half, of the United States (Perry, 2001). Yet, this doesn't
appear to impact the reporting of bias crimes against people with disabilities. For
example, the data from 1997 to 2003 was analyzed by state (Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999a, 1998, 1997). A total of 199 bias crimes
committed against a person with a disability were reported. Twenty-two states reported
no bias crimes, which included Florida, Georgia, and Iowa, each of which have bias
crime legislation including people with disabilities. Conversely, California, Washington
and Wisconsin do not have bias crime legislation but have each reported at least one bias
crime during this period. The largest number of crimes reported was from the state of
South Carolina, who reported 32 (or 16% of the total) bias motivated crimes. The South
Carolina and Tennessee were the only two states in the southeast that reported any bias
crimes against PWD during the period. The top three states reporting for the period were
South Carolina with 32, California with 21, and Tennessee with 18. The fact that two of
the top three reporting states are located in the southeast when the other southeast states
did not report any bias crime incidents is suspect. Additionally, of the top three states,
California doesn't have legislation allowing sentencing enhancement for bias crimes
committed against persons with disabilities. From this analysis, there appears to be no
pattern for which states report and no explanation for the disparity across states.
Bias Crime and Gender
There are factors associated with gender motivated hate crimes that warrant
discussion here. First, at the time disability was included in the Hate Crime Statistics Act,
a number of other groups lobbied for inclusion in the Act, including gender, children, and
the elderly (McMahon et al., 2004). Although gender was not included in the
reauthorization of the act, approximately 20 states include gender in state-level hate
crime legislation. As a result, hate crimes motivated by animus towards gender are
monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center as well as other local interest groups and
researchers.
Individuals who opposed the inclusion of gender in the Hate Crime Statistics Act
cited the following reasons: 1) Perpetrators of a hate crime have little of no relationship
to the victim. Because crimes against women are often perpetrated by individuals known
to them, crimes against women don't fit the hate crime model; 2) special laws already
exist that address violence against women; 3) the addition of gender into the hate crime
category will overwhelm data collection; and 4) men who attack women do not
necessarily hate them. (McPhail, 2002). The first objection, perpetrators of a hate crimes
have little or no relationship to the victim, is of particular interest to this discussion
because: 1) research suggests that the overwhelming majority of perpetrators of crimes
against people with disabilities are known to them; and 2) the notion that a perpetrator of
a hate crime can not know the victim is a misinformed belief (Bureau of Justice Statistics,
2000; Lawrence, 1999; National Institute of Justice, 1999). In fact, perpetrators of hate
crimes can be neighbors or co-workers (McPhail, 2002). If misinformation purporting
that perpetrators of hate crimes will can not be known to the victim, then victims of
gender and disability motivated hate crimes are at a disadvantage because the dynamics
of the crime do not fit the accepted profile, albeit misinformed, of a hate crime.
Another similarity is the prosecution rate for perpetrators of crime against women.
As stated, individuals who oppose the inclusion of gender in the HCSA use the fact that
special laws are already in effect that address violence against women. However, with
these "special laws," is it estimated that more than half of all rape prosecutions result in
acquittal or the case is dismissed. Moreover, approximately 98% of rape victims will
never see the perpetrator apprehended, convicted, and incarcerated (McPhail, 2002).
These statistics are similar to those reported by Mishra (2001) on prosecution rates for
perpetrators of crimes against persons with disabilities.
The belief that men who attack women are not perpetrators of a hate crime because they
do not "hate" women is another example of common misinformation on hate crimes.
Victim selection has to do with bias and prejudice not hate. Franklin (1998) discovered
through interviews of perpetrators of assault on gay men that motivation was rarely as
simple as "hatred" of homosexuality alone. The Franklin interviews revealed that the
crime was often used as a means to alleviate boredom, garner social approval, and
demonstrate masculinity. Evidence of similarities between gender and disability
motivated hate crimes exists in the literature. It appears that misinformation regarding: 1)
the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim; 2) prosecution rates for
perpetrators of crime against women and PWDs is disproportionately lower than the
general population; and 3) motivation to commit hate crimes is complex and possibly
misunderstood.
Vulnerability as a Negative Attitude
It has been suggested that people with disabilities may be perceived as victims
(McMahon et al., 2004; Sorensen, 2001). McMahon et al. asserts that disability experts
attribute the perception of vulnerability of people with disabilities to negative attitudes. If
people with disabilities are perceived as vulnerable or victims, the process of teasing out
whether the perpetrator was motivated by actuarial reasons or animus may become
increasingly more difficult.
The definition of a bias crime is one that is committed in whole or in part by the
offender's bias. Therefore, even if there are bias indicators at a crime scene of a person
with a disability, having elements of both bias and actuarial motivation could make the
elements of the crime scene ambiguous, at best. Attitude accessibility theory suggests that
if the law enforcement officer holds the attitude that people with disabilities are more
vulnerable, being in the presence of a person with a disability might activate that attitude
and become the salient feature of the investigation. From a more practical perspective,
the ambiguity created by having bias crime indicators and actuarial indicators would
result in the officer deferring to a state attorney whose job is to gather "enough" evidence
of bias motivation, often defined as 3-4 bias incidents in a sequence (M. Endara, personal
communication, August 7, 2005), to prove bias beyond a reasonable doubt.
Summary and Conclusion
Bias crimes have garnered the attention of American citizens over the past decade.
Bias crimes are regarded as being more severe than other crimes because of the attempt
on behalf of the perpetrator to marginalize a particular group of citizens, thereby sending
a clear message to all members of the targeted group. For this reason, bias motivated
crimes strike at the very heart of the American value that all men are created equal.
People with disabilities were recently included as a protected category in the Hate Crime
Statistics Act, in part, because of the longstanding history of negative attitudes, prejudice
and discrimination against people with disabilities in areas such as employment, poverty,
etc. Since its inclusion, the number of bias crimes committed against people with
disabilities is disproportionately lower than other protected categories.
It has been suggested that no other group of citizens has been treated with the same
degree of prejudice and discrimination than people with disabilities. Evidence exists that
people with disabilities have the highest rate of unemployment of any protected class of
citizens, live in poverty at a rate disproportionate to the general population, and
experience crime at a rate and duration disproportionate to the general population. As the
first class of citizens targeted for extinction by Nazi physicians, it is arguable that people
with disabilities were the first victims of bias motivated crime during World War II.
Given the history of prejudice and discrimination of people with disabilities, data
suggesting that people with disabilities in the United States are victims of bias crimes at a
rate disproportionately lower than other protected categories are highly suspect
(McMahon et al., 2004). Although it is reasonable to entertain the idea that people with
disabilities are not victims of bias crimes at the same rate as other protected categories,
the pervasiveness and prevalence of inequality in other areas demands this conclusion be
drawn only after other possible explanations have been explored. Research attempting to
explain inequality for people with disabilities in other areas has resulted in a substantial
amount of evidence that attitudes may be a significant factor in determining how people
perceive and behave towards people with disabilities.
Although not consistent in the research, it is accepted among attitude theorists that
attitudes influence perception and behavior. Negative attitudes towards people with
disabilities are well documented in the literature. Attitudes appear to vary as a function of
gender, age, education and occupation. Contact theory suggests that contact between an
individual in an official capacity where the person with a disability is in a dependent role
can result in the forming of negative attitudes. Law enforcement is regarded as a helping
profession where the interaction with people with disabilities is in a dependent role.
Research has documented that an overwhelming number of crimes with bias indicators
were missed by law enforcement officials during the investigation. It has been suggested
that attitudes could influence the perception of whether a crime should be enhanced as a
bias crime.
If people with disabilities are victims of hate crimes more frequently than the
number of cases reported, then the hate crime reporting framework discussed earlier
suggests that the problem with underreporting could reside with the individual victim or
with law enforcement. The first four of McDevitt's series of decision points in bias crime
reporting deal with factors that influence victim reporting of a crime to law enforcement
(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). The first two points deal with the victim's
understanding that a bias crime has been committed and recognition by the victim that
bias may be a motivating factor. These decision points in hate crime reporting beg the
questions) Are people with disabilities aware that they can be a victim of a hate crime?"
If so, "Are people with disabilities aware of the bias indicators to present to law
enforcement during and interview?" Further, inequality present in prosecution and
conviction rates of offenders of crimes against persons with disabilities can result in
diminished faith that law enforcement will respond appropriately to a report and render
the victim reluctant to report the crime to law enforcement. These questions, although
relevant to this discussion, lie outside the scope of this project.
Available literature suggests that a number of factors could influence the
recognition of hate by a police officer, including (1) the U.S. Supreme Court case
Apprendi vs. New Jersey, may have resulted in greater scrutiny of evidence presented by
law enforcement to the state attorney's office because of the increased burden of proving
bias motivation beyond a reasonable doubt instead of as a preponderance of evidence; (2)
attitudes about hate crime reporting by the law enforcement agency, which may include
the state attorney's office, affect the reporting of bias motivated crimes; and (3) the
attitudes of the investigating police officer has been suggested to be the second most
important factor as to whether a crime is reported as a bias crime.
The focus of this investigation is on the fifth of McDevitt's series of decision points in
bias crime reporting, whether law enforcement recognizes the element of hate?,
particularly, when the crime is committed against a person with a disability (Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 2000). This study will investigate law enforcement officers' level of
agreement about whether a series of crime scenarios should be enhanced as a bias crime
if the victim is a person with a disability, compared to crime scenarios where the victim's
protected category is race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. Further, this project will
investigate whether law enforcement officer agreement with bias crime enhancement
varies as a function of the gender of the participant, moreover, whether an interaction
exists between gender and protected category. Finally, this investigation will explore
whether the level of agreement with bias crime enhancement can be predicted by the age
56
of the law enforcement officer, law enforcement officer attitudes toward people with
disabilities, and law enforcement officer contact with people with disabilities
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methods used in the present study to determine whether
law enforcement officer attitudes about hate crimes vary across protected category. The
major areas addressed in this chapter include the research questions, research design,
participants, instrumentation, procedures and data collection.
Research Questions
5. Research Question One: Does law enforcement officers' level of agreement with
hate crime classification vary across protected category?
6. Research Question Two: Does law enforcement officers' mean level of agreement
with hate crime classification vary by gender?
7. Research Question Three: Is there an interaction between protected category and
gender on law enforcement officers' mean level of agreement with hate crime
enhancement?
8. Research Question Four: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities,
and contact with persons with disabilities provide predictive ability for law
enforcement officers' agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with
disabilities?
Research Design
A quantitative correlational design was used that employed a convenience sample.
Participants were asked to complete a Modified Hate Crime Survey (MHCS), the
Attitudes towards Disabled Persons (ATDP-A) scale-Form A, the Modified version of the
Contact with Disabled Persons Scale (CDP), and a demographic questionnaire.
Participants
The goal of the project was to recruit two hundred and forty Law Enforcement Officer
(LEO) participants from the Alachua County Sheriff s department. The sample size was
determined by conducting a power analysis for a repeated measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and a multiple regression analysis. Degrees of freedom for the F-ratio (u) was
determined by calculating (k-1) (r-1) where k and r are the number of levels of interacting
main effects (Cohen, 1988). In the present study, u= (5-1) (2-1) = 4. The number of
participants required to find a small effect size f=. 10 (Cohen, 1988) with u=4 with power
of .80 and an alpha level of .05 is 240 (Cohen, 1988).
The regression analysis was designed with 3 predictors in the model. A sample size
of 51 is required to detect a squared multiple correlation coefficient of R2=.20 with power
= .80 and a type-II error rate a = .05. However, the .95 confidence interval with a sample
size of 51 is R2 +/- .20, which means there is a 95% chance the squared multiple
correlation will be between .00 and .40, which is too wide. The sample size required to
achieve a 95% confidence interval +/- .10 is 200, which means there is a 95% chance the
squared multiple correlation will be between .10 and .30. A sample size of 240 is
sufficient to achieve this confidence band.
A brief overview of the nature of the research, type of instruments and time
required was made to all prospective participants. Law Enforcement Officers reviewed
the informed consent form from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and signed consent
forms were obtained prior to participants taking the instruments.
Instruments
The instruments used in this research study included: 1) the Modified Hate Crime
Survey (MHCS), a survey designed to measure attitudes towards hate crime scenarios
from each of 5 protected categories (race, religion, sexual orientation, gender and
disability); 2) the ATDP-A, a self-report measure of attitudes towards people with
disabilities; 3) the Wang (1998) version of the CDP (Yuker & Hurley, 1987), a measure
of contact with persons with disabilities; and 4) a demographic questionnaire.
The Modified Hate Crime Survey
The Hate Crime Survey was constructed by Alexandra Miller (2001) to study
whether criminal justice students' agreement with labeling crime scenarios as hate crimes
would differ from students in other disciplines. The original survey consists of 20 actual
hate crime scenarios reported to the FBI and offenses tracked by the Southern Poverty
Law Center included in its annual report, Klanwatch (Miller, 2001). The 20 items
included five scenarios from each of four protected categories: race, religion, sexual
orientation, and gender. Participants rate on a 7-point scale their level of agreement for
whether each crime scenario constitutes a hate crime. This survey was of particular
interest for this research study for the following reasons: (1) the survey included gender
as a protected category which, as stated in Chapter 2, has similarities to disability; (2) it is
the only survey designed to look for differences across protected categories; and (3) the
author of the survey agreed to allow modification of the survey to include people with
disabilities.
Miller's (2001) Hate Crime Survey was modified to: (1) include 5 crime scenarios that
involve a bias crime committed against a person with a disability, (2) include five crime
scenarios (one scenario for each protected category) that did not have any bias crime
indicators, and (3) modify the remaining scenarios so they were balanced with regard to
the type of indicator and severity of crime (SEE Appendix A). The five bias crime
scenarios introduced in the modified version include a sensory disability, a mental
disability, a developmental disability, an infectious disease, and a neuromuscular
disability. Although the disabilities represented are not inclusive of all types of
disabilities, each of the five scenarios consisted of a different category of disability that
spans at least physical, sensory and mental disabilities. Miller (2001) obtained the crime
scenarios for the original survey from the Southern Poverty Law Center. When contacted,
they do not track crimes committed against people with disabilities as with other
protected categories. Therefore, the crime scenarios were obtained from a review of
available literature that reported specifics on hate crimes committed against people with
disabilities.
One possible flaw with the original Hate Crime Survey constructed by Miller (2001)
consists of the content of the scenarios. In a national survey of police officers and police
officer supervisors, McDevitt learned from 610 respondents that graffiti or bias symbols
at the crime scene, offender membership in a hate group, and bias charged language
constituted the top three most important factors in determining whether a crime was
potentially motivated by bias (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). In other words, the
above factors indicate to an officer that bias motivation is possible and are considered
cues to investigate further. There was disparity across protected categories in the crime
scenarios in Miller's (2001) survey. For example, only one of the crime scenarios in the
gender category included a bias indicator whereas all but one of the scenarios in the
religion category included a bias indicator. As a result, the crime scenarios were modified
only to include at least one of the top three bias indicators described in the McDevitt
study (Bureau of Justice Statistics). The goal was to maintain the integrity of the original
crime scenarios as much as possible. Therefore, if a bias indicator was present, it was not
changed. However, bias indicators were added to those scenarios where no indicator was
present. The items from each protected category include one item where the offender is a
member of a hate group, one scenario where graffiti or bias symbols are present at the
crime scene and three scenarios where bias language is used verbally or in writing. There
is one exception to this rule. The religion category has two crime scenarios where bias
symbols are present and no indicators where the perpetrators were members of a hate
group. In order to make the religion category consistent with the other categories, it
would require removing a bias indicator from the original survey. It was believed that
maintaining the integrity of the scenarios was more important than further altering an
aspect of the scenario to correct a difference of one bias indicator.
Another possible flaw with the MHCS was the severity or heinousness of the crime
scenarios in terms of balance across protected categories. There is no standardized
instrument for measuring the severity of crime scenarios (Welner, 1998, 2003). However,
Welner (2003) devised a measure that is currently being field tested. Welner (2003) uses
a three-point scale to measure severity of a crime. The lowest point on the scale is a
measure of absence of severity, "not depraved." Because the goal was to balance crime
scenario severity of the MHCS, the "not severe" point on the scale was modified to
measure "somewhat severe." The items on the MHCS were used to create an assessment
of severity (SEE Appendix E). The assessment was given to a panel of 3 experts who
rated each item in terms of somewhat heinous, heinous, and very heinous. Comments
from the first review indicated the following pattern of severity: 1) murder and rape were
considered "very heinous", 2) assault/battery and physical harm was considered
"heinous", and 3) verbal threats, name calling, and graffiti, was considered somewhat
heinous. The scale was modified so that each protected category had two crime scenarios
in the very heinous category and at least one item in each of the heinous and somewhat
heinous categories with the exception of religion, which had three items in the somewhat
heinous category. The final survey was reviewed by the expert panel a second time and
there was 100% agreement among the panel as to the balance of severity across
categories.
Responses. A seven-point Likert-scale is used by the participant to indicate their
level of agreement/disagreement with the assertion that each crime scenario constitutes a
bias crime. The scale ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). There are no
anchors for 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The participants are asked to circle the number that
corresponds to their level of agreement along the scale.
Scoring. The scores of all 30 items on the Modified Hate Crime Survey were
summed and yield a total raw score ranging from thirty to two hundred and ten: the lower
the score, the lower the agreement and the higher the score the greater the agreement. A
subscale score was calculated for each of the five protected categories. The subscale
scores can range from five to thirty-five: Again, the lower the score, the lower the
agreement and the higher the score the greater the agreement.
Reliability. Miller (2001) conducted a pilot study using 304 criminology students
on the original survey. She reported a .94 alpha reliability for the scale.
A total of 27 Law Enforcement Officers were recruited to participate in the pilot
study of the instrument. The instrument was administered on two separate days in the
same location, The Kirkpatrick Criminal Justice Training Center in Gainesville, Florida.
Both administrations of the instrument were done immediately before a training session
began.The law enforcement participants were given an opportunity to read the consent
form and ask questions before signing the informed consent form and. Once all the
participants completed the survey, they were given an opportunity to provide feedback to
the principle investigator on the survey instrument. Comments made by participants
included: 1) some items lacked information, and 2) one of the crime scenarios should be
modified so at least one of the victims was Caucasian. The first comment that some items
lacked information pertained specifically to the items that were designed to eliminate bias
crime indicators. The second comment concerning the inclusion of a bias crime involving
a Caucasian victim appeared to be a philosophical issue of one officer that was not shared
by the other officers. As a result, it was not determined to have a significant bearing on
the instrument.
Reliability. The results of the pilot study of 27 participants revealed a Cronbach's
alpha for the total scale of .89. The alpha coefficients for the subscales were .70 for race,
.62 for disability, .72 for gender, .64 for religion, and .63 for sexual preference. The
lower than desired internal consistency for the subscales can be attributed to the low
number of items for each subscale (e.g. 6) and that each subscale contains one item that is
designed to not have any bias crime indicators in the crime scenario.
Validity. A Repeated Measures ANOVA was conducted and found that the between-
subjects effects was significant at F(26,1070) = .76, p<.001. Pairwise comparisons found
that the non-bias indicator scenarios were significantly different than each of the
protected categories atp<.001. The mean score for the non-bias indicator subscale was
10, which is equivalent to a 2 on the scale. This indicates that participants were able to
distinguish between bias and non-bias crime scenarios. Additionally, it suggests that
participants were truthful in their responses.
Attitudes toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP)
The ATDP is a self-report measure of an individual's attitudes towards people with
disabilities and is the most widely used measure of general attitudes towards persons with
disabilities (Antonak & Livneh, 1988). It was developed as a unidimensional scale of
attitudes. The scale is designed primarily to measure attitudes towards persons with
disabilities (Antonak & Livneh, 1988).The scale was originally published in 1960 as a
20-item scale (Yuker, Block, & Campbell, 1960). The original scale, Form-O was altered
and published in 1962 (Yuker, Block, Younng, 1966) as a 30-item scale with two Forms,
A and B. Each scale takes approximately 10 minutes to administer although the scale is
untimed.
One criticism of the ATDP was the language used. Specifically, the wording of the
scale had not been updated since the emergence of person first language. However, Pruett
modified the ATDP Form-A to person first language in 2004 (SEE Appendix C).
Responses. The ATDP utilizes a six-point Likert-scale for individuals to indicate
their agreement or disagreement with each item. The scale ranges from -3 ("I disagree
very much"), -2 ("I disagree pretty much"), -1 ("I disagree a little"), +1 (I agree a little),
+2 ("I agree pretty much"), to +3 ("I agree very much"). Individuals are asked to circle
the response at the right of each statement based on how they feel in each case.
Scoring. Form-A of the ATDP yields a summated scale score. The scoring for twelve
items on Form-A must be reversed (Items 5, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 29).
Once the scoring for these items is reversed, the scores for all 30 items are summed, and
the sign of the sum is reversed. The raw score is scaled by adding a constant (90) to the
sum thereby ensuring the total score isn't a negative value. The range of possible scores
is 0 to 180. A lower number reflects more negative attitudes towards people with
disabilities and a higher number reflects more positive attitudes towards persons with
disabilities (Yuker & Block, 1986; Yuker et al., 1966).
Reliability. The test-retest reliability estimates of forms O, A, and B range from
+.66 to +.89. Alternate form reliability between forms A and B was reported to be +.85
and split-half reliability ranged from +.72 to +.89 for the three versions (Antonak &
Livneh, 1988).
Validity. Content validation was conducted through an extensive extraction of
statements made about individuals with disabilities in the literature followed by
psychologists reviewing the items for relevance to put into the scale (Antonak & Livneh,
1988). Item analyses were then conducted to test for item discrimination. Scores were
correlated to demographic variables such as age, gender, and education to establish
construct and criterion related validity. The authors found a positive relationship between
education and attitude, gender and attitude with female attitudes being more positive than
males and no relationship between scale scores and age (Antonak & Livneh, 1988).
Although the authors of the ATDP claim that the dimension measured is unidimensional,
other empirical factorial studies found that the three forms of the scale may contain
between two and nine independent factors, which suggests the scale is susceptible to
variance from changes other than attitude (Antonak & Livneh, 1988), affecting the
validity of the instrument. Additional criticism reflects problems with scores clustering at
the top and bottom end of the range (Antonak, 1980), suggesting little variation and
spread and questionable item discrimination. Nevertheless, the ATDP was used in this
study because of the amount of research on the scale, despite these weaknesses.
Contact with Disabled Persons Scale (CDP)
The CDP scale is a 20-item self-report inventory that uses a five-point Likert scale
to measure the amount of contact a participant has had with people with disabilities
(Yuker & Hurley, 1987). As stated in Chapter 2, Allport (1954/1978) described that
contact between an individual and a member of an out-group that meets certain criteria
can serve to reduce prejudice. Recent research on contact theory (Dixon, et. al., 2005)
emphasizes the importance of the quality of contact in addition to the quantity of contact.
More recent developments on scales that measure contact have focused on both quantity
and quality of contact with out-group members (Islam & Hewstone, 1993). However,
these scales do not measure contact with persons with disabilities. Modifying the CDP to
measure quality of contact or modifying the Islam & Hewstone (1993) scale to include
people with disabilities is beyond the scope of this project. At this time, the CDP is the
only scale in existence to measure contact with persons with disabilities.
Responses. Participants are asked to read each item and then indicate the
corresponding quantity of contact that corresponds to the item 1 (never), 2 (once or
twice), 3 (a few times), 4 (often), or 5 (very often) by circling the appropriate number.
Like the ATDP, the CDP was modified by Wang (1998) to include person first language.
The Wang version of the CDP was used in this study. See Appendix D for a copy of the
modified CDP.
Scoring. The scores of all 20 items on the CDP are summed and yield a total raw score
ranging from twenty to one hundred: the lower the score, the lower the quantity of
contact with persons with disabilities and the higher the score the greater the amount of
contact.
Reliability. Reliability coefficients reported for the CDP range from .87-.93
between the original and modified versions of the scale demonstrating good reliability of
the scale. Yuker and Hurley (1987) reported a split-half reliability of .93 and Cronbach's
alpha of .92. Wang (1998) reported a Cronbach's alpha of .87 for the modified version
and Pruett (2004) reported a two-week test-retest reliability of .90 and a Cronbach's alpha
of .91.
Demographic Questionnaire
The demographic questionnaire was designed to elicit specific background
information about the participants that could be related to attitudes about hate crimes and
people with disabilities. The demographic questionnaire is designed to collect more
demographic data than was utilized in this study (SEE Appendix B). Although each of
the demographic variables is relevant to this study, including each factor in the regression
model will require a sample size necessary to achieve sufficient power that is unrealistic
for this study but helpful in future studies designed to increase the sample size.
The items in the demographic questionnaire are designed to gather information on
gender, age, ethnicity, race, education, law enforcement experience, and qualitative
aspects of contact with people with disabilities. This study utilized gender and age in the
data analysis. Gender has specific relevance in the literature to both perception of hate
crimes and attitudes towards people with disabilities. Miller (2001) found differences
between males and females on the level of agreement with the hate crime scenarios on
the hate crime survey. Further, females have been found to have more positive attitudes
towards people with disabilities (Yuker & Block, 1986). As mentioned previously, Yuker
& Block (1986) discuss that level of education is probably the single greatest factor that
predicts attitudes towards persons with disabilities.
Data Collection Procedure
There are 250 sworn Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) employed by the Alachua
County Sheriff s Department. Of those 250 LEO's, 27 consented to participate in the
pilot study and 184 consented to participate in the present study. The convenience sample
of 184 LEO's were participating in a routine bi-monthly training at the Kirkpatrick Law
Enforcement Officer Training Center in Gainesville, Florida. The bi-monthly training
was designed to provide continuing education units to maintain LEO certification. LEO
certification in Florida requires specific training in human diversity. The present study
was used to partially fulfill the human diversity training requirement.
The instruments were designed in the form of a packet to ease in the administration
in a group setting. The were placed in the following order: The Modified Hate Crime
Survey (MHCS), Demographic Questionnaire, ATDP-A, and the CDP scale. Each
participant received a consent form with a description of the research study and the
survey instruments, in that order, held together with a paper clip. The principal
investigator was present for each data collection.
Prior to taking the instruments, the investigator introduced himself by name and as a
student at the University of Florida. Participants were instructed to 1) read the Research
Protocol and ask questions to clarify points of confusion, 2) sign two copies of the
informed consent form as required by the University of Florida Institutional Review
Board-Psychology (IRB-02) if volunteering for the research study, one for the
investigator and the other for the law enforcement officer, 3) take the surveys in the order
they are presented, 4) when completed, bring the survey packet to the investigator.
When participants returned the packet to the investigator, the consent forms were
separated from the participant questionnaires. Participants were reminded to keep their
copy of the informed consent on which there is contact information if they have any
questions or concerns at a later date.
Data Analysis
* Research Question One: Does law enforcement officers' level of agreement with
hate crime classification vary across protected category?
* Research Question Two: Does law enforcement officers' mean level of agreement
with hate crime classification vary by gender?
* Research Question Three: Is there an interaction between protected category and
gender on law enforcement officers' mean level of agreement with hate crime
enhancement?
Analysis Related to Research Questions One, Two, and Three
A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine whether the mean
of scores on level of agreement with hate crime enhancement vary across protected
category or gender and whether the two variables interact. The Two-Way ANOVA was
used to answer the first research question, which is to determine is there is main effect of
protected category on mean agreement with hate crime enhancement scores; the second
research question which is whether there is a main effect of gender on mean agreement
with hate crime enhancement scores; and the third research question, which is whether
gender and protected category interact or whether the effect of protected category
depends on gender.
* Research Question Four: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities,
and contact with persons with disabilities provide predictive ability for law
enforcement officers' agreement with hate crime enhancement for person's with
disabilities?
Analysis Related to Research Question Four
A multiple regression analysis was utilized to answer research question four. As
such, the goal will be to model level of agreement with the subscale score of people with
disabilities as a function of age, attitude score, and quantity of contact score.
Although the ATDP and the CDP utilize Likert scales to measure the constructs,
respectively, data from both scales have been analyzed as interval scales. The literature
documents analyzing ATDP data (Pruett, 2004; Satcher & Gamble, 2002) and CDP data
(Pruett, 2004; Wang, 1998) as an interval scale.
Limitations
This study contains limitations with regards to internal and external validity. First,
the results have limited generalizability. Although practical, the use of law enforcement
officers from Gainesville, Florida limits the results to only Deputy Sheriffs from
Gainesville, Florida. Second, legislation varies from across states as to what constitutes a
protected category. Specifically, the state of Florida does not have legislation that allows
for courts to enhance a sentence if the perpetrator commits a crime against a person with
a disability because of bias. As a result, there are variables outside the control of this
study that can influence the interpretation of bias crime indicators.
