Citation
Law Enforcement Officers' Endorsement of Bias Characterization of Crime Scenarios: A Prospective Study of Differences between Disability and Other Protected Categories

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:

lane_f ( .pdf )

lane_f_Page_035.txt

lane_f_Page_088.txt

lane_f_Page_019.txt

lane_f_Page_113.txt

lane_f_Page_108.txt

lane_f_Page_098.txt

lane_f_Page_087.txt

lane_f_Page_104.txt

lane_f_Page_131.txt

lane_f_Page_022.txt

lane_f_Page_110.txt

lane_f_Page_054.txt

lane_f_Page_009.txt

lane_f_Page_080.txt

lane_f_Page_056.txt

lane_f_Page_021.txt

lane_f_Page_134.txt

lane_f_Page_107.txt

lane_f_Page_043.txt

lane_f_Page_012.txt

lane_f_Page_003.txt

lane_f_Page_071.txt

lane_f_Page_040.txt

lane_f_Page_039.txt

lane_f_Page_070.txt

lane_f_Page_034.txt

lane_f_Page_044.txt

lane_f_Page_037.txt

lane_f_Page_024.txt

lane_f_Page_127.txt

lane_f_Page_096.txt

lane_f_Page_101.txt

lane_f_Page_136.txt

lane_f_Page_122.txt

lane_f_Page_017.txt

lane_f_Page_067.txt

lane_f_Page_048.txt

lane_f_Page_116.txt

lane_f_Page_052.txt

lane_f_Page_119.txt

lane_f_Page_097.txt

lane_f_Page_045.txt

lane_f_Page_118.txt

lane_f_Page_089.txt

lane_f_Page_074.txt

lane_f_Page_027.txt

lane_f_Page_049.txt

lane_f_Page_010.txt

lane_f_Page_103.txt

lane_f_Page_094.txt

lane_f_Page_025.txt

lane_f_Page_081.txt

lane_f_Page_120.txt

lane_f_Page_079.txt

lane_f_Page_007.txt

lane_f_Page_047.txt

lane_f_Page_004.txt

lane_f_Page_020.txt

lane_f_Page_117.txt

lane_f_Page_015.txt

lane_f_Page_031.txt

lane_f_Page_093.txt

lane_f_Page_109.txt

lane_f_Page_058.txt

lane_f_Page_125.txt

lane_f_Page_065.txt

lane_f_Page_132.txt

lane_f_Page_062.txt

lane_f_Page_008.txt

lane_f_Page_069.txt

lane_f_Page_092.txt

lane_f_Page_073.txt

lane_f_Page_128.txt

lane_f_Page_005.txt

lane_f_Page_083.txt

lane_f_Page_002.txt

lane_f_Page_068.txt

lane_f_Page_016.txt

lane_f_Page_011.txt

lane_f_Page_014.txt

lane_f_Page_046.txt

lane_f_Page_018.txt

lane_f_Page_121.txt

lane_f_Page_041.txt

lane_f_Page_133.txt

lane_f_Page_077.txt

lane_f_Page_106.txt

lane_f_Page_114.txt

lane_f_Page_082.txt

lane_f_Page_076.txt

lane_f_Page_026.txt

lane_f_Page_042.txt

lane_f_Page_105.txt

lane_f_Page_066.txt

lane_f_Page_057.txt

lane_f_Page_061.txt

lane_f_Page_135.txt

lane_f_Page_032.txt

lane_f_Page_084.txt

lane_f_Page_006.txt

lane_f_Page_102.txt

lane_f_Page_137.txt

lane_f_Page_111.txt

lane_f_Page_030.txt

lane_f_Page_078.txt

lane_f_Page_033.txt

lane_f_Page_100.txt

lane_f_Page_090.txt

lane_f_Page_112.txt

lane_f_Page_059.txt

lane_f_Page_099.txt

lane_f_Page_086.txt

lane_f_Page_050.txt

lane_f_Page_085.txt

lane_f_Page_072.txt

lane_f_Page_095.txt

lane_f_Page_036.txt

lane_f_Page_001.txt

lane_f_Page_023.txt

lane_f_Page_124.txt

lane_f_Page_055.txt

lane_f_Page_075.txt

lane_f_Page_013.txt

lane_f_Page_038.txt

lane_f_Page_130.txt

lane_f_Page_029.txt

lane_f_pdf.txt

lane_f_Page_091.txt

lane_f_Page_129.txt

lane_f_Page_123.txt

lane_f_Page_028.txt

lane_f_Page_053.txt

lane_f_Page_126.txt

lane_f_Page_063.txt

lane_f_Page_060.txt

lane_f_Page_051.txt

lane_f_Page_064.txt

lane_f_Page_115.txt


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.