The Development and Consequences of Structural Explanations for Criminal Legal System Contact

• In Event: The Antecedents & Consequences of Structural Explanations for Social Disparities

Abstract

People often explain phenomena by referencing internal causes (Cimpian, 2015). We extended this work by asking people to explain why others come in contact with the criminal legal system (CLS). Structural factors (e.g., racism, intergenerational poverty) greatly contribute to incarceration within the U.S. (Alexander, 2012). Given the robust link between CLS contact and structural inequality, people could attribute incarceration to structural causes.
Study 1 tested this possibility by asking 6- to 8-year-olds (N=99) and adults (N=168) to define the words “jail” or “prison.” The purpose of this question was to examine participants’ explanations for incarceration. Participants more readily generated individual-level explanations—those referencing internal (immoral character, bad desires) or behavioral (law-breaking) factors—than structural explanations (Figure 1). Specifically, children more readily generated internal and behavioral explanations than structural explanations (ps<.001), whereas adults mentioned behavioral causes more frequently than internal or structural causes (ps<.001). Structural explanations were rare: zero children and one adult referenced structural factors. No significant difference emerged between age groups for this category (p=.210).
Study 2 built on Study 1 by examining the extent to which one relevant social experience—parental incarceration—might shape children’s inferences about CLS contact. Here, 6-to 12-year-olds with incarcerated (N=24) and non-incarcerated (N=58) parents learned about an individual who broke the law and used a three-point scale to indicate their agreement with different explanations for this outcome. Children of incarcerated parents are especially likely to experience the negative consequences of structural inequalities (Clear, 2007). Thus, it was possible that children of incarcerated parents would be less likely than children of non-incarcerated parents to report that law-breaking stems from internal causes. Surprisingly, both groups of children reported moderate agreement that law-breaking stems from internal causes; a significant difference did not emerge between groups of children (p=.153).
Study 3 investigated the ramifications of children’s explanations for CLS contact. Here, we told 6-to 8-year-olds (N=72) about different individuals whose incarceration was either attributed to an internal (e.g., moral character), behavioral (e.g., breaking the rules), or structural (e.g., racism) cause. This experiment built on prior work testing one explanation per category; here, we tested multiple explanations per category to determine whether differences might emerge among different explanations within one category. After learning about each individual, participants then indicated their attitudes. Children reported more positive attitudes toward those incarcerated for structural as opposed to behavioral or internal factors (ps≤.001). Moreover, children reported more positive attitudes toward those incarcerated for behavioral than internal factors (p=.002; Figure 2).
This work underscores the tenacity of internal explanations by showing that children employ internal (versus structural) explanations for CLS contact regardless of whether they have close relationships with incarcerated individuals. Furthermore, this work demonstrates the promise of psychological interventions (highlighting structural causes) that may help reduce negativity toward those implicated in the CLS. These findings may guide how justice advocates, media, and children’s caretakers discuss incarceration.

Authors

• James Dunlea, Columbia University
  Presenting Author

• Larisa Heiphetz Solomon, Columbia University
  Non-Presenting Author