Limitations also exist with the internal validity of the study. First, the use of self-report
measures can introduce an element of response bias into the study. Self-report measures,
particularly with attitude measures of surveys of sensitive information can elicit
respondents answering in a manner that is socially acceptable. Social desirability is not
controlled for in this study. As a result, it isn't possible to determine what extent
participant's responses were influenced by social desirability. A second limitation is the
nature of the study itself. The methodology of the study did not allow for causal
interpretation of the data.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The primary focus of this study was to determine whether group membership
influenced law enforcement officer agreement to categorize a crime as a bias crime and to
determine what factors influenced their decision. The study utilized a sample of 184
certified law enforcement officers LEOs. The following research questions were
addressed:
1. Research Question One: Does law enforcement officer level of agreement with
hate crime classification vary across protected category?
2. Research Question Two: Does law enforcement officer mean level of agreement
with hate crime classification vary by gender?
3. Research Question Three: Is there an interaction between protected category and
gender on law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate crime
classification?
4. Research Question Four: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities,
and contact with persons with disabilities provide predictive ability for law
enforcement officers' agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with
disabilities?
The first three questions were answered by conducting a two-way (repeated
measure) ANOVA and a series of one-way ANOVA's as post-hoc analyses. Protected
category and gender were included in the ANOVA model to answer questions 1 and 2
while the interaction term in the model was used to answer question 3. Question 4 was
answered by modeling the MHCS disability sub-scale score as a function of the CDP
score, ATDP-A score, and age of LEO.
Response to non-hate crime scenarios. A crime scenario was included in each
protected category that did not include indicators of a bias crime. There were a total of
five crime scenarios that were not hate crimes. A separate sub-category consisting of
these items was formed for the purpose of analysis. The non-bias crime scenarios were
rated markedly lower on the scale compared to the bias crime items (M= 10.17, SD =
4.67, Range = 5 to 31) (See Figure 4.1). The ANOVA indicated a significant interaction
across all categories, including the non-hate items F(5,1096) = 589.26, p > .001.
Levene's test was significant F(5,1096) = 17.51, p > .001 indicating the assumption of
equal variances had been violated. Tamhane's test was used to correct for the violation
and the mean score difference between non-hate items and the five sub-scales were
significant <.001. These results are consistent with the pilot study results for the same
items and provided evidence of the discriminant-validity of participant responses to the
instrument.
The non-hate crime items were removed from the analysis when the ANOVA's for
subsequent analyses were performed. The initial purpose of the non-hate crime items was
to establish LEO's ability to discriminate between hate crime and non-hate crime items.
Once established, the items were eliminated from the sub-scale scores for each protected
category. The aim of the study was to look for variability across similar items. It was
believed the non-hate crime items would introduce unnecessary variability into the
subscales. Therefore, no other analysis in this study included the non-hate crime items.
Two-way ANOVA. A 5 x 2 two-way (repeated measures) ANOVA was conducted
to evaluate the effect of five protected category and gender on law enforcement officer
Table 4.1: Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores
Source df F rp2 p
Between subjects
Category 4 25.15 .10 .001*
Gender 1 17.79 .02 .001*
Category X Gender 4 .73 <.01 .570
S within-group 893 (19.77)
error
Note: Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. rp2 denotes partial eta squared. An
asterisk indicates significant results p <.01.
MHCS scores. The ANOVA indicated no significant interaction between protected
category and gender F(4,893) = .733, p > .05, partial eta square (rip2) = .003, but
significant main effects for protected category F(4,893) = 25.15, p < .001, rip2 = .10, and
gender, F(1,893) = 17.79, p < .001, rip2 = .02 (See Table 4.1). The multiple correlation
coefficient squared or R2 is a measure of the strength of relationship. The multiple
correlation coefficient squared for the 5 x 2 two-way ANOVA model was R2 = .29 and
the adjusted R2 for the model was adjusted R2 = .28.
A Levene's test of unequal variance was conducted to determine whether the
assumption of equal error variance had been violated. Levene's test was significant
F(9,893) = 9.87, p < .001 indicating the assumption had been violated concluding the
error variance is not equal across groups. A one-way ANOVA was conducted for
protected category and gender separately to explore whether the violation of equal
variance occurred in both analyses.
Research Questions
Research question #1: Does law enforcement officer level of agreement with hate
crime classification vary across protected category?
Differences in responses across protected category. As stated previously, the main
effect of protected category was significant F(4,893) = 25.15, p < .001, lp2 = .10 (See
Table 4.1). The results of the one way ANOVA for protected category was also
significant, F(4,913) = 83.64, p < .001 (See Table 4.2). The rp2 is a measure of effect size
or strength of relationship. It is a measure of variance that is uniquely accounted for by a
particular variable:
ip2 = SSeffect / (SSeffect + SSerror)
The effect size for protected category was moderate-large lp2 = .10 (Pallant, 2005)
Table 4.2: One-way Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by
Protected Category
Source df F rlp2 p
Between subjects
Category 4 83.64 .27 .001*
S within-group 913 (20.41)
error
Note: Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors lp2 denotes partial eta squared. An
asterisk indicates significant results p <.01
A Levene's test of unequal variance was conducted to determine whether the assumption
of equal error variances had been violated. Levene's test for protected categories was
significant F(4,913) = 22.56, p < .001 indicating the assumption had been violated and
the error variance is not equal across groups.
The violation of equal variance assumption was addressed in two ways: first, the
large sample size functions to counteract the effects of the assumption on the type I error
rate, and second, post-hoc analyses were chosen to take the violation into account. The
Tamhane test is considered one of the more conservative tests when the equal error
variance assumption has been violated (Green & Salkind, 2003) and adjusts the degrees
of freedom to account for the violation. For the multiple comparison tests, the difference
between the mean disability sub-scale score and that for race, religion, and sexual
orientation was statistically significant p < .001. The difference between disability and
gender was not statistically significant.
Participants taking the Modified Hate Crime Survey (MHCS) agreed with
categorizing a crime as a bias crime less often when the crime was committed against a
person with a disability (M= 26.32, SD = 5.13, Range = 8 to 35, 95% CI25.57 to 27.07),
than when the bias crime scenario was committed against a person because of sexual
orientation (M= 28.79, SD= 4.40, Range = 16 to 35, 95% CI28.15 to 29.43), religion (M
= 31.00, SD = 3.76, Range = 14 to 35, 95% CI 38.52 to 23.48), or race (M= 32.86, SD =
3.07, Range = 20 to 35, 95% CI 32.42 to 33.31). The mean response for gender was
similar to disability in terms of mean score, variability and range of responses (M=
25.68, SD = 5.72, Range = 9 to 35, 95% CI 24.85 to 26.52). (See Figure 4.1)
non hate- -
religion- 6.20
0
o
sex orient -
S gender-
0
race-
disability-
I I I I I I I
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Mean Score
Note: Values on solid line in center of the box represent mean score of the
subscale, the box represents one standard deviation from the mean, and the line or
"whisker" represents the 95% confidence band. The protected categories are religion
(religion), sexual orientation (sex orient), gender (gender), race (race), and disability
(disability). The non-hate crime item category (non-hate) is not a protected category.
Those items that did not have bias crime indicators were separated into a separate
category to illustrate the LEO ability to distinguish between items with and without bias
crime indicators.
Figure 4.1: Mean MHCS Subscale Score by Protected Category
Table 4.3: One-way Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Gender
Source df F rp2 p
Between subjects
Gender 1 12.97 .01 .001*
S within-group 901 (27.04)
error
Note: Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. rp2 denotes partial eta squared. An
asterisk indicates significant results p <.01
The mean score for each of the subscales corresponds to the following point on the
seven-point scale: race, 6.6, religion, 6.2, sexual orientation, 5.8, disability, 5.3, and
gender, 5.1. (See Figure 4.1) It is noteworthy that the same trend noted with mean scores
was evident with the variability in the data with the exception of disability and gender,
which were reversed: race (SD = 3.067), religion (SD = 3.790), sexual orientation (SD =
4.399), disability (SD = 5.139) and gender (SD = 5.690) (See Figure 4.1).
Research question #2: Does law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with
hate crime classification vary by gender?
Differences across gender. The 5 x 2 ANOVA was significant for gender, F(1,893)
= 17.79, p < .001, rp2 = .02 (See Table 4.1). The one-way ANOVA for gender was also
significant, F(1,901) = 12.97, p < .001, p2 = .01 (See Table 4.3). The effect size for
gender was small rp2 = .02 (Pallant, 2005). The Levene test was significant F(1,901) =
7.78, p < .05 indicating the assumption of equal variance was violated.
Research question #3: Is there an interaction between protected category and
gender on law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate crime
enhancement?
The 5 x 2 two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether an interaction
existed between protected category and gender. The ANOVA for gender X category
interaction was not significant F(4,893) = .73, p >.05. (See Figure 4.2) (See Table 4.1)
Research question #4: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities, and
contact with persons with disabilities provide predictive ability for law
enforcement officers' agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with
disabilities?
It was hypothesized that age, contact with people with disabilities, and attitudes
toward people with disabilities would provide some prediction of the MHCS subscale
score for disability.
Table 4.4: Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Level of
Agreement with Bias Crime Enhancement (N = 166)
Variable
Age
CDP Score
ATDP-A
-.006
.041
.038
SE B
.045
.033
.019
-.010
.097
.159
Note: R2 for the multiple regression model was .041 and the adjusted R2 was .023.
Table 4.5: Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Race, Gender,
Race X Gender
Source df F rp2 p
Between subjects
Race 1 2.96 <.01 .086
Gender 1 3.07 <.01 .080
Race X Gender 1 .11 <.01 .744
S within-group 1074 (75.18)
error
Note: Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors rp2 reported is a partial eta squared.
Where y = predicted MHCS-Disability subscale score, a = the intercept, 1 = the slope for
ATDP-A score, 12 = the slope for the CDP score, and 3 = the slope for age. The model
was not significant F(3,162) = 2.29, p >.05 (See Table 4.4) (See Figure 4.3). The MHCS-
disability subscale score prediction equation including the three predictor variables is as
follows: PredictedMHCS-disability subscale score = 19.66 [Age (.01)] + [CDP (.04)]
+ [ATDP-A (.04)]. The unstandardized regression equation allows prediction of the
MHCS Disability Subscale score from the three predictor variables used in the present
study. The multiple correlation coefficient squared or R2 is a measure of the strength of
relationship. The multiple correlation coefficient squared for the multiple regression
model was R2 = .04 and the adjusted R2 for the model was adjusted R2 = .02.
Additional Analyses
Variation of Mean Scores Across Protected Category for Race and Gender
It appeared from examining the data that a relationship existed between race and
gender with regard to MHCS subscale mean scores. Additional analyses were necessary
to determine whether the observed differences were significant.
A 2 X 2, two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether the mean level of
agreement with bias crime enhancement depended on gender and race. The ANOVA
indicated no significant interaction between gender and race F(1,1074) = .107, p > .05, no
significant main effects for gender F(1,1074) = 3.07,p >.05, or race, F(1,1074) = 2.96, p
>.05 (See Table 4.5).
Variation of Mean Scores Across Severity of Crime and Type of Crime Indicator
As reported in Chapter 3, the crime scenarios were balanced with regard to severity
of crime. The scale was modified so that each protected category had two crime scenarios
in the very heinous category and at least one item in each of the heinous and somewhat
heinous categories with the exception of religion, which has three items in the somewhat
heinous category. The pattern of severity that emerged from the expert panel was as
follows: 1) murder and rape were considered "very heinous", 2) assault/battery and
physical harm were considered "heinous", and 3) verbal threats, name calling and graffiti,
were considered somewhat heinous. This includes the MHCS items where bias crime
indicators were intentionally removed.
A one way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether MHCS mean scores
varied across severity of crime and the results were significant F(2,547) = 40.97, p >.001,
rp2 = .13. (See Table 4.6). The Levene statistic for the model was not significant
indicating the assumption of equal variances was not violated. Post-hoc comparisons
were conducted with Bonferroni correction to control the group-wise error rate. The
mean score difference between property damage and verbal threats (M= 6.23, SD = .79)
and both the physical harm items (M= 5.51, SD = .87) and the murder/rape/torture items
(M= 5.62, SD = .79) was significant < .001. The difference between the physical harm
and murder/rape/torture items was not significant.
Crime scenarios were also balanced with regard to type of bias crime symbols at
the crime scene. Each protected category includes one item where the offender is a
member of a hate group, one scenario where graffiti or bias symbols are present at the
crime scene and three scenarios where bias language is used verbally or in writing. There
is one exception to this rule. The religion category has two crime scenarios where bias
symbols are present and no indicators where the perpetrators were members of a hate
group.Table 4.6: One-way Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by
Severity of Crime
Source df F rlp2 p
Between subjects
Severity 2 40.97 .13 .001*
S within-group 547 (.67)
error
Note: Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors rp,2 reported is a partial eta squared. An
asterisk indicates significant results p <.01
Table 4.7: One-way Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Bias
Crime Indicator
Source df F rlp2 p
Between subjects
Indicator 2 68.65 .20 .001*
S within-group 547 (.90)
error
Note: 1) Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors 2) rp2 reported is a partial eta
squared. An asterisk indicates significant results p <.01
A one way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether mean scores varied
across type of crime indicator and the results were significant F(2,547) = 68.65, p >.001,
rp2 = .20 (See Table 4.7). The Levene statistic for the model was significant indicating
the assumption of equal variances was violated. Post-hoc comparisons were conducted
with the Tamhane test to control for the violation of equal variance assumption. The
mean score for language (M= 6.19, SD = .76) was significantly different < .001 from
both bias symbols (M= 5.14, SD = .98) and the hate group membership of the perpetrator
(M= 5.24, SD = 1.08). The difference between the bias symbols and group membership
items was not significant (See Table 4.7).
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Summary
People with disabilities have been subjected to negative attitudes, prejudice and
discrimination throughout history. Evidence of this lies in the fact that PWD experience
abject poverty, employment discrimination, and crime victimization at rates greater than
the general population. The number of hate crimes reported for PWD is surprisingly
much lower than other protected categories, a trend inconsistent with prejudicial
treatment that often occurs in other areas of their lives. If the investigation of a hate crime
involving a victim with a disability is subjected to the same forms of prejudicial
treatment, the lower than expected number of hate crimes reported could be the result of
underreporting. One possible explanation for underreporting of hate crimes is if law
enforcement officers fail to recognize the elements of a hate crime.
1. It has been the goal of this research to determine whether a law enforcement officer
is less likely to agree with the bias enhancement of a crime if the victim is a person
with a disability compared to other protected classes. To that end, the Hate Crime
Survey instrument (Miller, 2001) was modified to include scenarios of bias crimes
committed against PWD. The MHCS instrument was administered to 184 sworn
and certified law enforcement officers employed by the Alachua County Sheriff s
department. The following is a summary of specific findings:
2. The mean score for level of agreement with endorsement of bias crime
classification appears to be influenced by protected category. The mean score
among LEO's was significantly lower for crimes committed against a person
because of a disability than for crimes committed because of the victim's race,
religion, or sexual orientation. In addition, the variability in the data was greater for
disability, gender and sexual orientation categories compared to the race and
religion categories. The difference in level of agreement among law enforcement
officers was not significant between disability and gender. Protected category
accounted for 10% of the variance in the data. The partial eta squared of .10 is
conservatively regarded as a medium to large effect size (Green & Salkind, 2003).
Although the difference between disability and race, religion, and sexual
orientation is statistically significant, it is important to comment on the practical
significance of the difference. The mean score for the disability sub-scale
corresponds to a 5.1 on the 7 point scale, which places the mean score on the
agreement half of the scale. Therefore, although the extent of agreement is less, the
mean score is closer to agreement with bias crime categorization than non-
agreement. Additionally, the seven point scale was useful in detecting small
variations in the agreement with bias crime categorization but it is unclear how that
translates into differences in decision-making in the field.
3. Overall MHCS score appears to be influenced by gender. Although this finding is
consistent with the results found by Miller (2001), it should be interpreted with
caution. The assumption of equal variance was violated and the sample size for
females (n=12) was substantially smaller than for males (n= 161). Although the
trend in this study was for females to rate crime scenarios higher than males,
gender accounted for only 2% of the variance in the data, which is considered a
small effect size (Green & Salkind, 2003).
4. There does not appear to be a protected category X gender interaction. The
category by gender interaction in the ANOVA model was not significant > .05.
Although an interaction does not exist, it is important to point out that the ANOVA
model including both gender and protected category as factors accounted for 28%
of the variance in the data.
5. Attitudes towards persons with disabilities, age, and contact with people with
disabilities does not appear to contribute any information towards the prediction of
MHCS-disability subscale score. However, the lack of significance could be an
issue of power. The regression model required 240 subjects to have sufficient
power .80 to detect a small effect size. 184 LEO's consented to participate in this
study. However, due to missing data, the total sample for the multiple regression
model was N = 166.
6. The mean law enforcement officer attitude towards people with disabilities was
higher than expected given the literature on contact and attitude. The nature of the
relationship between a LEO and a PWD is that of unequal status. Therefore, it
would be hypothesized that police officer attitudes would be more negative because
the nature of the relationship is not consistent with Allport's (1954) criteria for the
formation of positive attitudes (Amir, 1969; Dixon et. al., 2005) and is consistent
with other professions where negative attitudes have been reported in the literature
(Wills, 1978). The mean attitude score on a scale of 0 to 180 was 126 (M= 126, SD
= 21.48) with 95% CI of the scores between 84 and 168.
7. The MHCS mean score appears to vary as a function of severity of crime and type
of bias crime indicators present. The results showed that damage to property and
threats (the least severe of the crimes) had a significantly higher mean score than
the more severe categories of physical harm, rape, torture, and murder.
Additionally, means scores for crime scenarios with bias language were
significantly higher than for crime scenes with bias symbols of an individual's
membership in a hate group. One officer, in a post-survey discussion, indicated that
items involving language often convey the intent of the perpetrator. For example,
bias symbols and group membership may be indicators of a bias crime but in order
to build a case to prove motive, it's necessary to have proof of intent. This supports
the discussion on Apprendi v. New Jersey in terms of the increased burden to prove
motivation when building a case for sentence enhancement.
Discussion
The major aim of this study was to determine whether law enforcement officer
agreement with bias crime enhancement would vary as a function of protected category.
Moreover, the study attempted to isolate some of the variables that might account for the
variation in MHCS disability sub-scale scores. Several interesting patterns emerged from
the data. 1) The strongest agreement with bias crime enhancement was for race and
religion followed by sexual orientation, and lastly gender and disability; 2) the variability
in the data was smallest for the race category, followed by religion, sexual orientation,
gender and disability, in that order; 3) mean scores tended to be higher for females than
for males; 4) Attitudes towards people with disabilities, age and contact does not allow
for any prediction of the variance of crime scenarios in the disability category.Agreement
ii i/h bias crime enhancement. Findings of this study suggest that law enforcement officer
agreement to enhance a crime as a bias crime may vary depending on the victim's
membership in a protected class. Specifically, law enforcement officers may perceive
bias crime indicators differently if the victim was chosen because of his or her disability
or because of gender compared to race, religion, and sexual orientation. Conversely,
officer agreement with bias enhancement may be higher for protected classes such as
race, religion, and sexual orientation. There are several explanations that may account for
the variability in the data across protected categories, including: 1) law enforcement
officers' may have greater exposure to hate crimes committed against people in protected
classes other than persons with disabilities; 2) Gender and race trends; 3) the theory that
persons with disabilities are often perceived by others as victims and helpless. As a result,
crimes against persons with disabilities are often considered crimes of opportunity rather
than bias crimes, and 4) The psychometric properties of the MHCS instrument.
Increased exposure. There are several possible explanations to explain why LEO's may
have greater exposure to hate crimes committed against people in protected classes other
than PWD. 1) The number of hate crimes reported each year is largest for race, followed
by religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity and disability, in that order. Given the fact that
hate crimes based on race are reported more often, it is reasonable that LEO's have more
experience with race based hate crimes than with other categories, and may therefore tend
to recognize the elements of hate crimes or bias indicators more often for crimes
committed against victims in those categories. 2) Race, religion, and ethnicity were
included in the first congressional hearings on hate crime in 1985 (McPhail, 2002).
However, between 1985 and the passing of the act in 1990, the influence of gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgendered (GLBT) organizations prompted congressional hearings on
anti-gay violence, which resulted in sexual orientation being included in the passing of
the Act in 1990. Although sexual orientation was included in the initial passing of the act
in 1990, anti-gay violence was introduced in the discussions later than race, religion and
ethnic violence (McPhail, 2002). Disability was included in the Hate Crime Statistics Act
7 years after the initial passing of the Act. Although gender isn't included in the Act, it is
recognized as a protected category in bias crime legislation in approximately 20 states
and advocates lobbied for the inclusion of gender at the time disability was included.
Moreover, individuals who opposed the inclusion of gender in federal hate crime
legislation referenced the fact that perpetrators of gender based crimes are often known to
the victim, a characteristic shared by perpetrators of crimes against people with
disabilities. The late entry of discussions on disability and gender as protected categories
results in decreased exposure to discussions for those protected classes. Further, the
information LEO's receive may be misinformation. For example, the fact that the
perpetrator-victim relationship is often used as a reason for non-inclusion might function
to reinforce biases, which in turn may result in a LEO's resistance to classify an incident
as a hate crime. 3). Historical evidence of race, religion and sexual orientation-based hate
crimes has been prominently reflected in media coverage for those crimes. For example,
in 1998, James Byrd, an African American, was tied to a car and dragged to his death in
Jasper, Texas. In the same year, Matthew Shephard, a homosexual male, was beaten to
death in Laramie, Wyoming. The Byrd and Shephard case received widespread media
coverage, with good reason. However, in the same year, the Department of Justice
received 23 reports of hate crimes committed against a person because of disability.
Three of the cases were reported from the state of Texas. Yet none of these stories were
reported in the media.
The proportion of crimes reported in the race, religion and sexual orientation
categories, the late inclusion of disability in the federal legislation, and lack of media
coverage may all have resulted in LEO's receiving less exposure to disability motivated
hate crimes and the characteristics associated with them. If true, LEO's may have less
knowledge about hate crimes against persons with disabilities and less experience
working with a crime victim with a disability.
Gender and race trends It appears that females scores on the MHCS overall were
higher than for their male counterparts. Although the difference was significant, the small
effect size and the lack of significant with gender x category interaction offer little
support for further exploration of gender. Additionally, it appears that there is not a
significant difference between Caucasian and non-Caucasian participants.
Persons i/h disabilities perceived by as victims. It has been suggested that people
with disabilities may be perceived as victims (McMahon, et. al., 2004; Sorensen, 2001).
McMahon et. al. reported that disability experts attribute the perception of vulnerability
of people with disabilities as a possible explanation for the low number of reported hate
crimes. If people with disabilities are perceived as vulnerable or victims, the process of
LEO's determining whether the perpetrator was motivated by actuarial reasons or animus
becomes increasingly more difficult.A bias crime is one that is committed in whole or in
part by the offender's bias. However, the process of gathering information to prove the
perpetrator acted out of animus becomes increasingly more difficult if there are multiple
motivations. Therefore, even if there are bias indicators at a crime scene involving a
person with a disability, having elements of both bias and actuarial motivation could
make the bias indicators seem ambiguous. As a matter of course, the other motivating
factors may become the salient feature of the investigation. Although there is evidence
that perpetrators of hate crimes may have multiple motivations for committing the
criminal act (McPhail, 2002) the complexity of multiple perpetrator motivation may
influence LEO decision-making more if they believe a person with a disability cannot be
the victim of a hate crime. Conversely, LEO's may focus more on the aspects of a crime
scene that supports the belief that PWD are victims of actuarial crimes because of their
vulnerability. From a practical standpoint, if evidence of hate crime motivation must be
robust for a prosecuting attorney to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, the
complexity of multiple motivations may make proving hate motivation difficult. This
may explain why the highest agreement with hate crime enhancement was for crime
scenarios involving bias language because it conveyed the intent of the perpetrator.
The MHCS instrument Another possible explanation for the variability in the data is the
modification of the MHCS instrument. The scenarios were modified to ensure that they
were balanced with regard to the number and type of bias crime indicators and severity of
the crime. However, the reliability of the sub-scales was lower than ideal with the
disability subscale having an internal consistency of a =.61. With a large portion of the
variability resulting from error, further exploration is needed to determine what other
factors contribute to LEO decision-making. It is possible that balancing the crime
scenarios with regard to bias crime indicators resulted in the disability and gender items
lacking face validity. For example, MHCS item #5, "A Caucasian woman is found raped
and murdered and covered in a flag that is painted with the word bitch" was modified
from the original version "A woman is found raped and murdered" to include graffiti at
the crime scene. However, that graffiti may not correspond well to actual bias crimes
committed against a women. The item mean (M= 3.59, SD = 2.12) was considerably
lower than the scale mean (M= 5.13, SD = 1.71) for gender.
Another component of the instrument that may account for the variability is the
apparent ceiling effect for the race and religion subscales. Although one possible
explanation for the lower amount of variability with these subscales is more confidence
in rating crime scenarios falling in these protected classes, it can also be a function of a
|
| Full Text |
|
PAGE 1
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS E NDORSEMENT OF THE BIAS CATEGORIZATION OF CRIME SCENARIOS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DISABILITY AND OTHER PROTECTED CATEGORIES By FRANK J. LANE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006
PAGE 2
Copyright 2006 by Frank J. Lane
PAGE 3
History will have to record that the greates t tragedy of this peri odwas not the vitriolic words and violent actions of the bad people but the appalling silenc e and indifference of the good people Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This dissertation is dedi cated to all people with disabilities who have been the victim of a crime--may the words contained on these pages serve as a voice.
PAGE 4
iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I extend my thanks to Sheriff Stephen M. Oelrich and the law enforcement officer participants from the Alachua County Sheri ffs department. Without these individuals this research would not have been possible. I am very fortunate to have conducted my doctoral studies at the University of Florida. I am grateful to the members of my committee, Drs. Linda Shaw, Mary Ellen Young, David Miller, Michael Scicchitano, and St even Pruett, each of who have provided valuable direction, criticism and support along my journey. I am forever indebted to Michael Scicchittano who opened a door and ma de it possible to survey law enforcement officers, thereby enhancing the quality and rele vance of this study. I am also grateful to Mary Ellen Young who ultimatel y recruited me to the reha bilitation science doctoral program. Her work on abuse of women with disabilities established an important foundation for research on crime against people with disabilities in the United States. I owe many thanks to Steven Pruett whose fr iendship and mentoring was always available during some of my darkest hours. His knowle dge of attitudes and philosophy have been most useful in developing my thoughts on the topic of hate crimes against people with disabilities. I am particularly indebted to Dr. Linda Shaw, my advisor, mentor and colleague. Her guidance, support, and example have func tioned to keep me motivated and grounded during this research project. Her patience, gene rosity, passion, and work ethic have made her an ideal supervisor. I am looki ng forward to future collaborations.
PAGE 5
v I am grateful to Dr. Brian McMahon for hi s foresight and wisdom in showing us a dark area in the lives of peopl e with disabilities that had to be brought into the light. I owe most of my interest and passion in the area of attitudes to my late grandmother, Cecelia Sorbera. Her stories a bout the struggles faced by Italian immigrants while attempting to learn, work, and participat e in society particul arly, how her father, Joseph Morelli, died of pneumonia from working long hours digging tunnels in the subway system in Boston, leaving her family without the means to support themselves helped to illuminate the importance of wo rkers compensation laws in the early 1900s. The courage and tenacity of my ancestors to transcend the attitudina l barriers of their time serves to inspire and motivate my work during frustrating times. To my parents, Marie and Jerry, for thei r constant support and belief in me, I am grateful to you both. To my sister, Johanna, whose interest in my work and thoughts on the subject never cease to expand my awareness. To my best friend Rayford Riels who sa t alone through many Ga tor tennis matches at Scott Linder Stadium while I was writi ng. Thank you for your friendship and sacrifice while I pursued this goal. Finally, yet the most, I would like to th ank my partner, Robbie Parish, and our daughter Sophia. Without your tolerance, suppor t, dedication, sacrifice, and unwavering love the completion of this degree woul d not have been possible. I love you.
PAGE 6
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................4 Significance of the Study..............................................................................................6 Overview of the Literature............................................................................................8 Research Questions.....................................................................................................10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................12 Theoretical Background..............................................................................................12 Human Rights......................................................................................................12 Natural law...................................................................................................13 Humans as social beings..............................................................................14 Social justice................................................................................................16 Equality and bias..........................................................................................17 Crime...................................................................................................................18 Crime and protected classes.........................................................................20 Crime and people with disabilities...............................................................21 Attitudes..............................................................................................................25 Definition of attitude....................................................................................26 Attitude and behavior...................................................................................26 Attitudes towards persons with disabilities..................................................31 Contact Theory.............................................................................................33 Bias Crime...........................................................................................................35 What is a bias crime?...................................................................................35 Why bias crime is more serious...................................................................37 Realistic conflict...........................................................................................38 Relative deprivation.....................................................................................38 Social identity...............................................................................................38 Social learning..............................................................................................39
PAGE 7
vii Psychodynamic.............................................................................................39 Perpetrators of Bias Crime..................................................................................43 Bias Crime Reporting..........................................................................................44 Victim Selection..................................................................................................45 Problems with Bias Crime Data..........................................................................45 Bias Crime and People with Disabilities.............................................................47 Bias Crime and Gender.......................................................................................50 Vulnerability as a Negative Attitude...................................................................52 Summary and Conclusion...........................................................................................52 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................57 Research Questions.....................................................................................................57 Research Design.........................................................................................................57 Participants.................................................................................................................57 Instruments.................................................................................................................58 The Modified Hate Crime Survey.......................................................................59 Attitudes toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP)..............................................64 Contact with Disabled Persons Scale (CDP).......................................................66 Demographic Questionnaire................................................................................67 Data Collection Procedure..........................................................................................68 Data Analysis..............................................................................................................69 Analysis Related to Research Questions One, Two, and Three..........................69 Analysis Related to Re search Question Four......................................................69 Limitations..................................................................................................................70 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................71 Research Questions.....................................................................................................74 Research question #1: Does law enforcement officer level of agreement with hate crime classification vary across protected category?...............................74 Research question #2: Does law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate crime classifi cation vary by gender?................................................77 Research question #3: Is there an inte raction between protected category and gender on law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate crime enhancement?.........................................................................................78 Research question #4: Does age, attit udes towards persons with disabilities, and contact with persons with disabil ities provide predictive ability for law enforcement officers agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with disabilities?..............................................................................................78 Additional Analyses....................................................................................................80 Variation of Mean Scores Across Prot ected Category for Race and Gender......80 Variation of Mean Scores Across Seve rity of Crime and Type of Crime Indicator...........................................................................................................80
PAGE 8
viii 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION...........................................................................83 Summary.....................................................................................................................83 Discussion...................................................................................................................85 Limitations..................................................................................................................92 Recommendations for Future Research......................................................................93 Implications for Practice and Education.....................................................................96 Conclusion..................................................................................................................98 APPENDIX A MODIFIED HATE CRIME SURVEY....................................................................100 B DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE....................................................................104 C ATTITUDE TOWARDS DISA BLED PERSONS SCALE.....................................106 D CONTACT WITH DISABL ED PERSONS SCALE...............................................109 E ASSESSMENT OF HEINOUSNESS SURVEY.....................................................111 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................115 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................126
PAGE 9
ix LIST OF TABLES Table page 4.1 Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores........................................73 4.2 One-way Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Protected Category...................................................................................................................74 4.3 One-way Analysis of Variance for M ean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Gender......77 4.4 Summary of Multiple Regression Analys is for Variables Predicting Level of Agreement with Bias Crime Enhancement (N = 166).............................................78 4.5 Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Race, Gender, Race X Gender..................................................................................................................79 4.7 One-way Analysis of Variance for M ean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Bias Crime Indicator........................................................................................................82
PAGE 10
x Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ENDORSEMENT OF THE BIAS CATEGORIZATION OF CRIME SCENARIOS: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DISABILITY AND OTHER PROTECTED CATEGORIES By Frank J. Lane August 2006 Chair: Linda R. Shaw Major Department: Rehabilitation Science People with disabilities were included in the Hate Crime Statistics Act in 1996. Data available for the 7 years since inclus ion in the act document 199 cases of bias crimes committed against an individual because of his or her disability status. Odds ratio analyses reveals that a person with a disabili ty is 150 times less likel y to be the victim of a bias crime than for race. The disproportiona tely lower incidence of bias crimes for people with disabilities is surprising consid ering people with disa bilities experience a 70% unemployment rate, live in poverty at a rate 2-3 times greater than the general population, and are victims of crime at a rate as high as 10 times the general population. This research study modified a Hate Cr ime Survey that consisted of crimes scenarios from each of four protected categor ies to include crimes scenarios where the victim was a person with a disability. The survey was administered to 184 law enforcement officers along with the Attitudes Towards Disabled Persons (ATDP) scale,
PAGE 11
xi the Contact with Disabled Persons (CDP) s cale, and a brief demographic survey. The data were analyzed using a two-way, repeated measures ANOVA and a multiple regression analysis. The results of the study show that an individuals me mbership in a protected category and law enforcement officer attitude towards people with disabilities contributes to a law enforcement officers agreement with classifying a crime as a hate crime. Future research studies should seek to expand the sc ope of the study and replicate results in addition to exploring the effect of law enforcement officer tr aining on the investigation of hate crimes committed against people with disabilities.
PAGE 12
1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Persons with disabilities re present the largest single minority group in the United States. Approximately 54 million Americans, or 20% of the United States population, have a disability (National Council on Disa bility, 2000). It is anticipated that the proportion of persons with disabilities will increase as the population ages (National Council on Disability, 2000). US Census proj ected population data shows an increasing trend in the proportion of indivi duals of retirement age, age 65 and up. Specifically, it is anticipated that by the year 2030, approximate ly 20% of the United States population will be retirees, compared to 12.5% currently (U .S. Census Bureau, 2004). Considering that approximately 50% of persons over the age of 65 report various health impairments, the proportion of people with disabilities in the United States will increase exponentially. Some of the problems experienced by people wi th disabilities include the highest rate of unemployment (National Organization on Disabi lity, 2003), abject poverty at a rate 2-3 times greater than the general population (N ational Organization on Disability), and crime victimization at a rate 2-10 times grea ter than the general population and for longer periods of time (Baladerian, 1991; Hiday, Swartz, Swanson, Borum, & Wagner, 1999; Nosek, Howland, Rintala, Young, & Chanpong., 1997; Sobsey & Doe, 1991; Sullivan & Knutson, 1998). As a result, the problems faced by people with disabilities will be augmented on a national level as the population ages. Persons with disabilities (PWD) experien ce a 68% unemployment rate, as a group
PAGE 13
2 (National Organization on Disa bility, 2003). Only 32% of pe rsons with disabilities are employed on a full-time or part-time basi s compared to 81% of people without a disability (National Organizat ion on Disability) and more people with disabilities are working in part-time employment without benefits (National Council on Disability, 2000). In addition to the low rate of employment, people with disabilities are 2-3 times more likely to live in poverty (National Or ganization on Disabilit y, 2003). Individuals with disabilities live with higher levels of poverty, 29% versus 10% in the general population (National Council on Disability, 2000) and persons with seve re disabilities are three times more likely (33%) to live at or below the poverty line ( $15,000 or less) than a person without a disability (10%) (Nati onal Organization on Di sability). The 2004 Progress Report on National Disability Policy estimates that approximately 40% of the persons receiving Temporary Assistance fo r Needy Families (TANF), also known as Welfare, during 2003-2004 had a disability (National Council on Disability, 2004). The same report projected the per centage to be much higher pr esently. Because persons with disabilities often reside in poverty, they are forced to live in low income neighborhoods (Burger & Youkeles, 2004). Low income nei ghborhoods are often associated with higher rates of crime (Burger & Youkeles). It is suggested in the literature that peopl e with disabilities are victims of crime at a rate that is higher than the general population; some cons ervative estimates suggest the rate is between 2-3 times higher while others suggest the rate is as much as 10 times higher (Baladerian, 2001; Hiday et al., 1999; Sobsey & Doe, 1991; Sullivan & Knutson, 1998). Moreover, people with disabilities expe rience victimization a nd abuse for longer
PAGE 14
3 periods of time (Nosek et al., 1997). Although the rate of crime committed against people with disabilities is estimated to be considerably higher than the general population, a study conducted in Boston, Massachusetts es timated that approximately 5% of the perpetrators of crimes agains t persons with disabilities are prosecuted compared to a 70% prosecution rate for the genera l population (Mishra, 2001). He reported that some of the reasons provided for the alarmingly low prosecuti on rate of perpetrators of crimes against people with disabilities include: (1) poli ce are concerned abou t how people with disabilities will hold up in c ourt; (2) police believe that people with disabilities have poor memories and do not comprehend the importa nce of telling the tr uth; (3) prosecutors are concerned that juries w ill disregard the testimony of a person with a disability; and (4) victims with disabilities may embellis h their accounts to the police. Mishras contentions that people with disabilities are believed to have poor memories and do not comprehend the importance of telling th e truth was supported by Bailey, Barr, and Bunting (2001). The belief that people with disabilities may embe llish their accounts to the police was initially proposed by research ers at the Roeher Institute (1993). People with disabilities were included as a protected category in the Hate Crime Statistics Act in 1997 (McMahon, West, Lewi s, Armstrong, & Conway, 2004). Since that time, the number of hate crimes reported to the FBI where the victim was chosen because of his or her disability stat us has been remarkably low. A recent study (McMahon et al.) of hate crimes reported between 1997 and 2002 concluded that a person with a disability is 350 times less likely to be the victim of a hate crime than if the victim was African American (McMahon et al.). It is possible that people with disabilities simply are not victims of hate or bias crime at a rate comp arable to other protected categories. However,
PAGE 15
4 if the reported rates are accura te indications, hate crimes re present less than one half of one percent of the crimes committed against people with disabilities (McMahon et al.). This statistic, although possible, is unlikel y given the estimates of general crime committed against people with disabilities. This chapter will include: (1) the context of bias crimes committed against people with disabilities; (2) a statement of th e research problem and discussion of its significance; (3) a brief overview of the li terature; (4) how the proposed research will address at least one of the theories propos ed by McMahon et al.(2004); and (5) research questions to be answered. Statement of the Problem Its possible that people with disabilities are victims of bias crimes at a substantially lower rate than other protected groups. Althoug h possible, the examples of discrimination discussed previous ly contribute to disability th eorists suggesting that this is an unlikely explanation (McMahon et al., 2004). Mertons four f actors that influence crime reporting can be used to conceptualize the points at which alte rnative explanations can be considered (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). Robert Merton, a criminologist, used the te rm successive layers of error to describe the problems associated with docum enting and collecting records of crime from law enforcement (Bureau of Justice Statis tics, 2000). McDevitt ca tegorized Mertons components of error into four categories: 1) factors wh ich discourage victims from reporting, 2) factors which affect police deci sion making, 3) political influences which affect agency crime reporting, and 4) legislat ive differences in determining the type of offense (Bureau of Justice Statistics).
PAGE 16
5 Barriers to hate crime reporting can be further compartmentalized into two categories: 1) individual inhi bitors, and 2) police disinc entives (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). Individual inhibitors c onsist of factors that affect a persons willingness and likelihood of contacting law enforcement (Bureau of Justice Statistics, p.34). Police disincentives consist of department al or personal factors, which interfere with accurate law enforcement identification or recording of a bias crime (Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 34). Indi vidual inhibitors and police di sincentives are of particular concern when exploring possible explanations for why crimes committed against persons with disabilities go unreporte d. These two categories of f actors that affect victim reporting and police decision making will be examined more closely. Factors that affect whether a victim re ports a crime or individual inhibitors, include: 1) the victims awareness that a crime has been committed (Block, 1974); 2) the victims belief that the cr ime is serious enough to warrant law enforcement attention (Gove, Hughes, & Geerken, 1985); 3) The vict ims belief that law enforcement can do something about the crime, including the victims confidence in law enforcement (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000; Gove et al., 1985); and 4) the victims relationship to the perpetrator (Bureau of Justice Statistics). It has been suggested that the ability of people with di sabilities to comprehend the criminal act (McMahon et al., 2004), community resources (McMahon et al.), and mistrust that the criminal justice system will investigate, arrest and prosecute perpetrators (Mishra, 2001) function as individual inhi bitors to reporting a crime. Additionally, reporting might be affected by the fact that pe rpetrators of crimes against persons with disabilities are often family members, nei ghbors, and persons with whom the individual
PAGE 17
6 is acquainted because of their disabil ity (Baladerian, 2001; Sobsey & Doe, 1991). Clearly, underreporting by a victim with a disa bility is a valid concern not just from the perspective of disability rights activ ists but criminologists, as well. The second category consists of police disi ncentives or those f actors that affect police decision making. These f actors consist of: 1) whethe r the officer has sufficient evidence to indicate a crime has been comm itted; 2) whether the victim wishes to formally have the perpetrator ch arged; 3) the seriousness of th e crime; and 4) the level of professionalism of the depa rtment (Gove et al., 1985). Significance of the Study Research regarding possible explanations for underreporting of bias crimes committed against people with disabilities is of particular significance to rehabilitation researchers and educators because the reasons for including people with disabilities in the act were based on a set of assumptions rath er than hard data (McMahon et al., 2004). Consequently, it is possible that legislators mi ght conclude that the low number of crimes reported since inclusion is evidence that the problem is not as large as was originally anticipated. Given this possibi lity, it is important to determine whether there might be competing explanations. Specifically, it is important to determine whether law enforcement decision-making is affecting repor ted rates of bias cr imes against persons with disabilities and to determine what fact ors influence law enforcement judgment. At a societal level, an enhanced understanding of criminal investigation provides insight into the larger issue of accessibili ty to law enforcement by peopl e with disabilities who are victim of any crime. In addition, access to th e criminal justice system is a fundamental right necessary to guarantee the rights a fforded to all citizens under the constitution (Schneider, 2005).
PAGE 18
7 Disability was included as a protected cat egory over other groups such as gender, children, police officers, union members, and th e elderly who also lobbied for inclusion under the act and whose request was denied. Di sability was included in the act for four reasons, the first and most persuasive wa s the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which included disability as a standard in civil rights and discrimination law within the federal gove rnment (McMahon et al., 2004). The other reasons disability was include d consist of: (1) the fact th at there are approximately 54 million American citizens with a disability; (2) citizens with disabilities have a degree of collective identity in American society (N ational Council on Disabi lity, 2000; Shapiro, 1994); and (3) the historical evidence of discrimination. The historical documentation of discrimina tion against persons with disabilities is put succinctly by Smart (2001) who concluded that No other racial cultural, ethnic, linguistic, religious, political, national, sexual orientation, or gender group has experienced this pervasive de gree of generalized prejudice and discrimination (Smart, p.72), which included killing babies with disabilities, forced sterilization of persons with disabilities, institutionalization, mass murder, se xual abuse in families, assisted suicides, physical abuse in institutions, aversive conditioning, electroconvulsive therapy, psychosurgery, experimentation, excessi ve medication (Goffman, 1963; Lifton, 1986;;Smart). Because the primary purpose of the Hate Crime Statistics Act is to collect data to determine the extent of the problem (Bureau of Justice St atistics, 2000), it is possible that disability will be removed as a protected class due to the low numbers reported. Moreover, although speculation exists as to the reason for the low numbers (Berkeleyan, 2002; McMahon et al., 2004; Sh erry, 2003; Sorensen, 2001), no research
PAGE 19
8 has been conducted to date to substantiate th e theories posited by di sability advocates to explain the possible reasons for the low numbers. Overview of the Literature Attitudes have been discussed in the lit erature as affecting law enforcements reporting of bias crimes (Levin, 1992; Nolan & Akiyama 1999). In one study that reviewed 452 criminal investigations, it was discovered that investigators missed evidence of a bias crime in approximatel y 96% of the cases (Levin). Another study consisting of a series of focus groups with police officers report ed that individual attitudes and beliefs about bias crimes wa s the second most influential factor in determining whether a bias crime was reporte d by law enforcement (Nolan & Akiyama). It has been suggested that attitudes are the most important construct to the field of social psychology (Petty, Wegener, & Fabrig ar, 1997). Attitudes, th e categorization of an object along an evaluative dimension (Fazio, Chen, McDonel, & Sherman, 1982, p. 341), are believed to influence behavior automatically (Ajzen, 2001; Fazio & Williams, 1986; Fazio et al., 1982; Fazio & Zanna, 1981) or through a complex deliberative process that requires the opportunity and determination to evaluate information (Fazio & TowlesSchwen, 1999; Kruglanski & Freund, 1983; Sanbonmatsu & Fazio, 1990). The generalstudy of attitudes has been used by disability researchers to explain the pervasive discrimination against people with disabilities. Research on the study of attitudes it relate s to disabilities has been robust with particular emphasis on those factors that are associated with negative attitudes, and how those attitudes impact the ability of people with disabilities to pa rticipate in society (employment, independent living, and others.) Research on attitude s towards people with disabilities suggests they tend to vary as a function of 1) gender (Chesler, 1965; Siller,
PAGE 20
9 1963; Yuker, Block, & Campbell, 1960) with females reporting more positive attitudes than males; 2) age (Ryan, 1981; Siller, 1963; Yuker, Block, & Younng, 1966) with younger and middle aged individuals reporti ng more positive at titudes than postadolescent and seniors; 3) education (Gosse & Sheppard, 1979; Yuker et al., 1966) with more positive attitudes being associated with higher education levels; and 4) occupation (Chubon, 1982; English & Oberle, 1971; Pederson & Carlson, 1981; Wills, 1978) with surprisingly more negative at titudes among individuals in the helping professions and unequal status relationships. Contact theory (Allport, 1954/1979) was originally propos ed to understand what factors prevent the formation of negativ e attitudes and, moreover, the mechanism whereby negative attitudes can be change d. Research designed to understand the conditions whereby contact functi ons to change attitudes also resulted in the development of theories to explain the fo rmation of negative attitudes. Specifically, it was theorized that the absence of the conditions necessary for positive attitude change would result in the formation of negative attit udes. For example, a series of research studies discovered that individuals in the helping profes sions (Wills, 1978), including rehabilitation personnel (Chubon; 1982; Pederson & Carlson, 1981), have more negative attitudes towards people with disabilities. It has b een suggested that any relationship where one individual is in an inferior status or dependent relationship can f unction to increase negative attitudes (Amir, 1969), which can be said of the nature of the relationship between rehabilitation professionals and peopl e with disabilities (Wills). Extending this theory to law enforcement, the nature of the relationship between a member of law
PAGE 21
10 enforcement and crime victim is one where the law enforcement officer is in a position of authority and the crime victim in an inferior or dependent role. Theref ore, it is logical to hypothesize that police officers, like other helping professi onals, can form negative attitudes towards people with disabilities; and, these at titudes can influence their behavior. Research Questions As mentioned previously, one possible explanation for the relatively low numbers of hate crimes reported is the possibility th at law enforcement officers (LEO) may have learned to regard people with disabilities as vulnerable (McMahon et al., 2004; Sorensen, 2001). Therefore, when presented with evid ence of a crime committed against a person with a disability, the individual focuses more on the victimization of the individual and less on the bias aspect of the crime. If this is the case, when presente d with an actual bias crime scene scenario with key elements of bias motivation, the individuals level of agreement about whether a crime should be clas sified as a hate crime will be lower when the victim is a person with a disability that when the victim is an individual in another protected category.Gender may also influence the level of agreement with classifying a crime as a bias crime. Miller (2001) found a significant difference in the mean agreement score on the Hate Crime Survey between ma le and female criminology students. The literature on attitude and disa bility also documents a difference in attitude across gender (Ryan, 1981; Siller, 1963; Yuker & Block, 1986; Yuker, et. al., 1966) 1. Research Question One: Does law enforcement officers level of agreement with hate crime classification vary across protected category? 2. Research Question Two: Does law enforcement officers mean level of agreement with hate crime classifi cation vary by gender?
PAGE 22
11 3. Research Question Three: Is there an interaction be tween protected category and gender on law enforcement officers mean level of agreement with hate crime enhancement? 4. Research Question Four: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities, and contact with persons with disabil ities provide predictive ability for law enforcement officers agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with disabilities?
PAGE 23
12 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter is a review of the literatur e concerning bias crimes committed against people with disabilities. The major theoreti cal areas that underlie this investigation include discussions on basic human rights, cr ime, attitudes, contact theory, and bias motivated crime. The conversation on hu man rights provides the foundation for the discussion on crime, bias crime and the severi ty of bias crime rela tive to other forms of crime. The discussion of attitude incl udes a general overview of attitudes, the relationships between attitudes and behavior, particularly judg ment, and contact theory as it relates to the formation and change of a ttitudes. Once the theoretical framework is established, a discussion on bias crime will incl ude a definition of bias motivated crime, why bias crimes are considered more serious th an other forms of crime, profile(s) of hate crime perpetrators, theories about why pe ople commit bias crimes, and bias crime reporting. Special focus will be placed on bi as crimes committed against people with disabilities. Theoretical Background Human Rights Modern study of human rights are believed to have origin ated from the writings of theorists like John Locke, St. Thomas Aqui nas, and others, who believed that basic human rights originated from natural law (H iggins, 1954; Pegis, 1948). As a result, basic human rights consisted of freedom and equalit y. Higgins believed that natural law, which
PAGE 24
13 guides humankinds behavior, also defines our existence as social beings, which is inevitable. However, man is incapable of always re specting the basic human rights of others, which is why society requires laws and the authority to enforce laws, which is regarded as part of a societys core value system. Th e core value system of the United States of America is embedded in its constitution and guara ntees that each citizen is free and equal. Because freedom and equality represents an important aspect of American society, any crime that violates these values strikes at the core of its value system. Society also places a great emphasis on protecting the basic human rights of citizens who are incapable of protecting their rights individua lly. As discussed previously, bias crimes, in particular, are more serious because of the intent of the offender. But, when a bias crime is committed against a protected class of citizens, it warrants particular ly close attention. Natural law The historical underpinnings of basic human rights has b een credited, in part, to John Locke. Locke challenged what was referred to as the divine right of kings during his lifetime, which stated that kings were chosen by God (Locke, 1690/1968; Miller, 1996). Commoners were believed to be born into servitude and, as such, had no rights or freedoms other than those granted by kings (Miller). Locke argued that natural law legislates freedom, equality, and therefore i nherent rights for a ll. (Miller, p. 510). According to St. Thomas Aquinas, natural law originates from the belief that human beings are, by nature, rational beings, and th is rationality is deri ved from God (Aquinas, 1264/1905; Higgins, 1954; Pegis, 1948). Further, human beings should behave in a way that is consistent with their rational nature (Pegis). Artistotle had a different view of the origin of natural law than Aquinas (Aristot le, 350 B.C./ 1962). He believed natural law
PAGE 25
14 is derived from the natural order of the wo rld and (the) built-in tendencies of human nature (Miller, 1996, p.499). Th e difference in Aquinas vi ew of natural law can be attributed to the influence of his Christian beliefs (Miller). According to Higgins (1954), natural law commands that indi viduals treat other human beings with the same regard they ha ve for themselves. Higgins asserted that humans are not required to l ove each other to the same degree they love themselves. However, he believed that natural law requi res human kind to love each other with the same quality of benevolence (Higgins). This premise is embodied in the proverb, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Higgins maintains that this is a basic principle of human conduct that cannot be compromised for the good of society. Humans as social beings Humankind is considered by many theorists to be social beings (Higgins, 1954; Miller, 1996). The foundation of this belief lies in th e understanding that humankind is not fully self-sufficient, and requires interaction with other humans in a social setting (Higgins). However, if humankind is to co-exist in a so cial setting, then individual needs must not abound. In order to curtail the pursuit of individua l rights lest they infringe upon the rights of others, a social cont ract is required. A social cont ract is an agreement between its members where, like any contract, each indi vidual preserves certain rights at the cost of others (Miller). Thus I s ee it is to my advantage to submit myself to government, to obey laws, etc., if thereby I can secure my fundamental rights and freedoms (Miller, p. 511). Locke believed that the social contr act logically followed the state of nature (Locke, 1690/1968; Miller). The main purpose th en of a social contract is the secure freedom and equality for all.
PAGE 26
15 In contrast to the view that humankind is basically rational, the Calvinist view believes that man is naturall y selfish, weak, and corrupt. (Clark, 1970; The Heidelberg Catechism, 1563/1988; Higgins, 1954). For th ese reasons, humankind is unwilling to set aside personal interest s for the good of society (Higgins). Therefore, when an individual violates the rights of anothe r person, it is believed that permissiveness on the part of society has brought out his basi c selfish instincts (Clark). According to the Calvinist view, humankind will respond to coercion (Higgi ns) as well as Gods grace, which is viewed as irresistible. However, it is the responsibility of so ciety to respond to violations with discipline to control humankinds basic selfish instincts (Clark). Although the Calvinist view has a different premise from that of Locke, the outcome was generally the same. Locke maintain ed that individuals ca nnot live in a state of freedom and equality for three important reasons: (1) indivi duals dont pay enough attention to the rational natural law; (2) the se lfish concerns of individuals would result in a biased application of the prin ciples of natural law; and (3 ) individuals require authority so natural law can be meaningfully en forced (Locke, 1690/1 968; Miller, 1996). Locke maintained that members of a society give tacit consent to its social contract. Tacit consent is consent that is assumed by an individuals partic ipation in a society (Locke, 1690/1968; Miller, 1996). When humankind participates in society, they agree to adhere to its laws and rules as well as give the state the au thority and power to enforce its laws and rules (Higgins, 1954). Authority to secure human rights.Accordi ng to Higgins (1954) society must have the power to compel individual members to cooperate on a permanent basis. The power granted to society to compel others to obey and enforce laws is authority (Higgins). The
PAGE 27
16 need for authority is consider ed to be self-evident and an essential component of any society (Higgins). Higgins asserted that in order for a society to work, its members must be aware of the commonly agreed upon good sought individually and collectively and how the laws are designed to safeguard these pu rsuits (Higgins). The laws of a particular society therefore can be thought of as represen ting not only the rights of its citizens but the authority of the state to enforce the la ws and punish those ci tizens who violate the rights of individual members of that society (Higgins). Social justice John Locke has been referred to as the spirit ual father of the cons titution (Miller, 1996, p. 516) because Thomas Jefferson stated that his intent was to embody the social and political principles of Locke in the Declar ation of Independence (Miller). The philosophy of individualism can be found in the first te n amendments to the constitution of the United States (Miller) and it is clear that the values held by United States citizens at the time the Declaration was written were deeply influenced by Lockes ideas (Miller). Freedom for all individuals is a value that is guaranteed to all United States citizens in its creed and is protected under the constitution as an inalie nable right (Hutchins, 1952). When the United States declared that all peopl e are created equal as part of its foundation for declaring independence, it b ecame part of the countrys co re value system (Hutchins). The liberties afforded American citizens under its constitution were considered necessary for humankind to develop the qualities within each other regarded as good. As such, the fundamental premise underlying the liberties afforded Americans is the previously discussed belief that man is essentially good a nd if given the chance will develop into a kind and gentle human being (Clark, 1970). Thes e liberties also represent the American
PAGE 28
17 citizens emphasis on the individuals quest fo r actualization and i ndividual liberty and freedom as necessary for individuals to pursue self-actualization (Higgins, 1954). The individual rights of a so ciety are formalized and codified into what Artistotle referred to as conventional law (Aquinas, 350 B.C./1962) and Aquinas referred to as human law (Aquinas, 1264/1905); which are laws, crea ted by citizens, to protect person and property, also referred to as basic huma n rights derived from natural law (Higgins, 1954). These human or conventional laws are codified natural laws and first foundational laws (Higgins; Miller, 1996). The same declaration that guarantees equa l rights also recognizes that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights (Hutchins, 1952). Therefore, the United States Constitution guarantees defense of its citizens against disc rimination, abuse of power, and harm to person or property (Hutch ins). Citizens have th e right to ask their government to enforce their constitutional ri ghts (Hutchins). As a result, government is charged with upholding the rights of its ci tizens, which is the enforcement of human or conventional laws (Miller, 1996). The enforcement of laws is how society guarantees that the core value system is upheld and protecte d for all citizens. The process of ensuring equal rights through enforcement is a major com ponent of social justi ce (Higgins, 1954). Equality and bias The discussion on equality in the previous sec tion is significant because it represents the core value system of the United States. Howeve r, there are other means of identifying the core value system of a society. According to Lawrence (1999), the range of bias that is tolerated and accepted by a nation or other polit ically organized society is a statement of what that society values and, more important, its sense of equality (Lawrence). Because equality and bias are considered to be at opposite ends of the spectrum a society that
PAGE 29
18 values equality cannot tolerate bias. In other words, soci ety cannot theoretically value equality and tolerate bias at the same tim e. Consequently, any time bias functions to violate basic human rights, the act is considered a serious offense. Crime Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) presented a general theory of crime in which they asserted that discipline dependent definiti ons of crime reflect the interest of the discipline. For example, economists view crime as being economically determined, sociologists view crime as being socially determined, and psychologists view crime as determined by psychopathology, etc. As a re sult, Gottfredson and Hirschi offered the following general definition of crime: behavio rs that are attempts to satisfy immediate needs rather than delaying gratification. Gottfredson and Hirschis theory of crime has been criticized in the literature because thei r theory of why people commit crime is based solely on self-control (Baron, 2003). The intent here is to adopt the definition and not discuss the merits of the theory by weighing the pros and cons of self-control as an etiology of criminal behavior. Because, pl aced within the context of the previous discussion on social justice, Gottfredson and Hirschis definition of crime is consistent with the idea that in general terms crime is a di scourse to social justice. At the level of the individual, crime is behavior that meets an individual need at the risk of violating the social contract.Punishment When an individual commits a crime agains t person or property, the act is said to reflect not only on the character of the indi vidual but also on that of society (Clark, 1970). Consequently, how a society responds to th e criminal behavior is also a reflection on society (Clark). Therefore, when an indivi dual violates the rights of another person, it is believed that permissiveness has brought out his basic selfish instincts (Clark).
PAGE 30
19 Consequently, the individual is not acti ng according to the commonly agreed upon good (Higgins, 1954) and society must respond with discipline to control the individuals basic selfish instincts (Clark). Two schools of punishment theory exist, the re tributionist theory and the consequentialist theory (Lawrence, 1999). The c onsequentialist theory is a util itarian theory that believes punishment is justified to the extent that it improves society, for example reducing crime. The retribution theory is a deontological ap proach to punishment and supports giving the criminal his just desserts. Further, the retr ibutionist believes that the offender deserves to be punished because he has violated the norms of society (Lawrence). Theorists such as Hegel supported punishment by as serting that the offender has the right to be punished because society respects the individual as an autonomous being and punishes him for his choice to break the law (Hegel, 1807/1967). Kant believed in the idea that an offender has an obligation to societ y (Kant, 1797/1999). He believe d there was a substantial benefit to citizens for obeying the laws of society (Kant; Miller, 1996). When a citizen breaks the law, he incurs a debt to society, which is repaid through punishment. It is clear that widespread support exists for punishme nt across theoretical backgrounds. However, it is also accepted that for punishment to be morally justifiable, the severity of the punishment must fit the severi ty of the crime (Lawrence). The notion that the severity of punishment must fit the crime is easier than the adage an eye for an eye. The measure used by criminal justice theorists is to place punishment along the continuum of all punishme nt, if it falls at the same point on the continuum occupied by the crime along the conti nuum of all crimes, then it is believed to
PAGE 31
20 be just (Lawrence, 1999). In simpler terms, it is the relative amount of punishment corresponding to the relative amount of crime. (Lawrence, p. 48). Theorists look to culpability and harm caused to society to evaluate the severity of the crime. Culpability refers to the state of mind or mens rea, of the offender, the more purposeful the conduct, the more severe the penalty (Lawrence, 1999). Conversely, reckless conduct is considered less severe than conduct that is purposeful in nature. Although culpability is a genera lly accepted principle in evaluating severity, criminal law doctrine provides little direction about the issue of harm. As a result, evaluating harm relies more heavily on theory (Lawrence). Lawrence (1999) asserts that th ere are three theori es that focus on how to measure the harm committed by a particular crime, they is the ex-ante analys is, the ex-post facto measuring of harm, and the living standard an alysis. The ex-ante analysis is a means of assessing the relative risk pref erence of a rational person. A pplied, the analysis concludes that the least harmful crime is the one that a rational person would risk facing. The expost facto method ranks what the victim lost in the commission of the crime. The living standards analysis (LSA) was designed to establish vocabulary for the discussion of harm and form a set of principles or standards. The two key variables in establishing harm based on the LSA are (1) the severity of the crimes invasion on personal interest, and (2) the various kinds of interests that may be vi olated, such as persona l safety, protection of material possessions, etc. The discussion on crime severity will continue with the application of theory to evaluate the severity of bias crime. Crime and protected classes Human kind generally agrees that the rights of individuals persist even if their rights are overridden by physical force (Higgins, 1954, p. 492). In other words, rights exist for
PAGE 32
21 individuals whether they have the physical ability to protec t them or not. Examples of citizens who are viewed as being particularly vulnerable and less ab le to protect their rights are children, the elderly and people with disabilities (Behnke, Winick, & Perez, 2000). Because these groups of people are less able to protect themselves than other groups in society, society places a high valu e on ensuring their health and well-being (Behnke et al.). An example of this in pract ice is mandatory reporting laws. Most states have mandatory reporting laws for healthcare professionals that re quire the reporting of known or suspected abuse of individuals in these protected classes (Behnke et al.). Society takes the interests of citizens in these protected classes so seriously that mandatory reporting laws outweigh an indivi duals right to priv acy and privileged communication with healthcare professionals (Behnke et al.). Additionally, crimes committed against individuals in protected classes are considered more severe in nature (Higgins). Crime and people with disabilities A review of the literature suggests that the prevalence for violence among children and adults with disabilities is higher than th e general population in terms of the rate, frequency, duration. Further, the offender prof ile is different when the victim has a disability than for similar crimes where th e victim does not have a disability. Moreover, differences exist across age, type of abuse, and disability category. Rate of crime Researchers estimate that the inci dence of violent crime in general against adults and children with disabilities is two and a half times that in the general population (Baladerian, 2001; Hiday, Swartz, Swanson, Borum, & Wagner, 1999; Sobsey & Doe, 1991; Sullivan & Knutson, 1998). Rega rding incidences of sexual abuse in particular, the estimated prevalence is five to ten times that in the general population
PAGE 33
22 (Sobsey & Doe). In an Australian study of individuals with intellectual disabilities, Wilson and Brewer (1992) concluded that ra te of sexual assault was 10.7 times higher, robbery was 12.8 times higher, and overall vi olent crime was 4.2 times higher than the general population. Frequency. There is a fair amount of consiste ncy in the research concerning the frequency and duration of incide nces of abuse sustained by pe rsons with disabilities. In the Sobsey & Doe (1991) study on sexual abuse, they reported that of the participants reporting sexual abuse, approximately 20% reported a single incident, 20% reported between five and ten inciden ces, and 49.6% reported greater than ten incidences (Sobsey & Doe). In addition, 9.7% of the participants reported the ab use as repeated (Sobsey & Doe). In a study conducted by Sullivan & Knutson (1998), persons with disabilities experienced an increased durat ion of abuse and neglect. Duration. Research on abuse and neglect of wome n with disabilities identified similar findings. In a study of 946 wome n with disabilities who par ticipated in the National Study of Women with Physical Disabilities, 62% of th e women reported they had experienced some form of sexua l, emotional, or physical abuse (Nosek et al., 1997). The percentage of women experiencing abuse was the same for a group of non-disabled controls. However, women with disabilities reported experiencing the abuse for longer periods of time (3.9 years) compared to wo men without a disabil ity (2.5 years) (Young, Nosek, Howland, Chanpong, & Rintala, 1997). In addition, women with disabilities experienced forms of abuse that were disa bility related such as withholding: (1) medication, (2) transportation, (3) assistance with activities of daily living, and (4) equipment for ambulation (Nosek et al.).
PAGE 34
23 Perpetrator characteristics. Research suggests that th e perpetrators of crimes against persons with disabiliti es are often family members, neighbors, and acquaintances the person has because of their disability. The Federal Bureau of Investigation in their hate crime data reporting guide lines state that reporting decr eases when the victim knows the perpetrator (Federal Bureau of I nvestigation, 1999b). Ofte n, the victim fears retribution from the perpetrator in the form of further abuse, neglect or an interruption of services (Sobsey & Doe, 1991). In addition, victims may be reluctant to report crimes because they believe the report lacks value and will not be taken seriously at any level of the criminal justice system (Luckasson, 1992), a perception that appears to have some validity (Mishra, 2001). Sobsey and Doe (1991) found that in 56% of the reported cases of abuse the perpetrator had a relationship to the person with a disability, which is co nsistent with data from nondisabled victims. However, in the other 44% of the cases, the reported abusers had a relationship with the victim that was specific to the disability. In 27.7% of the cases, the perpetrator was a personal care attendant, residential care staff, hospital staff, psychiatrist, and so on (Sobsey & Doe). Other perpetrator categories included transportation providers, therap eutic foster parents, and ot her persons with disabilities (Sobsey & Doe). Although the percentage of cases where the perpetrator is a family member or friend is consistent with the natio nal average, the results of this study suggests the percentage of crime agains t persons with disabilites wher e the perpetrator in known to the victim could be as high as 100%. This is not difficult to conceive when 2/3 of the respondents to the Harris survey reported that their disability results in social isolation (National Council on Disabilit y, 2000). This places persons with disabilities almost
PAGE 35
24 exclusively in contact with persons known to them such as family, friends, and caregivers. In the Sullivan and Knutson (1998) review of abuse of children with disabilities, 98% of the perpetrators were family me mbers. In the Sobsey & Doe (1991) study, although 95.6% of the victims knew of the perpetrator, 65.9% of the cases went unreported to law enforcement by the victim (Sobsey & Doe). Other reasons for charges not being filed included refusal by the po lice in 19% of the cases, refusal by the prosecutors in 5.5% of the cas es, and court dismissal in 2.2% of the cases (Sobsey & Doe). Of the cases that were reported, 22% we re charged and of the alleged perpetrators charged, only 36% were convicted of the offense. Disability category Research has also found higher incidences of abuse in specific disability categories. For example, Sullivan and Knutson (1998) found that 62.1% of the children in the communicative disorder categor y of their study were abused by someone in the family compared to 39.4% in the non-disabled group. The communication category in the Sullivan and Knutson study included children who were deaf. This finding is consistent with that of Sullivan, Vernon, and Scanlan (1987, as cited in Sobsey & Doe, 1991) who reported a review of research suggesting that 54% of deaf boys and 50% of deaf girls have been sexually abused as children. Muccigrosso ( 1991) in a review of literature suggested that 90-99% of individuals with developmental disa bilities have been sexually abused by the time they turn 18. Much of the research conducted on abuse ag ainst persons with disabilities in the United States has been on the prevalence of abuse in children with developmental disabilities (Nosek, 1996). This may explain the passage of the Crime Victims with
PAGE 36
25 Disabilities Awareness Act in 1998. The Act reported that research had been conducted suggesting the incidence of abuse among indivi duals with developmental disabilities is four to ten times higher than the general population. However, it was noted that the studies were conducted in othe r countries (Canada, Australi a, and England) and Congress was not aware of the extent of the probl em in the United States. Although Congress mandated that data collection begin within tw o years of the passage of the act, the first data collection for individuals with developm ental disabilities in the National Crime Victims Survey began in January, 2004 (Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act of 1998, P.L. 105-301). However, the act is sp ecific to developm ental disabilities. Presently, data is being collected in the Un ited States on hate crimes committed against all disability categories and any crime comm itted against individuals with developmental disabilities. Attitudes Gordon Allport stated that attitudes are the single most indispensable cons truct in social psychology (Allport, 1935 p. 798). The volume of research since that time on attitude structure and function, attitude-behavior re lationships, and attitude change supports Allports claim. Attitude theorists have considered the role and function of attitudes for some time. It is generally accepted that one of the majo r functions of attitudes is to organize or structure an otherwise chao tic universe (Katz, 1960; Smith, Bruner, & White, 1956). From an evolutionary perspective, attit udes represent a proces s whereby humankind can size-up events or objects in the environment, what is referred to as an object-evaluation association (Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986; Smith et al.). From an evolutionary perspective, humankind used the object-evaluation association as a means to
PAGE 37
26 forego reflective thought about an object a nd guide behavior quickly as a means of survival. This section will address some working definitions of attitudes, the process whereby attitudes are formed, and the co mplex association between attitudes and behavior. Definition of attitude The most basic definition of attitude is a ge neral evaluation or summary evaluation of an object (Petty et al., 1997). Two early defin itions were provided by Thurstone (1931) and Allport (1935). Thurstones early and well known (Petty et al., 1997) definition of attitude was affect for or against a ps ychological object (Thurstone, 1931, p. 261). The term affect was used by researchers at that time in the same way attitude is now used (Ajzen, 2001). Today, affect is used to de scribe general moods and specific emotions (Ajzen). In 1935, Allport offered an expanded de finition as a mental or neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a direc tive or dynamic influence upon the individuals response to all objects and situations with whic h it is related (Allport, p. 810). Ajzen & Fishbein (1980) reported that th ere were in excess of 500 definitions of attitude. In an attempt to bring focus to th e breadth of attitude definitions, Fazio et al. (1982) suggested that all definitions of attitu de include the notion that an attitude involves categorization of an obj ect along an evaluative dimens ion. (Fazio et al., p.341). Attitude and behavior Fazio et al. (1982) suggested that earlier research was focused on whether there was a relationship between attitudes and behavi or (Corey, 1937; LaPiere, 1934; Wicker, 1969). Moreover, little eviden ce existed of congruence betw een attitude and behavior. Conversely, evidence suggested the two ma y be incongruent (Wicker). Even though evidence suggested an attitude -behavior relationship didnt exist, attitude research
PAGE 38
27 continued as if there was a relationship (Aj zen, 2001). Since the re search of LaPiere, Corey (1937), and Wicker that focused on whether a relationship exis ted, research has focused on when attitudes might predict behavior or what are the moderators in the attitude-behavior rela tionship (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999) and it was suggested by Fazio et al. that future resear ch in this are should focus on how attitudes guide behavior. The MODE model of the attit ude-behavior process is an ex ample of the focus of how attitudes guide behavior a nd is explained in greater depth in the next section. Attitude-behavior processes. Two classes or attitude behavior processes exist that provide a conceptual framework for unders tanding the mechanism of how attitude influences behavior, a spontaneous process and a deliberative attitude to behavior process (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999). The differe nce between the two processes can be conceptualized as the difference between a process whereby1) there is an immediate influence of attitude on behavior as with th e spontaneous process or 2) a process whereby a conscious evaluation occurs considering the alternatives of behavior as with the deliberative attitude to behavior process (Fazio & Towles-Schwen). Spontaneous process. Support for the theory of th e automatic activation of attitudes is present in the lit erature. The theory, originally proposed in the 1980s by Fazio and his colleagues, is focused on the automatic activation of attitude from memories. Put simply, the model asserts that an individuals behavior is influenced by an individuals perception of an attitude obj ect and the context or situation in which the object is encountered (Fazio & Williams, 1986). According to the model, attitudes are also thought to influence perception of the object such th at a selective processing occurs (Fazio & Williams). The processing of the attitude obj ect is selective to the extent that its
PAGE 39
28 consistent with the individual attitude (F azio & Williams). The key component to the model is the accessibility of the attitude fr om memory. When activated from memory, the attitude is believed to affect both per ception and behavior (Fazio & Williams). Research on the spontaneous process has focused on the accessibility of attitude from memory, the strength of association, sp eed of access, and the factors that influence each of these. Fazio and Zanna (1981) suggest that the manner in which attitudes are formed plays a large role in the extent to whic h attitudes influence beha vior. If an attitude is formed through direct contact with the attitude object, that attitude will have a stronger influence on behavior than if the attitude was formed wit hout a behavioral experience (Devine, 1989). It is notewort hy that criticism emerged on th e selective processing effects of attitudes because research has failed to prov ide clear support for the theory with results being inconsistent or weak (Ajzen, 2001).Fazio et al. (1982) maintained that an attitude must first be accessed from memory for it to have any influence over behavior. Further, the accessibility of an attitude from memory is directly related to the strength of association. This led to an expl oration of the factors that c ontributed to the strength of association. Measures of attitude strength used in research stud ies consist of resistance to counter-persuasion, the clarity and definition of the attitude, and reported confidence in the attitude (Schuman & Johnson, 1979). Fazio and Zanna (1981) reported evidence that of the three strength-indicator s mentioned, an individuals re ported confidence in an attitude and the clarity and definition of the attitude have a positive correlation with the number of direct behavioral experiences with the attitude object. Fazi o et al. reported that repeated attitudinal expression also functions to strengthen the association between the attitude and object as evidenced by increased accessibility and behavior consistent with
PAGE 40
29 the attitude. The results of this study are pa rticularly relevant because as mentioned in Fazio et al. the presentation of an attitude can elicit the same attitude the survey is designed to assess. Fazio et al. also demonstrated that direct experience with the attitude object is more likely than indirect experi ence to be accessed when later observing the attitude object and more likely to influence behavior. Roskos-Ewoldsen and Fazio (1992) discovered th at the strongest atti tudes from memory are more likely to attract the attention of th e observer. In the Roskos-Ewoldsen and Fazio study, when subjects were presented with a vi sual display of objects, the objects were more likely to be noticed if there was an associated evaluation from memory. RoskosEwoldsen and Fazio concluded that attitudes serve as an orienting function. Moreover, attitudes can influence the pr ocessing of visual inform ation. Conversely, the visual stimulus can activate the attitude fr om memory (Roskos-Ewoldsen & Fazio). Deliberative process. The deliberative process model focuses on the individuals focus on the attributes or raw data instead of a preexisting attitude (Fazio & TowlesSchwen, 1999). The most common deliberative process model is Ajzens (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior and its predecessor, the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The theory is based on the be lief that human kind is rational and makes use of available information (Ajzen & Fishbe in). Further, that human kind weighs the pros and cons of options availa ble to them before making a d ecision (Ajzen & Fishbein). The MODE model. MODE is an acronym for Motivation and Opportunity as DEterminants (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999). The MODE model was developed by Fazio in an attempt to integrate both the s pontaneous and deliberat ive process theories (Fazio, 1990). The MODE is considered an ap plication of Kruglanskis theory of lay
PAGE 41
30 epistemics (Sanbonmatsu & Fazio, 1990). Kruglan skis research on this theory attempted to understand the general process whereby individuals acquire knowledge (Sanbonmatsu & Fazio). Kruglanski theorized that knowledge consists of the cont ent of knowledge and the confidence each individual places in th e content (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983). The process whereby individuals gain confiden ce in the content is that of hypothesis generation and validation (Kr uglanski & Freund). Humankind has three individual needs that motivate an individual to engage in the process of hypothesis formation and validation: (1) fear of invalidity, (2) the need for structure, and (3) the need for specific conclusions (Kruglanski & Freund) These needs provide the necessary motivation necessary for an individual to engage in caref ul reflection and deliber ation to arrive at a valid conclusion (Sanbonmatsu & Fazio). Sa nbonmatsu and Fazio concluded that the same needs theorized by Kruglanski and Fre und provided the motivation necessary for an individual to engage in an attribute-base d decision as opposed to an attitude-based decision (Sanbonmatsu & Fazio). Opportunity is considered a prerequi site to deliberation in the MODE model (Fazio & Towles-Schwen) and has been manipulated experimentally with the use of time. (Kruglansk i & Freund; Sanbonmatsu & Fazio). Kruglanski and Freund (1983) experime ntally manipulated motivation by enhancing the fear of invalidity. In the st udy, participants were informed that their selection would be compared to other particip ants and they would ha ve to explain their decisions to the other participants and th e investigator (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999; Kruglanski & Freund). In a similar study, Sc huette and Fazio (1990) experimentally manipulated the motivation of participants to engage in a deliberate process by informing participants their responses to a survey would be compared to a panel of social scientists
PAGE 42
31 and later discussed with them. The results of both studies provided evidence that individuals can engage in careful and reflective deliber ation and ignore potentially biasing attitudes when motivat ed (Fazio & Towles-Schwen). Kruglanski and Freund (1983) and Jamies on and Zanna (1989) experimentally manipulated opportunity by adding time pressure to the participants. In both studies, participant decision-making was influenced by personal attitudes when time-pressure was a factor. This provides support fo r the belief that sufficient opportunity, time, is required for careful and reflective deliberation to occur (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999). Attitudes towards persons with disabilities Attitudes towards people with di sabilities tend to vary as a function of gender, age, education, and occupation, to name a few. Although there are other correlates in the literature such as personality, locus of contro l, and so on. the focus here will be on those factors that may have a relationship to attitudes as they relate to perception of bias crime. Research has demonstrated that women tend to report more positive attitudes towards people with physical disabilities than do men (Che sler, 1965; Siller, 1963; Yuker et al., 1960). A possible expl anation for this difference was proposed by Siller who theorized that women may feel a different amoun t of social pressure to convey a socially acceptable attitude. However, the number of studies showing females with more positive attitudes is decreasing over time with 20% of the studies showed positive attitudes in the 1980s versus 59% of the studies before 1970, resu lting in the conclusion that the gap that exists between men and women appears to be closing over time (Yuker & Block, 1986). The relationship between age and attitudes to wards people with disabilities is more complex than gender. Ryan (1981) reviewed the literature and conc luded that attitudes are positive during early chil dhood through adolescence (Siller, 1963) at which point they
PAGE 43
32 show a trend towards becoming more negative. Attitudes again show a change in a positive direction from early to late adulthood and then decline when reaching senior years (Ryan). Yuker et al. (1966) cautioned that the relations hip between age and attitude may be confounded by other variables. Yuker & Block (1986) suggest ed that education level and contact with persons with di sabilities were confounding with age. Education is believed to be a confounding variable with age (Yuker & Block, 1986) although the results are incons istent (Tsang, Chan, & Chan, 2004). The number of years of education an individual has appears to be related to more positive attitudes toward people with disabilities (Gosse & Sheppar d, 1979; Yuker et al., 1966). Yuker and Block (1986) maintain after a review of the liter ature that the confoundi ng effect of age and education appears strongest under the age of 25. Education was not found to have a significant effect on the attit udes of occupational therapy st udents in Hong Kong (Lee, Paterson, & Chan, 1994). However, the posit ive effect of occupational therapy curriculum on attitudes has been observed in America and Hong Kong (Estes, Deyer, Hansen, & Russell, 1991; Lee et al.). Attitudes towards persons with disabili ties also vary with occupation. Although many individuals believe a priori that individuals who work in the helping professions have more positive attitudes that does not bear itself out in the literature. Data indicates that individuals in the helpi ng professions have a more nega tive attitude towards people with disabilities than th e general populati on (Brodwin & Orange, 2002; Chubon, 1982; Livneh & Cook, 2005; Wills, 1978). Pederson and Carlson (1981) and Chubon (1982) documented negative attitudes of people with disabilities by re habilitation personnel. It has been suggested that negative
PAGE 44
33 attitudes among rehabilitation prof essionals may have to do with the nature of the contact between the professional and clie nt. Specifically, in rehabilita tion settings the nature of the relationship between the reha bilitation professional and client with a disability is one of inferior status and dependence (Amir, 1969) Further, the person w ith a disability is not necessarily at his/her best when worki ng with the rehabilitation professional, which can also contribute to the formati on of a negative attitude (Wills, 1978). In a study of professions othe r than human service professi onals, English and Oberle (1971) reported that attitudes towards persons with disabilities by airline stewardesses were more negative than typists. The result s of these studies suppor t the hypothesis that certain types of contact are related to incr eased negative attitudes towards persons with disabilities. However, the relationship be tween contact and attitude is complex and warrants a more detailed exploration. Contact Theory The idea of contact was originally discusse d by Lee and Humphrey in their analysis of the Detroit riot of 1943 (Allport, 1954/1979). At that time, it was observed that amidst the riot, white and black workers in the wa r plants worked peacefully, white and black students at Wayne University continued to at tend classes together and white and black neighbors avoided participating in ri ots (Allport, 1954/1979). This phenomenon, provided the underpinnings for the developmen t of a contact hypothe sis in the 1950s and 1960s the goal of which was to integrate racial and ethnic minorities (Allport; Amir, 1969; Smart, 2001). In the formative years of contact theory, it wa s believed that contact of any type between members of the minority and majority group would change attitudes, resulting in behavior change, particul arly that of prejudice (Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2005;
PAGE 45
34 Smart, 2001). However, Allport (1954/1979) emphasized that the relationship between contact and out-group evaluations was not simp le. As a result, he outlined a taxonomy of optimal factors for contact. Dixon et. al. organized the factors as follows: Contact should: (1) be regular and frequent; (2) involve a balance of in-group and out-group members; (3) have genuine ac quaintance potential; (4) occur across a variety of social settings and situations; (5) be free from competition; (6) be evaluated by the participants as important; (7) involve indi viduals regarding each other as having equal status; (8) involve non-stereotypic members of the out-group; (8) be organized around a superordinate goal; (9) be sanctioned by local or cultural norms and in stitutions; (10) be free from negative emotions such as anxiety; (11) be personalized and involve genuine friendship formation, and (12) be with an indi vidual regarded as representative or typical of the out-group. A key component of Allport s (1954/1979) taxonomy is th e recognition that quality of contact was as important as quantity for pos itive changes in attit ude to occur (Islam & Hewstone, 1993), which was later supported by research (Amir, 1969). The contact theory research paradigm has been very productive since the 1960 s (Dixon et al., 2005). Even though contact theory has been touted as the most e ffective strategy in psychology for improving relations between in and out groups (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, 2003), the theory is far from perfect. Dixon et al. (2005) provide a critical evaluation of the re search and remind contact theorists that research since the 1960s has demonstrated the paradox of contact theory, simply, some types of contact function to ch ange attitudes in a positive direction whereas other types of contact change attitudes in a negative direction (Dixon et al.). The process
PAGE 46
35 whereby contact can serve to increase nega tive attitudes is multifaceted. Dixon et al. recently suggested that there is a tendency for informal systems of preferential segregation (p. 704) to re-emerge following optimal contact. Additionally, it is widely accepted that any deviation from optimal contact can result in no change in attitude or a change in a negative direction. Some of the conditions include: 1) whether the contact was perceived as superficial or intimate, 2) pleasant or unpleasant, and 3) the person with a disability is perceived as being representative of the di sability group as a whole or atypical (Islam & Hewstone, 1993). Additiona lly, contact where the outgroup member is in an inferior or dependent status can func tion to increase negative attitudes (Amir, 1969) a hypothesis that has been used to explain an increase in negative attitudes among health care professionals (Wills, 1978). Bias Crime What is a bias crime? The term bias crime is synonymous with hate crime. The terms are used interchangeably in the literatu re although bias crime is ge nerally considered the most appropriate name (Bureau of Justice Statisti cs, 2000; Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999b; Lawrence, 1999; McMahon et al., 2004). B ias is a preformed negative attitude toward a group based on race, religion, ethni city/national origin, sexual orientation, or disability status (McMahon et al., p. 68) A bias crime is a crime against person or property that is motivated in whole or in pa rt based on the offenders bias. (McMahon et al., p. 68) The process of determining if a crime is a bias crime is a two tiered process (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999b). The investigat ing officer determines whether there was any indication that bias was the motivation of th e alleged perpetrator. If the answer to the
PAGE 47
36 question is yes, then the case is designated as a suspected bias incident. A second review is conducted by an officer trained in the investigation of bi as motivated crimes and he or she makes the final decision. The criteria for categorizi ng a crime as a hate crime at the second tier is more stringent. To classify a crime as a hate crime, the objective facts must lead a reasonable a nd prudent person to conclude that the perpetrators actions were motivated by bias. The victimrelated criteria for classification include: (1) membership in a targeted group; (2) active role or advocacy in a community group; (3) representation of victims group in the community; (4) previous records of victimization; or (5) visitation to a high tension community. The perpetrator -related criteria are: (1) presence or comments, gest ures or written statements supporting bias; (2) appreciation of crime impact upon the victim; (3) membership in a hate group; or (4) previous record as a perpetrator. Bias crimes are also two-tiered in nature (Lawrence, 1999). The fi rst tier consists of a crime that is committed against person or property, such as assault and battery or robbery, which Lawrence also refers to as parallel crimes. The second tier involves the addition of bias motivation, also referred to as an enhancement. It is important to clarify that a bias crime is not a category by itself. If a crime is determined beyond a reasonable doubt to have been motivated by bias, then the bias motivation carries a sentence enhancement For example, an offender may be found guilty of the crime of assault and battery, which carries a minimum sentence of 5 year in prison. However, if the offender is found guilty of choosing the victim based on his or her membership in a protected group bias, the sentence can be enhanced to a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years.
PAGE 48
37 In 1990, then President George Bush signed into law the Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA), which requires the Attorney Genera l to collect data on crimes committed where the victims are chosen based on their membersh ip in a race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation (Perry, 2001). In 1997, disability wa s included as a protected category in the Act (McMahon et al., 2004). However, there is disparity across states in terms of what constitutes a protected class. Minnesota, for example, includes gender, age, and national origin in their legislation. Oregon protects ba sed on perceived race, sexual orientation, color, religion, national origin, marital status, political affiliation of beliefs, membership or activity in or on behalf of a labor orga nization or against a la bor organization, age, physical or mental handicap, economic or so cial status, or citi zenship. In 2001, Perry noted that of the 50 states, only 21 included disability in the hate crime statutes. Why bias crime is more serious The idea that bias crimes are more severe and require sentence enhancements is a controversial topic. Proponents of sentencing enhancement for bi as crimes argue that bias crimes are more severe thus warranting more severe sentences. The following analysis will show the logic of the argument. Applying the features of a bias crime to the theory of determining crime severity discussed previously, Lawrence ( 1999) asserts that the increase d severity of bias crimes becomes clear. In terms of culpability, offenders who are motivated by bias are more likely to cause harm (more likely to commit assaults and the assaults are often more violent). Moreover, the motivati on of the perpetrator of a hate crime violates the equality principle, which is one of the most deeply held tenets in our culture and, consequently our legal system (Lawrence). When the Ex-A nte Analysis is applied, the question is would a rational person risk a parallel crime before he or she would risk a bias crime?
PAGE 49
38 The answer to the question is almost certainly yes. The living standa rds analysis applied to bias crimes results in a potential threat to dignity, au tonomy, and perceived threat to physical safety. Theories of Why People Commit Bias Crime Realistic conflict The realistic conflict theory maintains th at competition for scarce but necessary resources results in hostility and conflict between groups (Levine & Campbell, 1972). The realistic conflict theory is a matter of economics (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2005). If one group acquires more resources, such as la nd, homes, jobs, etc, the group with less resources becomes frustrated (Brehm et al.). The group with resources becomes protective over their possessions an d the resulting conflict escalates. Relative deprivation The theory of relative deprivation suggest s that there is more to prejudice than conflict, as suggested in the realistic conflict model (Brehm et al., 2005). The theory of relative deprivation supports the idea that the mere perception of an imbalance in resources, power or opportunity will result in conflict (Davis 1959; Katz, 1981; Walker & Smith, 2002). For example, what matters to the proverbial Jones is not the type of car they drive, but whether their car is smaller in size than the one the Bradys drive. The theory can also be extended to the percep tion of job opportunities for one group versus another, etc. Social identity The theory of social identity is predicated on the research of Henry Tajfel (Tajfel, Billing, Bundy, and Flament, 1971). Tajfel et al. conducted an experiment with high school boys in Bristol, England. The young male participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The groups did not comp ete for scarce resources nor were they
PAGE 50
39 frustrated by perceived differences. The boys had no history togeth er as a group and yet Tajfel et al. found that partic ipants consistently awarded mo re points to members of their in-group than their out-group, a pattern he term ed in-group favoritism. Tajfel and Turner developed the theory of social identity to explain the in-group favoritism they observed (Brehm et al., 2005; Tajfel, 1982). The theo ry is based on the premise that each individual strives to enhance hi s or her self-esteem. Further, selfesteem can be enhanced through personal identity or so cial identity (Brehm et al .). Personal identity can be achieved through personal achieve ment whereas social identi ty is achieved through the achievements of the group and favoritism towa rds the in-group. Similarly, favoritism can also be enhanced by disparaging the out -group (Turner, Brown, & Tajfel, 1979). Social learning Social learning theory was originally proposed by Albert Bandura (1977) to explain how behavior is learned. Influenced by the results of the classic Bobo doll experiment where Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1961) observed that children who watched adults aggressing on an inflat able doll (punching, kicking, et c) displayed more aggression towards the doll later than controls who did not observe the parents tr eatment of the doll. Social learning theory claims that behavior is not learned merely through reinforcement schedule of reward and punishme nt. Rather, behavior is also learned by observing others and being reinforced vicariously. Conseque ntly, targeted violence towards specific groups is observed and the violence is modeled. Psychodynamic Much research has been devoted to describi ng the prejudiced pers onality as the agent of hatred (Allport, 1979). Some controvers y exists over the in vestigation of the prejudiced personality. For one, although many acts of hatred are committed by
PAGE 51
40 individuals with a prejudiced personality, not all i ndividuals with prej udiced personalities commit acts of hatred. Therefore, identifyi ng a personality type can create the same stereotypes this line of research aims to eliminate. Fu rther, Yuker (1988) asserts that research efforts are better spent elsewhere as personality types are relatively intractable to change. That said, the psychodynamics of the prejudice personality warrant some attention for a comprehensive discussion of bias crime. Insecurity appears to be at the root of the prejudiced pe rsonality (Allport, 1954/1979). Theoretically, insecurity stems from a fear of: self, instincts, consciousness, change, and the social environment. The etio logy of insecurity stems from unmet needs from parents resulting in unresolved infantile c onflicts or a persistent pattern of failure in adult life. Regardless of the et iology, an observable personalit y pattern appears to emerge from the described threat orientation. (Allpor t, p.396). Allport asserted that any personality that feels threaten ed is most likely going to de velop patterns of ego-alienation and a longing for definiteness, safety, and aut hority. the ego simply fails to integrate the myriad of impulses that arise within the pe rsonality and the myri ad of environmental presses without. This failure engenders feel ings of insecurity, and these feelings engender, in turn, repres sion. (Allport, p. 397). The individual with a prejudiced personality is unable to consciously cope with conflicts as they arise, so he represses the n, in whole or in part, which results in them being fragmented, forgotten or not faced at a ll. The consequences of repression are: 1) ambivalence towards parents; 2) moralism; 3) dichotomization; 4) a need for definiteness; 5) externalization of conflict; 6) institutionalism; and 7) authoritarianism. (Allport, 1954/1979). Ambivalence. According to Allport (1954/1979) research shows
PAGE 52
41 that individuals who are ambiva lent towards their parents have a tendency to come from homes where punishment, obedience, and thre at of rejection abound, an environment where power prevails instead of love. The individual learns from reward and punishment that he or she is incapable of full acceptance of the self because he or she must constantly avoid failure. Identification with parents is of ten difficult because parents from this type of environment often do not meet the needs of the child. In a family situation such as this, threat hangs over the child at all times. Moralism. Allport (1954/1979) also asserted that prejudiced persona lities often take a strict moral view. These individuals insist on conventional mores and virtues such as cleanliness, good manners and pur ity. Conversely, prejudiced personalites are intolerant of transgression of the conven tional mores and virtues. This can be viewed also as intolerance of weakness and of minority groups For example, the Nazis charged the Jews with violating conventional codes by accusing them of dirtiness and immorality. Allport asserts that this widespread propaganda was us ed to justify the tort ure and exportation of the Jews. Dichotomization Research also suggests that bo th prejudiced ch ildren and adults more than non-prejudiced controls tend to polarize the world into good and bad (Allport, 1954/1979). For example, there are only two ki nds of women, good and bad. Further, the belief exists that there is only one correct way of doing a nything. Consequently, there is little room for ambiguity; rather, the world is viewed categorically as being good or bad. Need for definiteness It has been observed that prej udiced individuals have a thought pattern consistent with their way of th inking (Allport, 1954/1979). Put more simply, individuals who are prejudiced, are prejudice in their way of thinking about everything.
PAGE 53
42 In a study of memory traces using truncat ed pyramids, Fisher (1951) observed that individuals who were higher in prejudice tended to form simplified memory traces of an unusual object such as the truncated pyramid. Individuals lower in prejudice were more likely to identify the object as unusual a nd not easy to classify. Other studies demonstrated that individuals high in prejudice were le ss likely to say I dont know during an experiment and more likely to cli ng to known images for longer periods of time (Frenkel-Brunswik, 1949). This line of research led to the theory that individuals high in prejudice have a perseverative thought process, meaning that old and tried solutions are considered safe anchorage. (Allport, 1954/1979, p.402). Externalization Individuals high in pr ejudice have also been found to project or externalize more than in dividuals low in prejudi ce (Allport, 1954/1979). Allport maintained that individuals suffering from e go-alienation avoid intros pection in favor of looking outward, it is better to think of things happening to him rather than caused by him (p. 404), consequently, individuals high in prejudice do not view themselves as injuring or hating others, rather it is others who injure or hate them. Institutionalization. Individuals high in prejudice like order but more importantly, social order (Allport, 1954/1979) Consequently, these individua ls are more dedicated to institutions than those lower in prejudice (Allport). Stagner (1944) discussed nationalism as a form of membership in an institution. Fu rther, prejudiced indi viduals would distrust those with liberal political perspectives and political reformers because they are attempting to destroy the institution that func tions to provide protec tion to a way of life and, ultimately, to protect the individual (Allport; Stagner, 1944) Authoritarianism The prejudiced personality is prone to authoritarianism. That is society should be orderly,
PAGE 54
43 powerful and authoritative. To this end, nationa lism, as discussed in the previous section, is consistent with this belief. A society that places emphasis on the individual results in uncertainty and change. According to Allport the consequence of personal freedom they find unpredictable. (1954/1979, p.406). The prejudi ced personality looks to hierarchy in authority to remedy the messiness of individu alism. Power structures are definite and function to make life predictable. Ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism maintains that one group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with refere nce to it (Sumner, 1960, p. 27). Therefore, if ones group is believed to be superior intellectually, psychologically and physically (Atkinson, Morten, & Sue, 1998) all ot her groups are inherently inferior. In its extreme form, ethnocentrism can lead to bias or discrimination, of which hate crime is an example (McMahon et al., 2004). Perpetrators of Bias Crime The theories of why people commit hate crimes can be seen to emerge in what is known about the typology of offenders of bias crim e. Hate crime offenders tend to be white males between the ages of 13 and 24 (Anderson, Dyson, & Brooks, 2002; McDevitt, Levin, & Bennett, 2002). Levin and McDevitt (1993) suggested that offenders who commit bias crimes are motivated by three diffe rent factors that result in three separate typologies. These three t ypologies include: 1) the thrill seeker who is motivated by power and excitement, 2) the defensive who is motivated by defending ones turf or resources, and 3) the mission who believes he or she is on a crusade to rid the world of groups considered evil or inferior. In 2002, Mc Devitt (Bureau of Jus tice Statistics, 2000) included retaliatory as a fourth typology of hate crim e offender. The retaliatory offender
PAGE 55
44 is motivated by a desire to avenge their gr oup as a result of a perceived assault or degradation. Bias Crime Reporting McDevitt (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000) outlined a process of bias crime reporting, which can be conceptualized as a series of decision points. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 34). The following is a list of the decision points: 1. Victim understanding that a crime has been committed 2. Victim Recognition that hate may be a motivating factor 3. Victim or another party solicits law enforcement intervention 4. Victim or another party communicates with law enforcement about motivation of the crime 5. Law enforcement recognizes the element of hate 6. Law enforcement documents the element of hate, and as appropriate, charges suspect with civil rights of hate/bias offense 7. Law enforcement records the incident and submits the information to the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), Hate Crime Reporting Unit. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 34). In a 1987 study conducted by McDevitt and his co lleagues (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000), 452 bias incidents handled by the Bo ston Police Department were examined. McDevitt found that only 19 or 4.2% of the cas es were appropriately identified as bias incidents by reporting officers (L evin, 1992). Levin asserted that critics of police officer reporting cite prejudice as the main factor influencing misidentification of bias incidences. Nolan and Akiyama (1999) conduc ted a series of focus groups with 147 police officers from four juri sdictions from the Northeast, West, Central and Southern United States. Two precincts participated in bias crime reporting and two precincts did not participate. The results of the study cons isted of variables that affected whether the agency and the individual reported a bias crime. The numbe r one factor affecting whether an agency participated in bias crime reporting was Shared attitudes/beliefs about hate crime reporting. (Nolan & Akiyama, p. 120). Th e number one factor a ffecting individual
PAGE 56
45 reporting was supportive organizational policies and procedures. Th e number two factor affecting whether an individual officer reported a hate crime was individual attitudes and beliefs about hate crime reporting. (Nolan & Akiyama, p.121). Victim Selection Another aspect of criminal investigation is that of perpetrator motivation. McMahon et al. (2004) discusse d the differences between crimes motivated by group animus and those by motivated by actuarial oppor tunity. An actuarial crime refers to the offenders evaluation of potential crime vic tims in terms of their ability to defend themselves (McMahon et al.). Although these crimes may appear to be spontaneous in nature, the predatory nature of the offender st ill engages in a process whereby he or she selects prey. In contrast to actuarial crimes, group animus refers to the offenders selection of a crime victim because of their membership in a group; rather what that potential victim symbolizes (McMahon et al., 2004). Animus is an important component of victim selection to bias crime classi fication because according to la w enforcement, if animus is not present, then a bias crime has not been committed (McMahon et al.). Problems with Bias Crime Data Many problems exist with the reporting and co llection of bias crime data (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). Some of the problem s that interfere with the accurate reporting of bias crimes include: 1) voluntary reporting by law enforcement agencies; 2) variability in definition and reporting format by state a nd local jurisdiction; and 3) Supreme Court decisions that affect the criminal investigation itself. Although the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 requires the Federal government to collect data on bias crimes, pa rticipation in the reporting is voluntary. Moreover, of those
PAGE 57
46 agencies that participate, 83% reported zero hate crimes occurred in their jurisdiction (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000, p.13). More importantly, McDevitt s research study involved interviews of police officers from zero reporting agencies who reported they had been directly involved in bias crime inve stigations and had recorded them as such (Bureau of Justice Statistics, p. 37). Specifi cally, 31% of the respondents who worked in jurisdictions that reported zer o hate crimes believe that their department investigated one or more hate crimes (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Even more interesting, 37.1% of the respondents who worked in jurisdictions th at did not report to the UCR believed their jurisdiction had inve stigated one or more hate crimes (B ureau of Justice St atistics, 2000). Another problem related to hate crime sta tistics is the definitio n. The definition of a bias crime often varies from state/local juri sdiction (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). Further, although the FBI has started moving away from th e UCR, which collects more summary data, to the National Incident Base d Reporting System (NIBRS), which collects incident specific data, there is much variab ility across states/jurisdictions as to which reporting system is used (Bureau of Justice Statistics). As a result, crimes are reported using either the UCR or the NIBRS system, resu lting in significant variability in the data collected. Prior to the US Supreme Court Decision on Apprendi v. New Jersey the sentencing enhancement for a crime suspected to be based on animus was presented by the prosecuting attorney and determined by the sentencing judge, which requires a preponderance of the evidence (Hoffman, 2003). In Apprendi v. New Jersey Apprendis sentence was enhanced from a 5-10 year mi nimum to a 10-20 year minimum after the sentencing judge determined the preponderan ce of evidence supporte d the victims were
PAGE 58
47 chosen based on group animus. Apprendi appe aled the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and the sentence was overturned. The majority decision written by Justice Paul Stevens stated that due process required by the f ourteenth amendment requires that any enhancement of sentence beyond that allowed by statute must be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt (Hoffm an, 2003; Oyez, 2000). If prosecutors are required to collect evidence of group animus, which is difficult to prove, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is possible prosecuting attorneys will scrutinize cases more closely. Although no investigation has been conducted to look at this, anecdotal comments from a Florida LEO investigating hate crimes supported the difficulty in substantiating bias motiva tion to a prosecuting attorney (M. Endara, personal communication, August 7, 2005). Bias Crime and People with Disabilities As discussed previously, people with disabi lities were included in the Hate Crime Statistics Act in 1996 although data collec tion didnt begin until 1997. McMahon et al. (2004) collected the entire universe of data from the period 1997-2001, a total of five years. Although lack of complete participa tion of law enforcement agencies prevents a complete universe, McMahon et al. estimated that the 12,000 law enforcement agencies that participated across 49 stat es represented jurisdictions that cover approximately 85% of the U.S. population.A total of 41,442 bias crimes were reported for the five-year period (McMahon et al., 2004). The majority of the crimes were committed because of race (22,030), followed by religion (7,846), sexual orient ation (6,371), ethnicity (5,428), and disability (127). The relative risk of victimizat ion was assessed by calculating a within-group odds-ratio for type of hate crime and location. The relative risk for a racially ba sed bias crime (1.19)
PAGE 59
48 was 350 times that of disability (.002) (McMa hon et al.). The most common types of hate crimes were simple assault, intimidation, and property damage, which was consistent across all categories. However, the risk for simple assault was greater for people with disabilities than for any other group (McMahon et al.). The top three locations where bias crimes were committed were personal residence, street, and other. Although these top three were consistent across categories, people with disabilities were at greatest risk in their residence, followed by college campuses and government buildings. McMahon et al. (2004) asserted that it is unlikely people with disabilities experience bias crimes at a rate lower than other protected cate gories. In fact, many disability theorists are looking to the issue of unde rreporting as a possible explanation for the relatively low risk of bias crime fo r people with disabilities (Berkeleyan, 2002; McMahon et al.; Sherry, 2003; Sorensen, 2001). McMahon et al. (2004) offers the fo llowing possible explanations for underreporting of bias crimes: (1) Disability was included as a protected ca tegory almost six years after the development of the initial system for hate crime repor ting, consequently, only half of the states included disability in their hate crime legislat ion; (2) the marginal status of people with disabilities results in lack of accessibility to the crimin al justice system so law enforcement has little experience working w ith people with disabilities and people with disabilities lack attent ion from law enforcement; (3) the lack of appellate cases dealing with disability in hate crime legislation; (4) th e perpetrators of crimes against people with disabilities are often known to them e.g. family members, caret akers, etc. and victims are less likely to report a crime to law enforcement when the offender is know to the victim;
PAGE 60
49 and (5) if reports to law enforcement do not result in prosecution and conviction, people with disabilities will lose faith in law enfor cement and the benefits of reporting will not outweigh the risk association with # 4. Pr oblems with bias crime data discussed previously, also apply to peopl e with disabilities. An analys is of the problems with bias crime data for people with disabilities will be presented below. As mentioned previously, people with disabilities are included in bias crime legislation in approximately 21, roughly half, of the United States (Perry, 2001). Yet, this doesnt appear to impact the reporting of bias cr imes against people with disabilities. For example, the data from 1997 to 2003 was analyzed by state (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999a, 1998, 1997) A total of 199 bias crimes committed against a person with a disability were reported. Twenty-two states reported no bias crimes, which included Florida, Geor gia, and Iowa, each of which have bias crime legislation including people with disa bilities. Conversely, California, Washington and Wisconsin do not have bias crime legislati on but have each reported at least one bias crime during this period. The largest number of crimes reported was from the state of South Carolina, who reported 32 (or 16% of the total) bias motivated crimes. The South Carolina and Tennessee were the only two states in the southeast that reported any bias crimes against PWD during the period. The t op three states reporting for the period were South Carolina with 32, California with 21, a nd Tennessee with 18. The fact that two of the top three reporting states are located in th e southeast when the ot her southeast states did not report any bias crime incidents is suspect. Additionally, of the top three states, California doesnt have legislation allowi ng sentencing enhancement for bias crimes
PAGE 61
50 committed against persons with disabilities. From this analysis, there appears to be no pattern for which states report and no expl anation for the disparity across states. Bias Crime and Gender There are factors associated with gender motivated hate crimes that warrant discussion here. First, at the ti me disability was included in the Hate Crime Statistics Act, a number of other groups lobbied for inclusion in the Act, including gender, children, and the elderly (McMahon et al., 2004). A lthough gender was not included in the reauthorization of the act, approximately 20 st ates include gender in state-level hate crime legislation. As a result, hate crimes motivated by animus towards gender are monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center as well as other local interest groups and researchers. Individuals who opposed the inclusion of gender in the Hate Crime Statistics Act cited the following reasons: 1) Perpetrators of a hate crime have little of no relationship to the victim. Because crimes against wome n are often perpetrated by individuals known to them, crimes against women dont fit the hate crime model; 2) special laws already exist that address violence against women; 3) the addition of gender into the hate crime category will overwhelm data collection; and 4) men who attack women do not necessarily hate them. (McPhail, 2002). The first objection, perp etrators of a hate crimes have little or no relationship to the victim, is of particular interest to this discussion because: 1) research suggests that the overwhe lming majority of perpetrators of crimes against people with disabilities are known to them; and 2) the notion that a perpetrator of a hate crime can not know the victim is a misi nformed belief (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000; Lawrence, 1999; National Institute of Just ice, 1999). In fact, perpetrators of hate crimes can be neighbors or co-workers (McPhail, 2002). If misinformation purporting
PAGE 62
51 that perpetrators of hate crimes will can not be known to the victim, then victims of gender and disability motivated hate crimes are at a disadvantage because the dynamics of the crime do not fit the accepted profile albeit misinformed, of a hate crime. Another similarity is the prosecution rate for perpetrators of crime against women. As stated, individuals who oppos e the inclusion of gender in the HCSA use the fact that special laws are already in effect that address violence against women. However, with these special laws, is it estimated that more than half of all rape prosecutions result in acquittal or the case is dismissed. Moreover, approximately 98% of rape victims will never see the perpetrator apprehended, convi cted, and incarcerat ed (McPhail, 2002). These statistics are similar to those reporte d by Mishra (2001) on prosecution rates for perpetrators of crimes agains t persons with disabilities. The belief that men who attack women are not perpetrators of a hate crime because they do not hate women is another example of common misinformation on hate crimes. Victim selection has to do with bias and prejudice not hate. Fra nklin (1998) discovered through interviews of perpetra tors of assault on gay men th at motivation was rarely as simple as hatred of homosexuality alone. The Franklin interviews revealed that the crime was often used as a means to allevi ate boredom, garner social approval, and demonstrate masculinity. Evidence of si milarities between gender and disability motivated hate crimes exists in the literature It appears that misinf ormation regarding: 1) the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim; 2) prosecution rates for perpetrators of crime against women and PW Ds is disproportionately lower than the general population; and 3) mo tivation to commit hate crimes is complex and possibly misunderstood.
PAGE 63
52 Vulnerability as a Negative Attitude It has been suggested that people with disabilities may be perceived as victims (McMahon et al., 2004; Sorense n, 2001). McMahon et al. assert s that disability experts attribute the perception of vulnera bility of people with disabilitie s to negative attitudes. If people with disabilities are per ceived as vulnerable or victims, the process of teasing out whether the perpetrator was motivated by ac tuarial reasons or animus may become increasingly more difficult. The definition of a bias crime is one that is committed in whole or in part by the offenders bias. Therefore, even if there are bias indicators at a crime scene of a person with a disability, having elements of both bi as and actuarial motiv ation could make the elements of the crime scene ambiguous, at best Attitude accessibility theory suggests that if the law enforcement officer holds the att itude that people with disabilities are more vulnerable, being in the presen ce of a person with a disabil ity might activat e that attitude and become the salient feature of the investigation. From a more practical perspective, the ambiguity created by having bias crime indicators and actuarial indicators would result in the officer deferring to a state attorney whose job is to gather enough evidence of bias motivation, often defined as 3-4 bias incidents in a sequence (M. Endara, personal communication, August 7, 2005), to prove bias beyond a reasonable doubt. Summary and Conclusion Bias crimes have garnered the attention of American citizens over the past decade. Bias crimes are regarded as being more seve re than other crimes because of the attempt on behalf of the perpetrator to marginalize a particular group of citizens, thereby sending a clear message to all members of the targ eted group. For this r eason, bias motivated crimes strike at the very heart of the Amer ican value that all me n are created equal.
PAGE 64
53 People with disabilities were recently include d as a protected category in the Hate Crime Statistics Act, in part, because of the longstanding history of negative attitudes, prejudice and discrimination against people with disabi lities in areas such as employment, poverty, etc. Since its inclusion, the number of bias crimes committed against people with disabilities is disproportionately lowe r than other protected categories. It has been suggested that no other group of citizens has been treated with the same degree of prejudice and discrimi nation than people with disabilities. Evidence exists that people with disabilities have th e highest rate of unemployment of any protected class of citizens, live in poverty at a rate dispr oportionate to the ge neral population, and experience crime at a rate and duration dispr oportionate to the gene ral population. As the first class of citizens targeted for extinction by Nazi physicians, it is arguable that people with disabilities were the first victims of bias motivated crime during World War II. Given the history of prejudice and discrimi nation of people with disabilities, data suggesting that people with disabilities in the Un ited States are victims of bias crimes at a rate disproportionately lower than othe r protected categories are highly suspect (McMahon et al., 2004). Although it is reasonable to entertain the idea that people with disabilities are not victims of bi as crimes at the same rate as other protected categories, the pervasiveness and prevalence of inequality in other areas demands this conclusion be drawn only after other possible explanations have been explored. Research attempting to explain inequality for people w ith disabilities in other areas has resulted in a substantial amount of evidence that attitudes may be a si gnificant factor in determining how people perceive and behave towards people with disabilities.
PAGE 65
54 Although not consistent in the research, it is accepted among attitude theorists that attitudes influence perception and behavior Negative attitudes towards people with disabilities are well documented in the literatu re. Attitudes appear to vary as a function of gender, age, education and occupation. Contact theory suggests that contact between an individual in an official capacity where the pe rson with a disability is in a dependent role can result in the forming of negative attitudes. Law enforcement is re garded as a helping profession where the interacti on with people with disabilities is in a dependent role. Research has documented that an overwhelming number of crimes with bias indicators were missed by law enforcement officials duri ng the investigation. It has been suggested that attitudes could influence the perception of whether a crime should be enhanced as a bias crime. If people with disabilities are victims of hate crimes more frequently than the number of cases reported, then the hate crime reporting framework discussed earlier suggests that the problem with underreporting c ould reside with the individual victim or with law enforcement. The first four of McDevitts series of decision points in bias crime reporting deal with factors that influence victim reporting of a crime to law enforcement (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). The fi rst two points deal with the victims understanding that a bias crime has been co mmitted and recognition by the victim that bias may be a motivating factor. These deci sion points in hate crime reporting beg the question(s) Are people with disa bilities aware that they can be a victim of a hate crime? If so, Are people with disa bilities aware of the bias indicators to present to law enforcement during and interview? Further, inequality present in prosecution and conviction rates of offenders of crimes agai nst persons with disabi lities can result in
PAGE 66
55 diminished faith that law enforcement will re spond appropriately to a report and render the victim reluctant to repor t the crime to law enforcemen t. These questions, although relevant to this discussion, lie outs ide the scope of th is project. Available literature suggests that a number of factors could influence the recognition of hate by a police officer, in cluding (1) the U.S. Supreme Court case Apprendi vs. New Jersey may have resulted in greater scrutiny of eviden ce presented by law enforcement to the state attorneys offi ce because of the increa sed burden of proving bias motivation beyond a reasonable doubt instea d of as a preponderance of evidence; (2) attitudes about hate crime reporting by the law enforcement agency, which may include the state attorneys office, affect the repor ting of bias motivated crimes; and (3) the attitudes of the investigating police officer has been suggested to be the second most important factor as to whether a cr ime is reported as a bias crime. The focus of this investigation is on the fifth of McDevi tts series of decision points in bias crime reporting whether law enforcement rec ognizes the element of hate?, particularly, when the crime is committed ag ainst a person with a disability (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000). This study will inve stigate law enforcement officers level of agreement about whether a series of crime s cenarios should be enhanced as a bias crime if the victim is a person with a disability, compared to crim e scenarios where the victims protected category is race, gende r, religion or sexual orientat ion. Further, this project will investigate whether law enforcement officer agreement with bias crime enhancement varies as a function of the gender of the pa rticipant, moreover, whether an interaction exists between gender and protected categor y. Finally, this investigation will explore whether the level of agreement with bias cr ime enhancement can be predicted by the age
PAGE 67
56 of the law enforcement officer, law enforcem ent officer attitudes toward people with disabilities, and law enforcement officer contact with people with disabilities
PAGE 68
57 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the methods used in the present study to determine whether law enforcement officer attitudes about hate crimes vary across protected category. The major areas addressed in this chapter include the research questions, research design, participants, instrumentation, pr ocedures and da ta collection. Research Questions 5. Research Question One: Does law enforcement officers level of agreement with hate crime classification vary across protected category? 6. Research Question Two: Does law enforcement officers mean level of agreement with hate crime classifi cation vary by gender? 7. Research Question Three: Is there an interaction be tween protected category and gender on law enforcement officers mean level of agreement with hate crime enhancement? 8. Research Question Four: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities, and contact with persons with disabil ities provide predictive ability for law enforcement officers agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with disabilities? Research Design A quantitative correlational design was us ed that employed a convenience sample. Participants were asked to complete a Modified Hate Crime Survey (MHCS), the Attitudes towards Disabled Persons (ATDP-A) scale-Form A, the Modified version of the Contact with Disabled Persons Scale (C DP), and a demographic questionnaire. Participants The goal of the project was to recruit tw o hundred and forty Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) participants from the Alachua County Sheriffs department. The sample size was
PAGE 69
58 determined by conducting a power analysis for a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and a multiple regression analysis. De grees of freedom for the F-ratio (u) was determined by calculating (k-1) (r-1) where k and r are the number of levels of interacting main effects (Cohen, 1988). In the present st udy, u= (5-1) (2-1) = 4. The number of participants required to find a small effect size f=.10 (Cohen, 1988) with u=4 with power of .80 and an alpha level of .05 is 240 (Cohen, 1988). The regression analysis was de signed with 3 predictors in the model. A sample size of 51 is required to detect a squared multiple correlation coefficient of R2=.20 with power = .80 and a type-II error rate = .05. However, the .95 confidence interval with a sample size of 51 is R2 +/.20, which means there is a 95% chance the squared multiple correlation will be between .00 and .40, which is too wide. The sample size required to achieve a 95% confidence inte rval +/.10 is 200, which mean s there is a 95% chance the squared multiple correlation will be between .10 and .30. A sample size of 240 is sufficient to achieve this confidence band. A brief overview of the nature of the research, type of instruments and time required was made to all prospective partic ipants. Law Enforcement Officers reviewed the informed consent form from the Institut ional Review Board (IRB) and signed consent forms were obtained prior to partic ipants taking the instruments. Instruments The instruments used in this research st udy included: 1) the Modified Hate Crime Survey (MHCS), a survey designed to measure attitudes towards hate crime scenarios from each of 5 protected categories (race, religion, sexual orientation, gender and disability); 2) the ATDP-A, a self-report measure of attitudes towards people with
PAGE 70
59 disabilities; 3) the Wang (1998) version of the CDP (Yuker & Hurley, 1987), a measure of contact with persons with disabilitie s; and 4) a demographic questionnaire. The Modified Hate Crime Survey The Hate Crime Survey was constructe d by Alexandra Miller (2001) to study whether criminal justice students agreement w ith labeling crime scenarios as hate crimes would differ from students in other disciplines. The original survey consists of 20 actual hate crime scenarios reported to the FBI a nd offenses tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center included in its annual report, Klanwatch (Miller, 2001). The 20 items included five scenarios from each of four protected categories: race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender. Particip ants rate on a 7-point scale their level of agreement for whether each crime scenario constitutes a ha te crime. This survey was of particular interest for this research study for the follo wing reasons: (1) the su rvey included gender as a protected category which, as stated in Chap ter 2, has similarities to disability; (2) it is the only survey designed to look for differen ces across protected ca tegories; and (3) the author of the survey agreed to allow modifi cation of the survey to include people with disabilities. Millers (2001) Hate Crime Survey was modi fied to: (1) include 5 crime scenarios that involve a bias crime committed against a person with a disability, (2) include five crime scenarios (one scenario for each protected ca tegory) that did not have any bias crime indicators, and (3) modify the remaining scenar ios so they were balanced with regard to the type of indicator and severity of cr ime (SEE Appendix A). The five bias crime scenarios introduced in the modified versi on include a sensory di sability, a mental disability, a developmental di sability, an infectious di sease, and a neuromuscular disability. Although the disabi lities represented are not in clusive of all types of
PAGE 71
60 disabilities, each of the five scenarios consiste d of a different category of disability that spans at least physical, sensory and mental di sabilities. Miller (2001) obtained the crime scenarios for the original survey from the Southern Poverty Law Ce nter. When contacted, they do not track crimes committed against people with disabilities as with other protected categories. Therefor e, the crime scenarios were obtained from a review of available literature that reported specifics on hate crimes committed against people with disabilities. One possible flaw with the original Hate Crime Survey construc ted by Miller (2001) consists of the content of the scenarios. In a national survey of police officers and police officer supervisors, McDevitt learned from 610 respondents that graffiti or bias symbols at the crime scene, offender membership in a hate group, and bias charged language constituted the top three most important f actors in determining whether a crime was potentially motivated by bias (Bureau of Ju stice Statistics, 2000). In other words, the above factors indicate to an officer that bias motivation is possible and are considered cues to investigate further. There was disp arity across protected cat egories in the crime scenarios in Millers (2001) survey. For example, only one of the crime scenarios in the gender category included a bias indicator wh ereas all but one of the scenarios in the religion category included a bias indicator. As a result, the cr ime scenarios were modified only to include at least one of the top thr ee bias indicators descri bed in the McDevitt study (Bureau of Justice Statistics). The goal wa s to maintain the inte grity of the original crime scenarios as much as possible. Therefore, if a bias indicator wa s present, it was not changed. However, bias indicators were adde d to those scenarios where no indicator was present. The items from each protected category include one item where the offender is a
PAGE 72
61 member of a hate group, one scenario where gr affiti or bias symbols are present at the crime scene and three scenarios where bias la nguage is used verbally or in writing. There is one exception to this rule. The religion category has two crime scenarios where bias symbols are present and no indicators where the perpetrators were members of a hate group. In order to make the religion category consistent with the other categories, it would require removing a bias indicator from the original survey. It was believed that maintaining the integrity of the scenarios was more important than further altering an aspect of the scenario to correct a difference of one bias indicator. Another possible flaw with the MHCS was the severity or hei nousness of the crime scenarios in terms of balan ce across protected categories. There is no standardized instrument for measuring the severity of crime scenarios (Welner, 1998, 2003). However, Welner (2003) devised a measure that is curr ently being field teste d. Welner (2003) uses a three-point scale to measure severity of a crime. The lowest point on the scale is a measure of absence of severity, not deprav ed. Because the goal was to balance crime scenario severity of the MHCS, the not severe point on the scale was modified to measure somewhat severe. The items on the MHCS were used to create an assessment of severity (SEE Appendix E). The assessmen t was given to a panel of 3 experts who rated each item in terms of somewhat hei nous, heinous, and very heinous. Comments from the first review indicated the following pa ttern of severity: 1) murder and rape were considered very heinous, 2) assault/ba ttery and physical harm was considered heinous, and 3) verbal threats, name cal ling, and graffiti, was considered somewhat heinous. The scale was modified so that each protected cat egory had two crime scenarios in the very heinous category and at least one item in each of the heinous and somewhat
PAGE 73
62 heinous categories with the ex ception of religion, which had three items in the somewhat heinous category. The final survey was revi ewed by the expert panel a second time and there was 100% agreement among the panel as to the balance of severity across categories. Responses. A seven-point Likert-scale is used by the participant to indicate their level of agreement/disagreement with the asser tion that each crime s cenario constitutes a bias crime. The scale ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). There are no anchors for 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The participants are asked to circle the number that corresponds to their level of agreement along the scale. Scoring. The scores of all 30 items on the M odified Hate Crime Survey were summed and yield a total raw sc ore ranging from thirty to tw o hundred and ten: the lower the score, the lower the agreement and the hi gher the score the greater the agreement. A subscale score was calculated for each of th e five protected categories. The subscale scores can range from five to thirty-five: Again, the lower the score, the lower the agreement and the higher the scor e the greater the agreement. Reliability. Miller (2001) conducted a pilot st udy using 304 criminology students on the original survey. She reported a .94 alpha reliability for the scale. A total of 27 Law Enforcement Officers were recruited to participate in the pilot study of the instrument. The instrument was administered on two se parate days in the same location, The Kirkpatrick Criminal Justi ce Training Center in Ga inesville, Florida. Both administrations of the instrument were done immediately before a training session began.The law enforcement participants were given an opportunity to read the consent form and ask questions before signing the informed consent form and. Once all the
PAGE 74
63 participants completed the survey, they were given an opportunity to provide feedback to the principle investigator on the survey in strument. Comments made by participants included: 1) some items lacked information, a nd 2) one of the crime scenarios should be modified so at least one of the victims was Caucasian. The first comment that some items lacked information pertained specifically to th e items that were designed to eliminate bias crime indicators. The second comment concerni ng the inclusion of a bias crime involving a Caucasian victim appeared to be a philosophic al issue of one officer that was not shared by the other officers. As a result, it was not determined to have a significant bearing on the instrument. Reliability The results of the pilot study of 27 participants revealed a Cronbachs alpha for the total scale of .89. The alpha coe fficients for the subscales were .70 for race, .62 for disability, .72 for gender, .64 for re ligion, and .63 for sexual preference. The lower than desired internal consistency for the subscales can be attributed to the low number of items for each subscale (e.g. 6) and that each subscale contains one item that is designed to not have any bias crime indicators in the crime scenario. Validity. A Repeated Measures ANOVA was c onducted and found that the betweensubjects effects was significant at F (26,1070) = .76, p <.001. Pairwise comparisons found that the non-bias indicator scenarios were significantly different than each of the protected categories at p <.001. The mean score for the non-bias indicator subscale was 10, which is equivalent to a 2 on the scale. This indicates that partic ipants were able to distinguish between bias and non-bias crime scenarios. Additionally, it suggests that participants were truthf ul in their responses.
PAGE 75
64 Attitudes toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP) The ATDP is a self-report measure of an i ndividuals attitudes towards people with disabilities and is the most widely used meas ure of general attitudes towards persons with disabilities (Antonak & Livneh, 1988). It was developed as a unidimensional scale of attitudes. The scale is desi gned primarily to measure atti tudes towards persons with disabilities (Antonak & Livneh, 1988).The scale was origin ally published in 1960 as a 20-item scale (Yuker, Block, & Campbell, 1960). The original scale, Form-O was altered and published in 1962 (Yuker, Block, Younng, 1966) as a 30-item scale with two Forms, A and B. Each scale takes approximately 10 mi nutes to administer although the scale is untimed. One criticism of the ATDP was the language used. Specifically, the wording of the scale had not been updated since the emergen ce of person first language. However, Pruett modified the ATDP Form-A to person first language in 2004 (SEE Appendix C). Responses. The ATDP utilizes a six-point Likert -scale for individua ls to indicate their agreement or disagreement with each it em. The scale ranges fr om -3 (I disagree very much), -2 (I disagree pretty much), -1 (I disagree a little), +1 (I agree a little), +2 (I agree pretty much), to +3 (I agree very much). Individuals are asked to circle the response at the right of each statem ent based on how they feel in each case. Scoring Form-A of the ATDP yields a summated scale score. The scoring for twelve items on Form-A must be reversed (Items 5, 9, 12, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 29). Once the scoring for these items is reversed, the scores for all 30 items are summed, and the sign of the sum is reversed. The raw score is scaled by adding a c onstant (90) to the sum thereby ensuring the total score isnt a ne gative value. The range of possible scores is 0 to 180. A lower number reflects more negative attitudes towards people with
PAGE 76
65 disabilities and a higher number reflects mo re positive attitudes towards persons with disabilities (Yuker & Block, 1986; Yuker et al., 1966). Reliability The test-retest reliability estimates of forms O, A, and B range from +.66 to +.89. Alternate form reliability betw een forms A and B was reported to be +.85 and split-half reliability ra nged from +.72 to +.89 for the three versions (Antonak & Livneh, 1988). Validity. Content validation was conducted th rough an extensiv e extraction of statements made about individuals with disabilities in the literature followed by psychologists reviewing the items for relevance to put into the scal e (Antonak & Livneh, 1988). Item analyses were then conducted to test for item discri mination. Scores were correlated to demographic variables such as age, gender, and e ducation to establish construct and criterion related validity. Th e authors found a positive relationship between education and attitude, gender and attitude with female attitudes being more positive than males and no relationship between scale sc ores and age (Antonak & Livneh, 1988). Although the authors of the ATDP claim that the dimension measured is unidimensional, other empirical factorial studi es found that the three form s of the scale may contain between two and nine independent factors, which suggests the scale is susceptible to variance from changes other than attitude (Antonak & Livneh, 1988), affecting the validity of the instrument. Additional criticis m reflects problems with scores clustering at the top and bottom end of the range (Antona k, 1980), suggesting little variation and spread and questionable item discrimination. Nevertheless, the ATDP was used in this study because of the amount of research on the scale, despite these weaknesses.
PAGE 77
66 Contact with Disabled Persons Scale (CDP) The CDP scale is a 20-item self-report invent ory that uses a five -point Likert scale to measure the amount of contact a particip ant has had with peopl e with disabilities (Yuker & Hurley, 1987). As stated in Chapte r 2, Allport (1954/ 1978) described that contact between an individual and a member of an out-group that meets certain criteria can serve to reduce prejudice. Recent rese arch on contact theory (Dixon, et. al., 2005) emphasizes the importance of the quality of cont act in addition to the quantity of contact. More recent developments on scales that m easure contact have focused on both quantity and quality of contact with out-group members (Islam & Hewstone, 1993). However, these scales do not measure contact with pers ons with disabilities. Modifying the CDP to measure quality of contact or modifying the Islam & Hewstone (1993) scale to include people with disabilities is beyond the scope of th is project. At this time, the CDP is the only scale in existence to measure cont act with persons with disabilities. Responses Participants are asked to read each item and then indicate the corresponding quantity of contact that corresponds to the item 1 (never), 2 (once or twice), 3 (a few times), 4 (often), or 5 (v ery often) by circling th e appropriate number. Like the ATDP, the CDP was modified by Wang (1998) to include pe rson first language. The Wang version of the CDP was used in this study. See Appendix D for a copy of the modified CDP. Scoring The scores of all 20 items on the CDP are summed and yield a total raw score ranging from twenty to one hundred: the lowe r the score, the lower the quantity of contact with persons with disabilities and th e higher the score the greater the amount of contact.
PAGE 78
67 Reliability. Reliability coefficients reported for the CDP range from .87-.93 between the original and modifi ed versions of the scale demo nstrating good reliability of the scale. Yuker and Hurley (1987) reported a split-half reliability of .93 and Cronbachs alpha of .92. Wang (1998) reported a Cronbachs alpha of .87 for the modified version and Pruett (2004) reported a two-week test-ret est reliability of .90 and a Cronbachs alpha of .91. Demographic Questionnaire The demographic questionnaire was de signed to elicit sp ecific background information about the participants that could be related to attitudes about hate crimes and people with disabilities. The demographic questionnaire is designed to collect more demographic data than was utilized in th is study (SEE Appendix B). Although each of the demographic variables is relevant to this study, including each factor in the regression model will require a sample size necessary to achieve sufficient power that is unrealistic for this study but helpful in future studies designed to increase the sample size. The items in the demographic questionnair e are designed to gather information on gender, age, ethnicity, race, education, law enforcement experience, and qualitative aspects of contact with people with disabilities. This study u tilized gender and age in the data analysis. Gender has specific relevance in the literature to bot h perception of hate crimes and attitudes towards people with di sabilities. Miller ( 2001) found differences between males and females on the level of ag reement with the hate crime scenarios on the hate crime survey. Further, females have been found to have more positive attitudes towards people with disabili ties (Yuker & Block, 1986). As mentioned previously, Yuker & Block (1986) discuss that level of educati on is probably the single greatest factor that predicts attitudes towards persons with disabilities.
PAGE 79
68 Data Collection Procedure There are 250 sworn Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) employed by the Alachua County Sheriffs Department. Of those 250 LEO s, 27 consented to participate in the pilot study and 184 consented to participate in the present study. Th e convenience sample of 184 LEOs were participati ng in a routine bi-monthly trai ning at the Kirkpatrick Law Enforcement Officer Training Center in Gain esville, Florida. The bi-monthly training was designed to provide continuing education units to maintain LEO certification. LEO certification in Florida requi res specific training in huma n diversity. The present study was used to partially fulfill the hum an diversity training requirement. The instruments were designed in the form of a packet to ease in the administration in a group setting. The were placed in the following order: The Modified Hate Crime Survey (MHCS), Demographic Questionnaire, ATDP-A, and the CDP scale. Each participant received a consent form with a description of the research study and the survey instruments, in that order, held together with a pape r clip. The principal investigator was present for each data collection. Prior to taking the instruments, the inves tigator introduced himself by name and as a student at the University of Fl orida. Participants were instructed to 1) read the Research Protocol and ask questions to clarify points of confusion, 2) sign two copies of the informed consent form as required by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board-Psychology (IRB-02) if volunteeri ng for the research study, one for the investigator and the other for the law enforcem ent officer, 3) take th e surveys in the order they are presented, 4) when completed, bring the survey packet to the investigator. When participants returned the packet to the investigator, the consent forms were separated from the participant questionnaires. Participants were reminded to keep their
PAGE 80
69 copy of the informed consent on which there is contact information if they have any questions or concerns at a later date. Data Analysis Research Question One : Does law enforcement officers level of agreement with hate crime classification vary across protected category? Research Question Two : Does law enforcement officers mean level of agreement with hate crime classifi cation vary by gender? Research Question Three : Is there an interaction be tween protected category and gender on law enforcement officers mean level of agreement with hate crime enhancement? Analysis Related to Research Questions One, Two, and Three A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) wa s used to examine whether the mean of scores on level of agreement with hate crime enhancement vary across protected category or gender and whether the two va riables interact. The Two-Way ANOVA was used to answer the first research ques tion, which is to determine is there is main effect of protected category on mean agreement with ha te crime enhancement scores; the second research question which is whether there is a main effect of gender on mean agreement with hate crime enhancement scores; and th e third research question, which is whether gender and protected category interact or whether the effect of protected category depends on gender. Research Question Four : Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities, and contact with persons with disabil ities provide predictive ability for law enforcement officers agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with disabilities? Analysis Related to Research Question Four A multiple regression analysis was utilized to answer research question four. As such, the goal will be to m odel level of agreement with th e subscale score of people with disabilities as a function of age, attitude score, and qua ntity of contact score.
PAGE 81
70 Although the ATDP and the CDP utilize Like rt scales to measure the constructs, respectively, data from both scales have been analyzed as interval scales. The literature documents analyzing ATDP data (Pruett, 2004; Satcher & Gamble, 2002) and CDP data (Pruett, 2004; Wang, 1998) as an interval scale. Limitations This study contains limitations with regards to internal and extern al validity. First, the results have limited genera lizability. Although practical, the use of law enforcement officers from Gainesville, Florida limits th e results to only Deputy Sheriffs from Gainesville, Florida. Second, legislation varies from across states as to what constitutes a protected category. Specifically, the state of Florida does not ha ve legislation that allows for courts to enhance a sentence if the perpetrator commits a crime against a person with a disability because of bias. As a result, th ere are variables outside the control of this study that can influence the interpre tation of bias crime indicators. Limitations also exist with th e internal validity of the st udy. First, the us e of self-report measures can introduce an element of respons e bias into the study. Self-report measures, particularly with attitude measures of su rveys of sensitive information can elicit respondents answering in a manner that is soci ally acceptable. Social desirability is not controlled for in this study. As a result, it isnt possible to determine what extent participants responses were influenced by so cial desirability. A s econd limitation is the nature of the study itself. The methodol ogy of the study did not allow for causal interpretation of the data.
PAGE 82
71 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The primary focus of this study was to determine whether group membership influenced law enforcement officer agreement to categorize a crime as a bias crime and to determine what factors influenced their de cision. The study utili zed a sample of 184 certified law enforcement officers LEOs. The following research questions were addressed: 1. Research Question One: Does law enforcement officer level of agreement with hate crime classification vary across protected category? 2. Research Question Two: Does law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate crime classifi cation vary by gender? 3. Research Question Three: Is there an interaction be tween protected category and gender on law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate crime classification? 4. Research Question Four: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities, and contact with persons with disabil ities provide predictive ability for law enforcement officers agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with disabilities? The first three questions were answer ed by conducting a two-way (repeated measure) ANOVA and a series of one-way ANOVAs as post-hoc analyses. Protected category and gender were included in the ANOVA model to answer questions 1 and 2 while the interaction term in the model wa s used to answer question 3. Question 4 was answered by modeling the MHCS disability sub-scale score as a function of the CDP score, ATDP-A score, and age of LEO.
PAGE 83
72 Response to non-hate crime scenarios. A crime scenario was included in each protected category that did not include indicators of a bias crime. There were a total of five crime scenarios that were not hate cr imes. A separate sub-category consisting of these items was formed for the purpose of analysis. The non-bias crime scenarios were rated markedly lower on the scale compared to the bias crime items ( M = 10.17, SD = 4.67, Range = 5 to 31) (See Figure 4.1). The ANOVA indicated a significant interaction across all categories, incl uding the non-hate items F (5,1096) = 589.26, p > .001. Levenes test was significant F (5,1096) = 17.51, p > .001 indicating the assumption of equal variances had been violated. Tamhanes test was used to correct for the violation and the mean score difference between non-ha te items and the five sub-scales were significant p <.001. These results are consistent with the pilot study resu lts for the same items and provided evidence of the discriminant -validity of particip ant responses to the instrument. The non-hate crime items were removed from the analysis when the ANOVAs for subsequent analyses were performed. The in itial purpose of the nonhate crime items was to establish LEOs ability to discriminate between hate crime and non-hate crime items. Once established, the items were eliminated fr om the sub-scale scores for each protected category. The aim of the study was to look for variability across similar items. It was believed the non-hate crime items would in troduce unnecessary variability into the subscales. Therefore, no other analysis in this study included th e non-hate crime items. Two-way ANOVA A 5 x 2 two-way (repeated measures) ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the effect of five protected cat egory and gender on law enforcement officer
PAGE 84
73 Table 4.1: Analysis of Variance fo r Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores ________________________________________________________________________ Source df F p 2 p ________________________________________________________________________ Between subjects Category 4 25.15 .10 .001* Gender 1 17.79 .02 .001* Category X Gender 4 .73 <.01 .570 S within-group 893 (19.77) error ________________________________________________________________________ Note : Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. p 2 denotes partial eta squared. An asterisk indicates significant results p <.01. MHCS scores. The ANOVA indicated no signif icant interaction between protected category and gender F(4,893) = .733 p > .05, partial eta square ( p2) = .003, but significant main effects for prot ected category F(4,893) = 25.15, p < .001, p2 = .10, and gender, F(1,893) = 17.79, p < .001, p2 = .02 (See Table 4.1). The multiple correlation coefficient squared or R2 is a measure of the strength of relationship. The multiple correlation coefficient squared for the 5 x 2 two-way ANOVA model was R2 = .29 and the adjusted R2 for the model was adjusted R2 = .28. A Levenes test of unequal variance was conducted to determine whether the assumption of equal error variance had been violated. Levenes test was significant F(9,893) = 9.87, p < .001 indicating the assump tion had been violated concluding the error variance is not equal across gro ups. A one-way ANOVA was conducted for protected category and gender separately to explore whether the violation of equal variance occurred in both analyses.
PAGE 85
74 Research Questions Research question #1: Does law enforcement officer level of agr eement with hate crime classification vary across protected category? Differences in responses across protected category. As stated previously, the main effect of protected category was significant F (4,893) = 25.15, p < .001, p 2 = .10 (See Table 4.1). The results of the one way ANOVA for protected category was also significant, F (4,913) = 83.64, p < .001 (See Table 4.2). The p 2 is a measure of effect size or strength of relationship. It is a measure of variance that is uniquely accounted for by a particular variable: p 2 = SSeffect / (SSeffect + SSerror) The effect size for protected category was moderate-large p 2 = .10 (Pallant, 2005) Table 4.2: One-way Analysis of Varian ce for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Protected Category ________________________________________________________________________ Source df F p 2 p ________________________________________________________________________ Between subjects Category 4 83.64 .27 .001* S within-group 913 (20.41) error ________________________________________________________________________ Note : Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors p 2 denotes partial eta squared. An asterisk indicates significant results p <.01 A Levenes test of unequal variance was conducted to dete rmine whether the assumption of equal error variances had been violated. Levenes test for protected categories was significant F (4,913) = 22.56, p < .001 indicating the assumpti on had been violated and the error variance is not equal across groups.
PAGE 86
75 The violation of equal vari ance assumption was addressed in two ways: first, the large sample size functions to counteract the effects of the assumpti on on the type I error rate, and second, post-hoc analyses were chos en to take the violation into account. The Tamhane test is considered one of the more conservative tests when the equal error variance assumption has been violated (Green & Salkind, 2003) and adjusts the degrees of freedom to account for the violation. For the multiple comparison tests, the difference between the mean disability sub-scale sc ore and that for race, religion, and sexual orientation was statistically significant p < .001. The differe nce between disability and gender was not statistically significant. Participants taking the Modified Hate Crime Survey (MHCS) agreed with categorizing a crime as a bias crime less often when the crime was committed against a person with a disability ( M = 26.32, SD = 5.13, Range = 8 to 35, 95% CI 25.57 to 27.07), than when the bias crime scenario was committed against a person because of sexual orientation ( M = 28.79, SD = 4.40, Range = 16 to 35, 95% CI 28.15 to 29.43), religion ( M = 31.00, SD = 3.76, Range = 14 to 35, 95% CI 38.52 to 23.48), or race ( M = 32.86, SD = 3.07, Range = 20 to 35, 95% CI 32.42 to 33.31). The mean response for gender was similar to disability in te rms of mean score, variabili ty and range of responses ( M = 25.68, SD = 5.72, Range = 9 to 35, 95% CI 24.85 to 26.52). (See Figure 4.1)
PAGE 87
76 Note : Values on solid line in center of the box represent mean score of the subscale, the box represents one standard deviation from the mean, and the line or whisker represents the 95% confidence band. The protected categories are religion (religion), sexual orientation (sex orient), gender (gender), race (race), and disability (disability). The non-hate crime item categor y (non-hate) is not a protected category. Those items that did not have bias crime indicators were separated into a separate category to illustrate the LEO ability to distin guish between items with and without bias crime indicators. Figure 4.1: Mean MHCS Subscal e Score by Protected Category non hate religion sex orient gender race disability Protected Category 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 Mean Score 2.00 5.10 6.60 5.30 6.20 5.80
PAGE 88
77 Table 4.3: One-way Analysis of Variance fo r Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Gender ________________________________________________________________________ Source df F p 2 p ________________________________________________________________________ Between subjects Gender 1 12.97 .01 .001* S within-group 901 (27.04) error ________________________________________________________________________ Note : Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors. p 2 denotes partial eta squared. An asterisk indicates significant results p <.01 The mean score for each of the subscale s corresponds to the following point on the seven-point scale: race, 6.6, religion, 6.2, sexual orient ation, 5.8, disability, 5.3, and gender, 5.1. (See Figure 4.1) It is noteworthy that the same tr end noted with mean scores was evident with the variability in the data with the excepti on of disability and gender, which were reversed: race ( SD = 3.067), religion ( SD = 3.790), sexual orientation ( SD = 4.399), disability ( SD = 5.139) and gender ( SD = 5.690) (See Figure 4.1). Research question #2: Does law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate crime classification vary by gender? Differences across gender. The 5 x 2 ANOVA was signi ficant for gender, F (1,893) = 17.79, p < .001, p 2 = .02 (See Table 4.1). The one-way ANOVA for gender was also significant, F (1,901) = 12.97, p < .001, p 2 = .01 (See Table 4.3). The effect size for gender was small p 2 = .02 (Pallant, 2005). The Le vene test was significant F (1,901) = 7.78, p < .05 indicating the assumption of equal variance was violated.
PAGE 89
78 Research question #3: Is there an intera ction between protected category and gender on law enforcement officer mean level of agreement with hate crime enhancement? The 5 x 2 two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether an interaction existed between protected category and gender. The ANOVA for gender X category interaction was not significant F (4,893) = .73, p >.05. (See Figure 4.2) (See Table 4.1) Research question #4: Does age, attitudes towards persons with disabilities, and contact with persons with disabilitie s provide predictive ability for law enforcement officers agreement with hate crime enhancement for persons with disabilities? It was hypothesized that age, contact with people with disabilities, and attitudes toward people with disabili ties would provide some predic tion of the MHCS subscale score for disability. Table 4.4: Summary of Multiple Regression An alysis for Variables Predicting Level of Agreement with Bias Crime Enhancement (N = 166) ________________________________________________________________________ Variable B SE B ________________________________________________________________________ Age -.006 .045 -.010 CDP Score .041 .033 .097 ATDP-A .038 .019 .159 ________________________________________________________________________ Note: R2 for the multiple regression model w as .041 and the adjusted R2 was .023.
PAGE 90
79 Table 4.5: Analysis of Variance for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Race, Gender, Race X Gender ________________________________________________________________________ Source df F p 2 p ________________________________________________________________________ Between subjects Race 1 2.96 <.01 .086 Gender 1 3.07 <.01 .080 Race X Gender 1 .11 <.01 .744 S within-group 1074 (75.18) error ________________________________________________________________________ Note : Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors p 2 reported is a partial eta squared. Where = predicted MHCS-Disability subscale score, = the intercept, 1 = the slope for ATDP-A score, 2 = the slope for the CDP score, and 3 = the slope for age. The model was not significant F (3,162) = 2.29, p >.05 (See Table 4.4) (See Figure 4.3). The MHCSdisability subscale score pred iction equation including the three predictor variables is as follows: Predicted MHCS-disability subscale score = 19.66 [Age (.01)] + [CDP (.04)] + [ATDP-A (.04)]. The unstandardized regr ession equation allows prediction of the MHCS Disability Subscale score from the th ree predictor variables used in the present study. The multiple correlation coefficient squared or R2 is a measure of the strength of relationship. The multiple correlation coefficient squared for the multiple regression model was R2 = .04 and the adjusted R2 for the model was adjusted R2 = .02.
PAGE 91
80 Additional Analyses Variation of Mean Scores Across Protected Category for Race and Gender It appeared from examining the data th at a relationship exis ted between race and gender with regard to MHCS subscale mean scores. Additional analyses were necessary to determine whether the observed differences were significant. A 2 X 2, two-way ANOVA was conducted to determine whether the mean level of agreement with bias crime enhancemen t depended on gender and race. The ANOVA indicated no significant interaction between gender and race F (1,1074) = .107, p > .05, no significant main effects for gender F (1,1074) = 3.07, p >.05, or race, F (1,1074) = 2.96, p >.05 (See Table 4.5). Variation of Mean Scores Across Severity of Crime and Type of Crime Indicator As reported in Chapter 3, the crime scenario s were balanced with regard to severity of crime. The scale was modified so that e ach protected category had two crime scenarios in the very heinous category and at least one item in each of the heinous and somewhat heinous categories with the ex ception of religion, which has three items in the somewhat heinous category. The pattern of severity that emerged from the expert panel was as follows: 1) murder and rape were consider ed very heinous, 2) assault/battery and physical harm were considered heinous, and 3) verbal threats, na me calling and graffiti, were considered somewhat heinous. This includes the MHCS items where bias crime indicators were intentionally removed. A one way ANOVA was conducted to dete rmine whether MHCS mean scores varied across severity of crime and the results were significant F (2,547) = 40.97, p >.001, p 2 = .13. (See Table 4.6). The Levene statis tic for the model was not significant indicating the assumption of equal variances was not viol ated. Post-hoc comparisons
PAGE 92
81 were conducted with Bonferroni correction to cont rol the group-wise error rate. The mean score difference between proper ty damage and verbal threats ( M = 6.23, SD = .79) and both the physical harm items ( M = 5.51, SD = .87) and the murder /rape/torture items ( M = 5.62, SD = .79) was significant p < .001. The difference between the physical harm and murder/rape/torture items was not significant. Crime scenarios were also balanced with re gard to type of bias crime symbols at the crime scene. Each protected category includes one item where the offender is a member of a hate group, one scenario where gr affiti or bias symbols are present at the crime scene and three scenarios where bias la nguage is used verbally or in writing. There is one exception to this rule. The religion category has two crime scenarios where bias symbols are present and no indicators where the perpetrators were members of a hate group.Table 4.6: One-way Analysis of Varian ce for Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Severity of Crime ________________________________________________________________________ Source df F p 2 p ________________________________________________________________________ Between subjects Severity 2 40.97 .13 .001* S within-group 547 (.67) error ________________________________________________________________________ Note : Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors p 2 reported is a partial eta squared. An asterisk indicates significant results p <.01
PAGE 93
82 Table 4.7: One-way Analysis of Variance fo r Mean MHCS Sub-scale Scores by Bias Crime Indicator ________________________________________________________________________ Source df F p 2 p ________________________________________________________________________ Between subjects Indicator 2 68.65 .20 .001* S within-group 547 (.90) error ________________________________________________________________________ Note : 1) Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square errors 2) p 2 reported is a partial eta squared. An asterisk indicates significant results p <.01 A one way ANOVA was conducted to determ ine whether mean scores varied across type of crime indicator a nd the results were significant F (2,547) = 68.65, p >.001, p 2 = .20 (See Table 4.7). The Levene statisti c for the model was significant indicating the assumption of equal variances was viol ated. Post-hoc comparisons were conducted with the Tamhane test to control for the violation of equal va riance assumption. The mean score for language ( M = 6.19, SD = .76) was significantly different p < .001 from both bias symbols ( M = 5.14, SD = .98) and the hate group membership of the perpetrator ( M = 5.24, SD = 1.08). The difference between the bi as symbols and group membership items was not significant (See Table 4.7).
PAGE 94
83 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Summary People with disabilities have been subject ed to negative attitu des, prejudice and discrimination throughout history. Evidence of th is lies in the fact that PWD experience abject poverty, employment disc rimination, and crime victimizat ion at rates greater than the general population. The numbe r of hate crimes reported for PWD is surprisingly much lower than other protected categories, a trend inconsistent with prejudicial treatment that often occurs in other areas of th eir lives. If the investig ation of a hate crime involving a victim with a disa bility is subjected to the same forms of prejudicial treatment, the lower than expected number of hate crimes reported could be the result of underreporting. One possible explanation for un derreporting of hate crimes is if law enforcement officers fail to recognize the elements of a hate crime. 1. It has been the goal of this research to determine whether a law enforcement officer is less likely to agree with the bias enhan cement of a crime if the victim is a person with a disability compared to other protected classes. To that end, the Hate Crime Survey instrument (Miller, 2001) was modifi ed to include scenarios of bias crimes committed against PWD. The MHCS instru ment was administered to 184 sworn and certified law enforcement officers em ployed by the Alachua County Sheriffs department. The following is a summary of specific findings: 2. The mean score for level of agreemen t with endorsement of bias crime classification appears to be influenced by protected category. The mean score among LEOs was significantly lower for crimes committed against a person because of a disability than for crimes committed because of the victims race, religion, or sexual orientation. In addition, th e variability in the data was greater for disability, gender and sexual orientation categories compared to the race and religion categories. The difference in le vel of agreement among law enforcement officers was not significant between disa bility and gender. Protected category accounted for 10% of the variance in the data. The partial eta squared of .10 is
PAGE 95
84 conservatively regarded as a medium to large effect size (Green & Salkind, 2003). Although the difference between disabil ity and race, religion, and sexual orientation is statistically significant, it is important to comment on the practical significance of the difference. The mean score for the disability sub-scale corresponds to a 5.1 on the 7 point scale, which places the mean score on the agreement half of the scale. Therefore, although the extent of agreement is less, the mean score is closer to agreement w ith bias crime categorization than nonagreement. Additionally, the seven poin t scale was useful in detecting small variations in the agreement with bias crim e categorization but it is unclear how that translates into differences in decision-making in the field. 3. Overall MHCS score appears to be influe nced by gender. Although this finding is consistent with the result s found by Miller (2001), it s hould be interpreted with caution. The assumption of equal variance was violated and the sample size for females (n=12) was substantially smalle r than for males (n= 161). Although the trend in this study was for females to ra te crime scenarios higher than males, gender accounted for only 2% of the varian ce in the data, which is considered a small effect size (Green & Salkind, 2003). 4. There does not appear to be a protec ted category X gender interaction. The category by gender interaction in the ANOVA model was not significant p > .05. Although an interaction does not exist, it is important to point out that the ANOVA model including both gender and protected category as factors accounted for 28% of the variance in the data. 5. Attitudes towards persons with disabilitie s, age, and contact with people with disabilities does not appear to contribute any information towards the prediction of MHCS-disability subscale score. However, the lack of significance could be an issue of power. The regression model requ ired 240 subjects to have sufficient power .80 to detect a small effect size. 184 LEOs consented to pa rticipate in this study. However, due to missing data, the total sample for the multiple regression model was N = 166. 6. The mean law enforcement officer attitude towards people with disabilities was higher than expected given the literature on contact and attitude The nature of the relationship between a LEO and a PWD is that of unequal status. Therefore, it would be hypothesized that police officer at titudes would be more negative because the nature of the relationship is not consistent with All ports (1954) criteria for the formation of positive attitudes (Amir, 1969; Dixon et. al., 2005) and is consistent with other professions where negative attitudes have been reported in the literature (Wills, 1978). The mean attitude score on a scale of 0 to 180 was 126 ( M = 126, SD = 21.48) with 95% CI of the scores between 84 and 168. 7. The MHCS mean score appears to vary as a function of severity of crime and type of bias crime indicators present. The re sults showed that damage to property and threats (the least severe of the crimes) had a significantly higher mean score than the more severe categories of physical harm, rape, torture, and murder.
PAGE 96
85 Additionally, means scores for crime scenarios with bias language were significantly higher than for crime scenes with bias symbols of an individuals membership in a hate group. One officer, in a post-survey discussion, indicated that items involving language often convey the in tent of the perpetrator. For example, bias symbols and group membership may be indicators of a bias crime but in order to build a case to prove motive, its necessa ry to have proof of intent. This supports the discussion on Apprendi v. New Jersey in terms of the increased burden to prove motivation when building a case for sentence enhancement. Discussion The major aim of this study was to determine whether law enforcement officer agreement with bias crime enhancement woul d vary as a function of protected category. Moreover, the study attempted to isolate some of the variables that might account for the variation in MHCS disability sub-scale scores. Several inte resting patterns emerged from the data. 1) The strongest agreement with bias crime enhancement was for race and religion followed by sexual orientation, and last ly gender and disability ; 2) the variability in the data was smallest for the race cat egory, followed by religion, sexual orientation, gender and disability, in that or der; 3) mean scores tended to be higher for females than for males; 4) Attitudes towards people with di sabilities, age and contact does not allow for any prediction of the va riance of crime scenarios in the disability category. Agreement with bias crime enhancement. Findings of this study suggest that law enforcement officer agreement to enhance a crime as a bias crime may vary depending on the victims membership in a protected class. Specifica lly, law enforcement officers may perceive bias crime indicators differently if the victim was chosen because of his or her disability or because of gender compared to race, religion, and sexual orientation. Conversely, officer agreement with bias enhancement ma y be higher for protected classes such as race, religion, and sexual orientation. There ar e several explanations that may account for the variability in the data across protecte d categories, including: 1) law enforcement
PAGE 97
86 officers may have greater exposure to hate crimes committed against people in protected classes other than persons with disabilities; 2) Gender and race trends; 3) the theory that persons with disabilities are of ten perceived by others as victims and helpless. As a result, crimes against persons with disabilities are of ten considered crimes of opportunity rather than bias crimes, and 4) The psychomet ric properties of the MHCS instrument. Increased exposure There are several possible explan ations to explain why LEOs may have greater exposure to hate crimes committed against people in protected classes other than PWD. 1) The number of hate crimes re ported each year is largest for race, followed by religion, sexual orientation, ethn icity and disability, in that order. Given the fact that hate crimes based on race are reported more of ten, it is reasonable that LEOs have more experience with race based hate crimes than with other categories, and may therefore tend to recognize the elements of hate crimes or bias indicators more often for crimes committed against victims in those categories. 2) Race, religion, and ethnicity were included in the first congre ssional hearings on hate crime in 1985 (McPhail, 2002). However, between 1985 and the passing of th e act in 1990, the influence of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered (GLBT) organizatio ns prompted congressional hearings on anti-gay violence, which resulted in sexual orientation being included in the passing of the Act in 1990. Although sexual orientation was included in the initi al passing of the act in 1990, anti-gay violence was introduced in th e discussions later th an race, religion and ethnic violence (McPhail, 2002). Disability was included in the Hate Crime Statistics Act 7 years after the initial passing of the Act. A lthough gender isnt include d in the Act, it is recognized as a protected categ ory in bias crime legislati on in approximately 20 states and advocates lobbied for the inclusion of gender at the time disability was included.
PAGE 98
87 Moreover, individuals who opposed the incl usion of gender in federal hate crime legislation referenced the fact that perpetra tors of gender based crimes are often known to the victim, a characteristic shared by perpetrators of crimes against people with disabilities. The late entry of discussions on disability and gender as protected categories results in decreased exposure to discussions for those protected classes. Further, the information LEOs receive may be misinfor mation. For example, the fact that the perpetrator-victim relationship is often used as a reason fo r non-inclusion might function to reinforce biases, which in turn may result in a LEOs resistance to classify an incident as a hate crime. 3). Historical evidence of race, religion and sexual orientation-based hate crimes has been prominently reflected in media coverage for those crimes. For example, in 1998, James Byrd, an African American, was tied to a car and drag ged to his death in Jasper, Texas. In the same year, Matthew Shephard, a homosexual male, was beaten to death in Laramie, Wyoming. The Byrd and Shephard case received widespread media coverage, with good reason. However, in the same year, the Department of Justice received 23 reports of hate crimes committe d against a person because of disability. Three of the cases were reported from the stat e of Texas. Yet none of these stories were reported in the media. The proportion of crimes reported in the race, religion and sexual orientation categories, the late inclusion of disability in the federal legislation, and lack of media coverage may all have resulted in LEOs r eceiving less exposure to disability motivated hate crimes and the characteristics associated with them. If true, LEOs may have less knowledge about hate crimes against persons with disabilities and less experience working with a crime victim with a disability.
PAGE 99
88 Gender and race trends It appears that females scores on the MHCS overall were higher than for their male counterparts. A lthough the difference was significant, the small effect size and the lack of significant with gender x category interaction offer little support for further exploration of gender. A dditionally, it appears that there is not a significant difference between Caucasia n and non-Caucasian participants. Persons with disabilities perceived by as victims. It has been suggested that people with disabilities may be perceived as vi ctims (McMahon, et. al., 2004; Sorensen, 2001). McMahon et. al. reported that disability expert s attribute the perception of vulnerability of people with disabilities as a possible expl anation for the low number of reported hate crimes. If people with disabilities are percei ved as vulnerable or victims, the process of LEOs determining whether the perpetrator was motivated by actuarial reasons or animus becomes increasingly more difficult.A bias crime is one that is committed in whole or in part by the offenders bias. However, the proc ess of gathering information to prove the perpetrator acted out of animus becomes increasingly more difficult if there are multiple motivations. Therefore, even if there are bias indicators at a crime scene involving a person with a disability, havi ng elements of both bias and actuarial motivation could make the bias indicators seem ambiguous. As a matter of course, the other motivating factors may become the salient feature of the investigation. Although there is evidence that perpetrators of hate crimes may have multiple motivations for committing the criminal act (McPhail, 2002) the complex ity of multiple perpetrator motivation may influence LEO decision-making more if they be lieve a person with a disability cannot be the victim of a hate crime. Conversely, LEOs may focus more on th e aspects of a crime scene that supports the belief that PWD are vi ctims of actuarial crim es because of their
PAGE 100
89 vulnerability. From a practical standpoint, if evidence of hate crime motivation must be robust for a prosecuting attorney to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, the complexity of multiple motivations may ma ke proving hate motivation difficult. This may explain why the highest agreement with hate crime enhancement was for crime scenarios involving bias language because it conveyed the in tent of the perpetrator. The MHCS instrument Another possible explanation for th e variability in the data is the modification of the MHCS instrument. The scen arios were modified to ensure that they were balanced with regard to the number and type of bias crime indi cators and severity of the crime. However, the reliability of the sub-scales was lower than ideal with the disability subscale having an internal consistency of =.61. With a large portion of the variability resulting from error, further expl oration is needed to determine what other factors contribute to LEO decision-making. It is possible that balancing the crime scenarios with regard to bias crime indicators resulted in th e disability and gender items lacking face validity. For example, MHCS item #5, A Caucasian woman is found raped and murdered and covered in a flag that is painted with the word bitch was modified from the original version A woman is found raped and murdered to include graffiti at the crime scene. However, that graffiti ma y not correspond well to actual bias crimes committed against a women. The item mean ( M = 3.59, SD = 2.12) was considerably lower than the scale mean ( M = 5.13, SD = 1.71) for gender. Another component of the instrument that may account for the variability is the apparent ceiling effect for the race a nd religion subscales. Although one possible explanation for the lower amount of variability with these subscales is more confidence in rating crime scenarios falling in these protect ed classes, it can also be a function of a
PAGE 101
90 ceiling effect. A problem with side effects is that it functions to reduce overall variability and the scales items ability to discriminate. Attitude, age, and contact as predictors. The fact that attitudes towards people with disabilities, age, and contact with people w ith disabilities was not found to significantly predict LEOs agreement with bias crime classification of disability hate crimes is interesting. As stated previous ly, one possible explanation coul d be the lack of power to detect a meaningful effect size. However, it is possible that attitudes and contact with people with disabilities must be situation specific. For exampl e, the result of McDevitts (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000) survey of police officers suggests that police officer attitudes is an important factor in determin ing whether a crime is categorized as a hate crime. However, the police officers were refe rring to police officer attitudes about hate crimes, not about the individual. Therefor e, although it was hypothesi zed that attitudes concerning PWD may provide some prediction, it is possible that the ATDP-A and the CDP are too general as measures and need to be situation specific. For example, neither the ATDP-A or the CDP ask questions specific to crime or victimi zation of people with disabilities. Therefore, its possible that fam iliarity with investigating crimes where the victim is a PWD would be a better predicto r of agreement with the classification of a disability motivated bias crime. It was interesting to find generally more positive attitudes towards people with disabilities among the LEOs in this study. Although Allports (1954) theory suggests that contact functions to mode rate prejudice, it has been theo rized that the contact must be of equal status; otherwise the contact can form negative attitudes (Amir, 1969; Dixon et. al., 2005) which has been used to explain negative attitudes among health
PAGE 102
91 professionals, etc. However, the nature of the relationship between a victim with a disability and LEO is one of unequal status and yet law enforcement officer attitudes towards people with disabilities appear to be related to contact. Moreover, the findings appear to refute the theories of Allport ( 1954) and Amir (1969) and are consistent with the results of the meta-analysis performed by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) that shows contact of any type functions to form positive a ttitudes. It is also important to recall that the attitude and contact scales do not measure the constructs relative to law enforcement. Therefore, although the nature of the relationship is one of unequal status, a high CDP score does not necessarily mean it is measuri ng unequal status relationships. It could be measuring equal status from contact with a friend, spouse, or other family member. Finally, the higher than expected attitude scores for LEOs may be attributable to the high number of officers reporting tr aining on disability issues, specifically, 81% of the 126 participants who answered the question con cerning training reported training on disability issues. Law enforcement officers also rated crim es involving bias language and verbal threats higher than for crimes with bias sym bols or the perpetrators membership in a hate group. Taking into consideration LEO commen ts, it appears that language may be a particularly important component of the crime scenario in es tablishing the intent of the perpetrator. As a result, future modificatio ns of the MHCS instrument should consider crime scenarios that include more than one bi as indicator and ensure there is evidence of intent.
PAGE 103
92 Limitations The following limitations were recognized in the present study regarding the external validity, reliability and validity of the instrument, assumption violations, response bias, and research design. 1. External validity. The convenience samp le used suggests that the sample is probably not representative of all law en forcement officers. This prevents the results from being generalized beyond th e Alachua County Sheriffs Department. 2. Instrument Reliability. Alt hough the MHCS yielded an alpha coefficient of .81, the alpha coefficient for the subscales ranged fr om .72 to .61 with the highest reliability for the race sub-scale and the lowest for th e disability sub-scale. The lower internal consistency of the sub-scales can result in an underestimation of the amount of variability in the subscale accounted for by attitudes and other va riables. Moreover, lower reliability can also reduce power making thereby making detection of relationships difficult. It is noteworthy th at the alpha coefficient for the overall scale increases to .88 with the non-hate items removed from the analysis. 3. Assumption violations. Although the Ta mhane, Dennett T3, and Games-Howell tests were used to account for unequal vari ance, the violation of the assumption is noteworthy and the results should be interpreted with caution. 4. Instrument validity. It is im portant to recognize that this research project utilized crime scene scenarios, which have little resemblance to actual bias crime investigation. In other words, law enfor cement officers rarely are in a position where they are forced to make a decision on a crime where he or she cannot investigate further and gather additional information. In addition, the apparent ceiling effect with the ra ce and religion subscales may account for the lower variability with those subscales. 5. Response bias. Although ther e is evidence that LEOs were truthful in their responses, the fact that some of the offi cers were reluctant to sign their forms, missing data, and comments by training offi cers suggests that participants may not have been forthright in their responses. 6. Research design. The present research study did not employ an experimental research design. Therefore, the relations hips observed do not allow for causal interpretation. The limitations in this study suggest that any results should be interpreted with caution. The modest reliability of the instru ment suggests that it may not be measuring the effect of protected category on bias crim e enhancement or the large amount of error
PAGE 104
93 variance could be the result of a response bias, such as defensiveness, from participants. The validity of the instrument has yet to be established. The instrument was initially created for criminal justice students and this is the first research study where it was administered to LEOs. As a result, it is unclear what impact a lower mean agreement score on the MHCS-disability subscale has on an officers investigation of a crime scene or decision to arrest an alleged perpetrator fo r a hate crime or not. The significant results of the study should also be in terpreted with caution. The a ssumption of equal variance was violated. Although this was accounted for in post-hoc analyses, it is noteworthy and future studies should consider this in the research design. Because the study did not use an experimental design, the re sulting relationships in the data do not allow for causal interpretation. This should al so be addressed in future research.Its also necessary to weigh the limitations with the positive aspe cts of this research study. No published research study has ever surveyed law enfor cement officers on factors that contribute to law enforcement officer agreement with bias crime enhancement. Moreover, no study has ever measured LEO attitudes towards or contac t with people with disabilities. Over the two month period, the training officers a ppeared to become increasingly more comfortable with discussing the research study and offer useful feedback on the instrument they heard from officers after co mpleting the survey. This information has proven to be invaluable in the interpretation of the data and will most probably guide the approach to measurement with future projects. Recommendations for Future Research This research is a first step toward unde rstanding why the number of reported bias crimes against persons with disabilities is considerably lower than other protected categories. Generally, future re search efforts should focus on: 1) the sample and research
PAGE 105
94 design so results can be generalized beyond the scope of this study 2) improvement of the MHCS instrument, 3) exploration of factors th at will contribute to the prediction of the differences observed in this study. Sample First, a larger, more representative sample would allow for replication of the results in this study and fo r the results of future studies to be generalized beyond the Alachua County Sheriffs department. Future st udies should also increase the sample size for the regression analysis to have sufficien t power to detect a re lationship between the predictor and outcome variables. Perpetrator profile Greater insight into the perpetrators of hate crimes against a person with a disability is needed. Approximately 200 hate crimes have been reported through 2003. A qualitative analysis of court documents su ch as depositions, investigative reports, etc. could provide some insight into whether th e perpetrators fit one more of the profiles reported by McDevitt, Levin a nd Bennett (2002) or whether a different profile exists, similar to the perpetrators of parallel crimes against people with disabilities. Perpetrator information of this kind is a necessary precursor to formal law enforcement officer training. Moreover, the validity of gender and disability bias crime items require a deeper understanding of the contributing factors of bias crime classifi cation in those cases and an exploration of how they differ from race, re ligion, and sexual orientation bias crimes. Research design. As mentioned previousl y, of the 126 participants who answered the questions concerning training, 81% reporte d participating in tr aining on disability issues and yet only 54% reporte d participating in training on the investigation of a hate crime. Clearly, there is a need for further training with the Alachua County Sheriffs department on the investigation of hate crimes Moreover, an experime ntal design such as
PAGE 106
95 a Solomon four-group design would be able to determine the effect of training on police officer agreement. Instrument reliability and validity Future work on the MHCS should explore the temporal stability of the instrument with a se ries of test-retest reliability experiments. Future validity studie s could create a larger item pool and involve law enforcement officers in choosing the items for inclusi on in the scale. Additionally, a Guttman scale (agree versus disagree) coul d be used to evaluate the predictive validity or practical implications of the MHCS.State attorney pa rticipants. Although the focus of this study was on factors that affect police deci sion making, anecdotal comments from law enforcement officers suggest th at the LEO often consults th e state attorneys office who ultimately charges the alleged perpetrator. Th erefore, future studies should involve the local state attorneys office that work with th e LEOs to ascertain what they contribute to any variance across categories. Involvement of people with disabilities Although this research project has focused on law enforcement officer decision-maki ng, future studies should explore victim variables that affect reporting such as: 1) Are people with disabilities aware they can be the victim of a hate crime? 2) Are advocacy groups (e.g. Centers for Independent Living, Developmental Disabilities Counc ils, etc) aware that persons with disabilities can be the victim of a hate crime and, if so, do they mon itor crime in their respective area or provide advocacy services to persons with disabilities who have been the victim of a crime? It is possible that a lack of awareness of hate crimes against persons with disabilities has resulted in a lower likelihood that the vi ctims themselves advocate for hate crime designations.
PAGE 107
96 Law enforcement officer. A research study explori ng the relationship between MHCS scores and judgment or decision maki ng would provide important information to law enforcement. As stated previously, the decision to classify a crime as a bias crime is a dichotomous outcome, it either is or it isnt. Future research should explore the use of the MHCS as a predictor variable for a dichotomous outcome, classi fy as a hate crime or not. Law enforcement officers may also provide ad ditional insight into variables that may account for police officer decision-making. A focus group of law enforcement officers may prove to be useful in identifying additi onal factors to measure in future studies. Future studies should also look at a larg er sample size to include additional predictor variables in the model. For example, hate crime investigation training, experience investigating hate crimes, experi ence investigating crimes involving victims with disabilities (situation sp ecific contact), attitudes about persons with disabilities as potential victims of hate crimes, years of LEO experience, disability training, agency practice and policy, and state legislation are potential vari ables that may account for a larger portion of the variance. Implications for Practice and Education The results of this study may have implicat ions for: 1) law enforcement, 2) crime victim advocates, 3) rehabilitation counselors, and 4) rehabilitati on counselor educators and researchers. This section contains sugge stions for each of these professional groups in terms of recommendations for practice, policies, procedures, continuing education training, and education. Law enforcement agencies would benefit from examining the policies and procedures of the agency as well as the tr aining of law enforcement officers. Nolan & Akiyama (1999) mention organizational policies and procedures as the number one factor
PAGE 108
97 in determining hate crime reporting by LEO s. Agency policy that mandates specific training on disability issues and hate crim e investigation, including disability motivated hate crimes, could increase LEO recognition of disability motivated hate crimes. Law enforcement administration could also consid er policies that require a crime victim advocate trained in the investigation of disabi lity motivated hate crimes to respond with a LEO to the interview the victim. Most jurisdictions have one or more programs consisting of Crime Victim Advocates that provide assist ance to victims of crime. These programs may be funded through the United States Department of Jus tice or through state or local government monies. These agencies often work in close contact with law enforcement agencies and LEOs. In fact, some agencies are co-located with the law enforcement agency. Crime Victims Advocates would probabl y also benefit from training similar to LEOs in terms of disability awareness with a particular emphasis on fact ors that affect individual reporting and techniques fo r interviewing crime victims with disabilities. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) qu ite often develops following hate crime victimization (Cheng, 2004; Craig-Hende rson, Kellina, & Sloan, 2002); Kaysen, Lostutter, & Goines, 2005)). If disability motivated hate crimes go unreported, it may be more likely that the residual psychological effects of the crime may go undiagnosed and untreated. If a person with a disability is e xperiencing post-traumatic stress disorder and the rehabilitation counselor is unaware, the untreated condition can interfere with the rehabilitation plan (Cheng, 2004). Moreover, PT SD can interfere with an individuals ability to function in the wo rk environment (Keim, Males ky, & Strauser, 2003) and with overall life satisfaction (Keim, et. al.). Re habilitation counselors might wish to inquire
PAGE 109
98 about criminal victimization during intake as sessments. Moreover, the policies of the vocational rehabilitation agency may want to reflect a similar interest in gathering data on the criminal victimization of their clients with disabilities. Rehabilitation counselor educat ors might wish to consider incorporating information on disability motivated hate crime into the pre-service training curriculum.For example, educators might create opportunities to role-p lay interviewing of a crime victim in counseling skills and techniques classes. Add itionally, various issues related to hate crimes and other types of victimization could be addressed in course s on ethics, diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders, treat ment planning and case management, human growth and development, and evaluation a nd assessment. Moreover, a crime victim advocacy program can serve as a practicum site for the development of counseling skills. The maintenance of the Certified Reha bilitation Counselor through continuing education provides another avenue for keepi ng the rehabili tation professional updated on advancements in knowledge about disabil ity motivated hate crimes. Professional conferences and journals provi de an excellent opportunity to educate professionals in rehabilitation counseling as well as prof essionals in other counseling disciplines. Conclusion Although disability experts speculated as to the reasons for the low numbers of disability motivated hate crimes, no evidence existed before now to substantiate these explanations or to refute the alternative, that people with disabilities are simply not victims of hate crimes at a rate similar to ot her protected classes. The results of this study suggest that LEOs may not rec ognize the elements of a hate crime to the same degree when it involves a person with a disability. Moreover, LEOs may be less certain of their thoughts on hate crime categorization when th e victim is a person with a disability.
PAGE 110
99 This awareness has implications for future research. Continuing to ask questions about the factors that influe nce law enforcement officer decision making is important. Moreover, there are a number of questions concerning factors that affect reporting of crimes by PWD. A greater understanding of la w enforcement and victim variables is necessary to understand the overa ll validity of the hate crime data collected. Further, interventions in the form of training, educat ion, and advocacy are necessary to adequately estimate the extent of the problem in the lives of people with disabilities. The importance of this study to the live d experience of people with disabilities should not go unstated. Never before have LEO s in the United States been surveyed on the combined issues of crime against people with disabilities, at titudes towards people with disabilities, and contact with people with disabilities. The results of this research suggest the need for further training and awareness of LEO, involvement of disability experts in crime victim advocacy, and the de velopment of understand ing and recognition of hate crimes among persons with disabilities. The result of these interventions can and should be to facilitate participation in the criminal justice proce ss in a manner accessible for a crime victim with a disa bility. Accessibility is meant to mean more than physical accessibility. It is about attitudi nal accessibility, pro cess accessibility, and the like. It is the recognition, the awareness, that there are factors that deter participation by persons with disabilities. More importa ntly, persons with disabilities have a right to expect equal participation in the criminal justice system when their civil liberties have been violated in the same way they have a righ t to expect equal liberties.
PAGE 111
100 APPENDIX A MODIFIED HATE CRIME SURVEY The Modified Hate Crime Survey (MHCS) INSTRUCTIONS The purpose of this study is to gather info rmation from a wide range of people on crimescene related issues. The crime scenarios presen ted in this survey are actual crimes that were committed in different areas of the United States. There is only one section to the survey, consisting of a total of thirty crime scenarios. Read each case scenario and then indicate, using the scale below, your opinion of the likelihood that each crime scenario constituted a hate crime. We are simply looking for your opinion (i.e., the degree to which you pers onally agree the crime scenario presented constitutes a hate crime). A hate crime is defined as a criminal offense committed against person or property that is motivated in whole or in part, by the offenders bias. The scale below is an example of the scale you will be asked to use to rate the crimes scenarios in the survey. Please familiarize yourself with the scale before taking the survey. If you feel the crime scenario absolutely cons tituted a hate crime ci rcle a "1"on the scale following the item. If you feel the crime scenar io absolutely did not constitute a hate crime circlet a "7" on the scale following the item. The other numbers on the scale indicate partial agreement or partial disagreement with these statements. The survey should take you approximately 15 minutes to complete. Please rate all the items. Strongl y Agree Strongl y Disagr ee 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PAGE 112
101 Please proceed to page 3 Crime Scenario Strongly Disagre e Strongly Agree 1. A man who was blind was crossing the street in front of a local program for the blind when two men grabbed his cane and beat him. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. A group of women is attacked by assailants from a white supremacist group for wearing mens clothing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Three employees were killed in the bombing of a Muslim businessmans office. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. A woman enters an elevator in her apartment building and is battered by an unknown assailant. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. A Caucasian woman is found raped and murdered and covered in a flag that is painted with the word bitch. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. A cross is burned in front of a couple house. The couple happens to be white, however, they have adopted an African American baby. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. The parents of a child who contracted HIV/AIDS from a transfusion, had the windows of their car smashed in and a note was found stating people with AIDS arent welcome in the neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. A white man yelling racial slurs hits a black man with a shovel. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. A gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community center is set on fire killing three members of the GLBT community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. A Muslim man awakes to all Muslims are terrorists painted on his house. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. A black man is chased by four white men from the Klu Klux Klan who threw rocks and bottles at him, eventually killing him. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PAGE 113
102 Please proceed to page 4STOP Crime Scenario Strongly Disagre e Strongly Agree 12. A male with schizophrenia is the victim of an assault and battery while waiting at a local bus stop. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. A homosexual is attacked by a group of three men in the parking lot outside his place of employment. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. A man with cerebral palsy was stuffed into a garbage can with taunts of you belong in the trash you cripple. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Death threats are sent to several women members of the United States Congress with the message women shouldnt hold political office. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. A Jewish man is robbed and beaten while walking home from a local movie theater. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. The word queer is painted on a gay couples car and the windshield is smashed in. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. While walking down the street, a gay couple is beaten and robbed of their money by three teens, each with a history of hate violence. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. An Hispanic female is found beaten and unconscious in the restroom of a convenience store. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. A man with a mental disability was kidnapped by nine men and women from a white supremacist group and tortured for three hours. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. A Jewish synagogue is painted with swastikas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PAGE 114
103 The MHCS was reprinted and modified with the pe rmission of Dr. Alexandra Miller. Reference at: Miller, A. J. (2001). Student perceptions of hate crime. American Journal of Criminal Justice 25 (2), 293-307. Crime Scenario Strongly Disagre e Strongly Agree 22. While walking through campus, a woman is raped, mugged and is st abbed in the stomach and told women shouldnt be educated. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. A gay man is stabbed while being robbed in the park. The offender told the victim he was robbing queers in the park. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. A black man is found hanging from a tree with a black piece of canvas over his head; beneath him is a note that reads d eath to all niggers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. Some of the Womens National Basketball Association (WNBA) players are threatened to be killed while playing a sport that is only for men. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. The schoolmates of an 18-year-old high school student with a developmental disability soaked his lunch with urine and watched him eat it, telling him that retards dont belong in this school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. A racist, threatening letter is sent to a black family that operates a hair salon, warning them to stop making niggers hair look like white peoples. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. A homosexual is found murdered and the word faggot is found carved in a nearby tree. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. A threatening note is left at a Jewish Synagogue stating that all Jews should be executed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. Swastikas and anti-Semitic slurs are painted on an outside wall of a private country club next to the body of a Jewish member who was murdered. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
PAGE 115
104 APPENDIX B DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE Law Enforcement Officer Demographic Questionnaire INSTRUCTIONS The demographic questionnaire consists of three sections. Read the inst ructions at the top of each section and answer each question. I. Place a check in the box next to gender, race, ethnicity, major and standing. Enter your age, in years in the blank space provided Gender Male Female Age _________ (in years) Ethnicity Hispanic Non-Hispanic Race Caucasian African American Asian American Native American Other Education High School Associates Degree Bachelors Degree Masters Degree Post Graduate Law Enforcement Experience _________ (in years) II. Place a check in the box to the right of each question indicating your response. Additional Questions Have you ever interacted with a person with a disability? Yes No Have you ever worked with a person with a disability in a professional capacity where you were in a position of authority? Yes No If you have come in contact with a person or persons with a disability, how would you most often evaluate the experience? Pleasant Unpleasant How would you classify the level of the most meaningful interaction you have had with a PWD? Intimate Superficial III. Place a check in the box to the right of each question indicating your response. Additional Questions Have you ever been involved in an investigation where the victim was a person with a disability? Yes No Have you ever investigated a hate crime? Yes No
PAGE 116
105 Have you received specific training in the investigation of hate crimes ? Yes No Have you ever taken a course or participated in training on disability issues? Yes No
PAGE 117
106 APPENDIX C ATTITUDE TOWARDS DISABLED PERSONS SCALE Read each statement below and circle the co rresponding number according to how much you agree or disagree with it. Please mark every one. +3 I Agree Very Much -1 I Disagree a Little +2 I Agree Pretty Much -2 I Disagree Pretty Much +1 I Agree a Little -3 I Disagree Very Much 1. People with disabilities are ofte n unfriendly. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 2. People with disabilities should not have to compete for jobs with physically normal people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 3. People with disabilities are more emotional than other people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 4. Most persons with disabilities are more self-conscious than other people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 5. We should expect just as much from people with disabilities as from persons without disabilities. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 6. Workers with disabilities cannot be as successful as other workers. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 7. People with disabilities usua lly do not make much of a contribution to society. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 8. Most people without disabilities would not want to marry anyone who has a physically disability. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 9. People with disabilitie s show as much enthusiasm as other people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 10. Persons with a disability are usually more sensitive than other people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 11. Persons with a severe disability are usually untidy. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 12. Most people with disabilities feel that they are as good as other people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3
PAGE 118
107 13. The driving test given to a pe rson with a disability should be more severe than the one given to someone without a disability. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 14. People with disabilities are usua lly sociable -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 15. Persons with a disability usually are not as conscientious as physically normal persons. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 16. Persons with severe disabiliti es probably worry more about their health than those who have minor disabilities. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 17. Most persons with disabilitie s are not dissatisfied with themselves. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 18. There are more misfits among pe rsons with disabilities than among those without disabilities. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 19. Most persons with a disability do not get discouraged easily. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 20. Most persons with a disabili ty resent physically normal people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 21. Children with disabilities shoul d compete with physically normal children. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 22. Most persons with a disab ility can take care of them selves. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 23. It would be best if persons w ith a disability would live and work with people without disabilities. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 24. Most persons with severe disa bilities are just as ambitious as physically normal persons. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 25. People with disabilities are just as self-confident as other people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 26. Most persons with a disabili ty want more affection and praise than other people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 27. Persons with a physical disabili ty are often le ss intelligent than those who have no disability. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 28. Most people with disabilities are different from people -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3
PAGE 119
108 without disabilities. 29. Persons with disabilities don t want any more sympathy than other people. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3 30. The way people with disabilities ac t is irritating. -3 -2 -1 +1+2+3
PAGE 120
109 APPENDIX D CONTACT WITH DISABLED PERSONS SCALE Please circle the number to th e right of each statement indi cating your answer to each question. Use a number from 1 to 5 to indicate the following: 1 = never; 2 = once or twice; 3 = a few times; 4 = often; 5 = very often. 1. How often have you had a long talk with a person with a disability? 1 2 3 4 5 2. How often have you had a brief c onversation with persons with disabilities? 1 2 3 4 5 3. How often have you eaten a meal with a person with a physical disability? 1 2 3 4 5 4. How often have you contributed money to organizations that help persons with disabilities? 1 2 3 4 5 5. How often have persons with disa bilities discussed their lives or problems with you? 1 2 3 4 5 6. How often have you discussed your life or problems with a person with a disability? 1 2 3 4 5 7. How often have you tried to help pers ons with disabilities with their problems? 1 2 3 4 5 8. How often have persons with disabi lities tried to help you with your problems? 1 2 3 4 5 9. How often have you worked with a c lient, student or patient with a disability on the job? 1 2 3 4 5 10How often have you worked with a co-worker with a disability? 1 2 3 4 5 11How often has a friend with a disability visited you at your home? 1 2 3 4 5 12How often have you visited persons with disabilities in their homes? 1 2 3 4 5 13How often have you met a person with a disability you like? 1 2 3 4 5
PAGE 121
110 14How often have you met a person with a disability you dislike? 1 2 3 4 5 15How often have you met a person with a disability that you admire? 1 2 3 4 5 16How often have met a person with a disability for whom you feel sorry? 1 2 3 4 5 17How often have you been annoyed or disturbed by the behavior of a person with a disability? 1 2 3 4 5 18How often have you been pleased by the behavior of a person with a disability? 1 2 3 4 5 19How often have you had pleasant experiences interacting with persons with disabilities? 1 2 3 4 5 20How often have you had unpleasant experiences interacting with persons with disabilities? 1 2 3 4 5
PAGE 122
111 APPENDIX E ASSESSMENT OF HEINOUSNESS SURVEY Instructions: The scale below contains 25 actual crime scenarios. Please indicate to the right of each item whether you believe the crime was somewhat he inous, heinous, or very heinous.
PAGE 123
112 Crime Scenario Somewhat Heinous Heinous Very Heinous A man with a mental disability was kidnapped by nine men and women from a white supremacist group and tortured for three hours 1 2 3 A Caucasian woman is found raped, murdered and covered in a flag that is painted with the words male dominance 1 2 3 A homosexual is found murdered and the word faggot is found carved into a nearby tree 1 2 3 While walking down the street, a gay couple is beaten and robbed of their money by three teens, each with a history of hate violence 1 2 3 A racist, threatening letter is sent to a black family that operates a hair salon, warning them to stop making niggers hair look like white peoples 1 2 3 A group of women is attacked by assailants from a white supremacist group for wearing mens clothing 1 2 3 A Jewish synagogue is painted with swastikas 1 2 3 A black man is found hanging from a tree with a black piece of canvas over his head; beneath him is a note that reads death to all niggers 1 2 3 A Muslim man awakes to all Muslims are terrorists painted on his house 1 2 3 Death threats are sent to severa l women members of the United States Congress with the message women shouldnt hold political office. 1 2 3 While walking through campus, a woman is raped, mugged and is stabbed in the stomach and told women shouldnt be educated. 1 2 3
PAGE 124
113 Crime Scenario Somewhat Heinous Heinous Very Heinous A cross is burned in front of a coup le house. The couple happens to be white, however, they have adopted an African American baby 1 2 3 The schoolmates of an 18-year-old high school student with a developmental disability soaked his lunch with urine and watched him eat it while the student with a disability was told retards dont belong in this school. 1 2 3 The word queer is painted on a gay couples car and the windshield is smashed in 1 2 3 A black man is chased by four white men from the Klu Klux Klan who throw rocks and bottles at him, eventually killing him 1 2 3 Three employees were killed in the bombing of a Muslim businessmans office 1 2 3 The parents of a child who cont racted HIV/AIDS from a blood transfusion, had the windows of t heir automobile smashed in and a note was found stating people with AIDS arent welcome in the neighborhood. 1 2 3 A gay man is stabbed while being robbed in the park. The offender told the victim he was robbing queers in the park. 1 2 3 A man with cerebral palsy was stuff ed into a garbage can with taunts of you belong in the trash you cripple. 1 2 3 A man who was blind was crossing the st reet in front of a local program for the blind when two men grabbed his cane and beat him 1 2 3 Swastikas and anti-Semitic slurs are painted on an outside wall of a private country club next to the body of a Jewish member who was murdered 1 2 3
PAGE 125
114 Crime Scenario Somewhat Heinous Heinous Very Heinous A threatening note is left at a Jewish Synagogue stating that all Jews should be executed 1 2 3 A gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) community center is set on fire killing three members of GLB community 1 2 3 A white man yelling racial slurs hits a black man with a shovel 1 2 3 Some of the Womens National Basketball Association (WNBA) players are threatened to be killed for playing a sport that is only for men 1 2 3
PAGE 126
115 LIST OF REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and Operation of Attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 27-58. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 179-211. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and pr edicting social behavior Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchinson (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 798-884). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press. Allport, G. W. (19541979). The nature of prejudice, 25th Anniversary Edition Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 71 319342. Anderson, J. F., Dyson, L., & Brooks, W. ( 2002). Preventing hate crime and profiling hate crime offenders. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 26 (3), 140-148. Antonak, R.F., & Livneh, H. (1988). The measurement of attitudes towards people with disabilities: Methods, psychometrics and scales Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher. Antonak, R.F. (1980). Psychometric analysis of attitudes towards disabled persons scale, Form-O. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 23 169-176. Aquinas, T. (1264/1905). Summa contra gentiles (J. Richaby, Trans.) London: Burns & Oates. (Original work published in 1264). Aristotle (1962). Nichomachean ethics. (M Ostwald, Trans.) I ndianapolis, IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc. (Original work published in 350 B.C.) Bailey, A., Barr, O., & Bunting, B. (2001) Police attitudes toward people with intellectual disability: An ev aluation of awareness training. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45 344-350. Baladerian, N. (1991). Sexual abuse of pe ople with developmental disabilities. Sexuality and Disability 9, 323-335.
PAGE 127
116 Bandura, A., Ross, R., & Ross, S. (1961). Transmission of aggr ession through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 71 364-374. Bandura., A. (1977). Social learning theory Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Baron, S. (2003). Social control, social consequences, and crim inal behavior: Street youth and the general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40 403-425. Behnke, S. H., Winick, B. J., & Perez, A. M. (2000). The essentials of Florida mental health law New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Berkeleyan. (2002). One in a million? Tell it to the Feds Retrieved January 22, 2003 from http://www.berkeley.edu/news .berkeleyan/2003/01/22disabl.html. Block, R. (1974). Why notify the police: The vi ctims decision to no tify the police of an assault. Criminology, 11 555-569. Brand, D. (1997). The future of law enforcement recr uiting: The impact of generation X. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Depart ment of Law Enforcement. Brehm, S. S., Kassin, S., & Fein, S. (2005). Social psychology (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. Brodwin, M. G. & Orange, L. M. (2002). Attitu des toward disability. In J. D. Andrew & C. W. Faubion (Eds.), Rehabilitation services: An introduction for the human service professional (pp. 174-197). Osage Beach, MO: Aspen Professional Services. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2000). Improving the accuracy of bias crime statistics nationally: An assessment of the first ten years of bias crime data collection Washington, D.C.: Author. Burger, W. R., & Youkeles, M. (2004). Human services in contemporary America (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Cheng, Z. (2004). Hate crimes, posttraumatic stress disorder and implications for counseling lesbians and gay men. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 35 (4), 8-16. Chesler, M.A. (1965). Ethnocentrism and a ttitudes toward the physically disabled. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2 877-882.7 Chubon, R.A. (1982). An analysis of research de aling with the attit udes of professionals toward disability. Journal of Rehabilitation, 48 (1), 25-30. Clark, R. (1970). Crime in America: Observations on its nature, causes, prevention and control New York: Simon & Schuster.
PAGE 128
117 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Cook, R. J. & Farewell, V. T. (1996). Multip licity considerations in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 159 93-110. Corey, S. M. (1937). Professed at titudes and actual behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 28 271-280. Craig-Henderson, K. & Sloan, L. R. (2002). After the hate: Helping psychologists help victims of racist hate crime. Clinical Psychology Science & Practice, 10 481-490. Crime Victims with Disabilities Awareness Act of 1998, P.L. 105-301. Davis, J. (1959). A formal interpretation of the theory of relative deprivation. Sociometry, 22 28-29. Divine, P. G. (1989). Stereo types and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56 5-18. Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005) Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60 697-711. Dovidio, J., Gaertner, S., & Kawakami, K. ( 2003). Intergroup contac t: The past, present and future. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6 5-20. English, R.W., & Oberle, J. (1971). Toward s the development of new methodology for examining attitudes toward disabled persons. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 15 88-96. Estes, J. Deyer, C. A., Hansen, R. A., & Russell, J. C. (1991). Influence of occupational therapy curricula on studen ts attitudes towards persons with disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45 156-158. Fazio, R. H., Chen, J., McDonel, E. C., & Sherman, S. J. (1982). Attitude accessibility, attitude behavior consistency, and the stre ngth of the object evaluation association. Journal of Experiment al Social Psychology, 18 339-357. Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 229-238. Fazio, R. H., & Towles-Schwen, T. (1999) The MODE model of attitude-behavior processes (pp. 97-116). In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope Eds Dual-Process in Social Psychology New York: Guilford Press
PAGE 129
118 Fazio, R. H., & Williams, C. J. (1986). Attit ude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and atti tude-behavior relations: An investigation of the 1984 Presidential election. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 51 505-514. Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct ex perience and attitude behavior consistency. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experime ntal social psychology (Vol. 14, 162202). New York: Academic press. Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (2003). Hate crime statistics Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (2002). Hate crime statistics Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (2001). Hate crime statistics Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (2000). Hate crime statistics Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (1999a). Hate crime statistics Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (1999b). Hate crime data reporting guidelines Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of I nvestigation. (1999c). Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (1998). Hate crime statistics Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of I nvestigation (1997). Hate crime statistics Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Fine, M., & Asch, A. (1988). Disabili ty beyond stigma: Social interaction, discrimination, and activism. Journal of Social Issues, 44 3-21. Fisher, J. (1951). The memory process and cer tain psychosocial att itudes with special reference to the law of Pragnanz. Journal of Personality, 19 406-420. Franklin, K. (1998). Unassuming motivations: C ontextualizing the narr atives of anti-gay assailants. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Sigma and sexual orientation (pp. 1-23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers. Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18 271-291.
PAGE 130
119 Gosse, V. F., & Sheppard, G. (1979). Attitudes towards physically disabled persons: Do education and personal contact make a difference? Canadian Counselor, 13 131135. Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled identity New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc. Gove, W. R., Hughes, M., & Geerken, M. (1985). Are uniform crime reports a valid indicator of the index crimes? An affirm ative answer with minor qualifications. Criminology, 23 451-501. Green, S. B. & Salkind, N. J. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh : Analyzing and understanding data. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hegel, G. W. (1807/1967). The phenomenology of mind. (J. B. Baillie, Trans.) Moscow, ID: Harper & Rowe Torchbooks. (O riginal work published in 1807) Hiday, V.A., Swartz, M.S., Swanson, J.W., Bo rum, R. & Wagner, H.R. (1999). Criminal victimization of persons with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services 50 62-68. Higgins, T. J. (1954). Man as man: The science and art of ethics Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company. Hoffman, M. B. (2003). The case for jury sentencing. [Electronic version]. Duke Law Journal, 52 951-1010. Hutchins, R. M. (1952). American stat e papers. In R. M. Hutchins (Ed.) Great books of the western world : Vol. 43. American state papers, the federalist, on liberty, representative government, utilitarianism (pp. 1-28). Chicago: William Benton, Publisher. Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Ps ychology Bulletin, 19 700-710. Jamieson, D. W., & Zanna, M. P. (1989). Need for structure in attitude formation and expression. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 383-406). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Kant, I. (1797/1999). Metaphysical elemen ts of justice (2nd ed.). (J. Ladd, Trans.) Indianapolis: Hackett Pub lishing Company, Inc. (Original work published 1797). Katz, D. (17971960). The functional appr oach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly 24 163-204.
PAGE 131
120 Kaysen, D., Lostutter, T. W., & Goines, M. A. (2005). Cognitive processing therapy for acute stress disorder resulting from anti-gay assault. Cognitive & Behavioral Practice, 12 278-289. Keim, J., Malesky, L. A., & Strauser, D. R. (2003). Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), life satisfaction and work persona lity: Exploring the relationship with disability. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling 34 (3), 41-45. Kruglanski, A. W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and nu merical anchoring. Journal of Experime ntal Social Psychology 19 448-468. LaPiere, R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 13 230-237. Lawrence, F. M. (1999). Punishing hate: Bias crimes under American law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lee, T. M. C., Paterson, J. G., & Chan, C. C. H. (1994). The effect of occupational therapy education on students percei ved attitudes towards persons with disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48 633-638. Levin, B. (1992). Bias crimes: A th eoretical and practical overview Stanford Law & Policy Review 4 165-171. Levin, J., & McDevitt, J. (1993). Hate crimes: The rising tid e of bigotry and bloodshed New York: Plenum. Levine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York: Wiley. Lifton, R. J. (1986). The Nazi doctors: Medi cal killing and the psychology of genocide. Basic Books. Luckasson, R. (1992). People with mental reta rdation as victims of crime. In R.W. Conley, R. Luckasson, & G.N. Bouthilet (Eds.), The criminal justice system and mental retardation (pp.209-220). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brooks Publishing Co. Livneh, H. & Cook, D. (2005) Psychosocial impact of disability. In. R. M. Parker, E. M. Szymanski, & J. B. Patterson (Eds.) Rehabilitation counseling: Basics and beyond 4th ed. Austin, TX: ProEd. Locke, J. (1690/1968). Of civil government: Second treatise Chicago, IL: H. Regnery Publisher. (Original work published in 1690) McDaniel, J. M. (1976). Physical disability and human behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon Press
PAGE 132
121 McDevitt, J., Levin, J., & Bennett, S. ( 2002). Hate crime offenders: An expanded typology. Journal of Social Issues 58 303-317. McMahon, B.T., West, S.L., Lewis, A.N., Ar mstrong, A.J., & Conway, J.P. (2004). Hate crimes and disability in America Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 47 66-75. McPhail, B. A. (2002). Gender-b ias hate crimes: A review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 3 125-143. Miller, A. (2001). Student perceptions of hate crimes. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25 293-296. Miller, E. L. (1996). Questions that matter (4th ed.) New York: McGraw Hill Companies, Inc. Mishra, R. (2001, June 10). In attacks on disabled, few verdicts. The Boston Globe Muccigrosso, L. (1991). Sexual abuse preven tion strategies and programs for persons with developmental disabilities. Sexuality and Disability 9 261-272. National Council on Disability. (2000). Harris Survey of Americans with Disabilities. Washington, DC: Author. National Institute of Justice. (1999). Final report on the psyc hological and behavioral effects of bias and non bias motivated assault Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. National Organization on Disability. (2003, January 27). The state of the union 2003 for Americans with disabilities. Retr eived January 10, 2005 from National Organization on Disability online: ht tp://www.nod.org/content.cfm?id=1293 National Organization on Disability. (2001, Ju ly 24) Employment ra tes of people with disabilities. Retreived January 10, 2005 fr om National Organization on Disability online: http://www.nod.org/content.cfm?id=134. Newcomer, K. E. (1994). Using statistics approp riately. In J. S. Wholy, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Nolan, J. J. & Akiyama, Y. (1999). An analys is of factors that a ffect law enforcement participation in hate crime reporting. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 15 111-127. Nosek, M.A. (1996). Sexual abuse of women with physical disabilities. In D.M. Krotoski, M.A., Nosek, & M.A. Turk (Eds.), Women with physical disabilities (pp. 153-173). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co.
PAGE 133
122 Nosek, M.A., Howland, C.A., Rintala, D. H., Young, M.E., & Chanpong, G.F. (1997). National study of women with phy sical disabilities: Final report Houston: Center for Research on Women with Disabilities. Oyez (2000, June 26). Apprendi v. New Jersey 530 U.S. 466 (2000) Docket number: 99478. Retrieved January 7, 2006, from http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1218/ Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS Survival manual 2nd Ed. New York, NY: Open University Press. Pederson, L.L., & Carlson, P.M. (1981). Rehabi litation service provide rs: Their attitudes towards people with physical disabilities, and their attitudes towards each other. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 24 275-282 Pegis, A. C. (1948). An introduction to St. Thomas Aquinas Toronto, Canada: Random House. Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-a nalytic test of inte rgroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 751-783. Perry, B. (2001). In the name of hate: Understanding hate crimes New York, NY: Routledge. Petty, R. E., Wegener, D. T., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1997). Attitude and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48 609-647. Pruett, S. R. (2004). A psychometric validation of a disability attitude implicit association test. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65 (4-A), 1278. Roeher Institute (1993). Answering the call: The police resp onse to family and care-giver violence against peop le with disabilities Roeher Institute, Ontario. Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., & Fazio, R. H. (1992) On the orienting value of attitudes: Attitude accessibility as a de terminant of an objects attr action of visual attention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 198-211. Ryan, K.M. (1981). Developmental differences in reactions to the physically disabled. Human Development, 24 240-256. Sanbonmatsu, D. M. & Fazio, R. H. (1990). The role of attitudes in memory-based decision making. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 614-622. Satcher, J., & Gamble, D. (2002). Attitude s of law students toward persons with disabilities. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 33 13-16. Schneider, D. (Executive Pr oducer). (2005, November 10). Supreme Court justices on the rule of law [Television broadcast]. Washington, DC: C-SPAN.
PAGE 134
123 Schuette, R. A., & Fazio, R. H. (1990). A ttitude accessibility and motivation as determinants of biased processing: A te st of the MODE model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21 704-710. Schuman, H., & Johnson, M. P. (1979). Attitudes and behavior. Annual Review of Sociology, 2 161-207. Shapiro, J. P. (1994). No pity: People with disabili ties forging a new civil rights movement New York: Times Books. Sherry, M. (2003). Hate crime against disabled persons: One in a million? IURD Developments 13 3-4. Siller, J. (1963). Reactio ns to physical disability Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 7 12-16. Skolnick, J. H. (2002). Corruption and the blue code of silence. Police Practice and Research 3 7-19. Skolnick, J. H., & Bayley, D. H. (1986). The new blue line: Police innovation in six American cities New York: Free Press. Smart, J. (2001). Disability society and the individual Austin, Texas: ProEd Smith, M. B., Bruner, J. S ., & White, R. W. (1956). Opinions and personality New York: Wiley. Sobsey, D. (1994). Violence and abuse in the lives of peopl e with disabilitie s: The end of silent acceptance? Baltimore, MD: Paul Brooks Publishing Co. Sobsey, D., & Doe, T. (1991). Patterns of sexual abuse and assault. Journal of Sexuality and Disability 9 243-259. Sorensen, D. D. (2001). Hate crimes against peop le with disabilities Unpublished manuscript. Stagner, R. (1944). Studies of aggressive social attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 20 109-140. Sullivan, P.M., & Knutson, J.F. (1998). The association between child maltreatment and disabilities in a hospitalbased epidemiological study. Child Abuse & Neglect 22 271-288. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psyc hology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33 1-39. Tajfel, H., Billing, M. G., B undy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971) Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1 149-178.
PAGE 135
124 Thurstone, L. L. (1931). The meas urement of social attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 26 249-269. Triandis, H. C., & Malpass, R. S. (1971). St udies of black and white interaction in job settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1 101-117. Tsang, H. W. H., Chan, F., & Chan, C. C. H. (2004). Factors in fluencing occupational therapy students attitudes toward persons with disabilities: A conjoint analysis. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 58 426-434. The Heidelberg Catechism (1563/1988). Grand Rapids, MI: CRC Publications (Original work published 1563). Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. ( 1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favourtism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9 187-204. U.S. Census Bureau. (2004, March). U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin. Retreived January 6, 2006 from U.S. Census Bureau online: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/ Walker, I., & Smith, H. J. (2002). Relative depravation: Speci fication, development, and integration Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wang, M. H. (1998). Factors influencing pref erences for persons with disabilities: A conjoint analysis and cr oss-cultural comparison. Dissertation Abstracts International 60 (1-R), 0414.. Welner, M. (1998). Defining evil: A de pravity scale for todays court. Forensic echo, 2 1-8. Welner, M. (2003). Response to Simon: Lega l relevance demands that evil be defined and standardized. Journal American Academy of Psychiatry Law, 31 417-421. Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes vs. actions : The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25 41-78. Wills, T.A. (1978). Perceptions of clients by professional helpers. Psychological Bulletin, 85 968-1000. Wilson, C., & Brewer, N. (1992). The incidence of criminal victimization of individuals with intellectual disability. Australian Psychologist 27 114-117. Young, M.E., Nosek, M.A., Howland, C.A., Chanpong, G., & Rintala, D.H. (1997). Prevalence of abuse of women with physical disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Supplement 5 78 34-38. Yuker, H. E. (1994). Variables that influen ce attitudes toward peopl e with disabilities: Conclusions from the data. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 9 3-22.
PAGE 136
125 Yuker, H. E. (1988). The effects of contact on attitudes toward disabled persons: Some empirical generalizations. In H. E. Yuker (Ed.), Attitudes Towards Persons with Disabilities New York: Springer Publishing Company. Yuker, H. E., & Block, J. R. (1986). Research with the attitudes toward disabled persons scales (ATDP): 1960-1985 Hempstead, NY: Hofstra University. Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Younng, J. H. (1966). The measurement of attitudes towards disabled persons. (Human Resources Study No. 7). Albertson, NY: Human Resources Center. Yuker, H. E. Block, J. R., & Campbell, W. J. (1960). A scale to measure attitudes toward disabled persons (Human Resources Study No. 5). Albertson, NY: Human Resources Center. Yuker, H. E., & Hurley, M. K. (1987). Cont act with and attitudes toward people with disabilities: The measurement of intergroup contact. Rehabilitation Psychology 32 145-154.
PAGE 137
126 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Frank Lane earned a Bachelor of Arts de gree in psychology from St. Leo College in 1988 and a Master of Health Science De gree in rehabilitation and mental health counseling from the University of Florida in 2000. Mr. Lane began work towards his doctorate in rehabilitation science in 2000. He has over 18 years of experience in human services working with individuals with mental illness and physical disabilities, including six years as a practicing rehabi litation counselor in Gaines ville, Florida. Mr. Lanes research interests include attitudes toward s people with disabilities, contact as a mechanism for attitude change, and areas in society where attitudes function as a barrier to full participation by people with disabilities.
|
|
