Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Selling effective violence prevention policies to the public: a nationally representative framing experiment

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

After years of decreasing public punitiveness and declining crime rates, politicians are seeking evidence-based crime policies to reduce mass incarceration without increasing crime. One such policy that has been implemented in several US cities is the Operation Peacemaker Fellowship (OPF), which incentivizes conformity and program participation by providing monetary stipends to individuals at risk of violent offending, thereby simultaneously reducing violence and incarceration. Yet, there is no evidence about public support for such policies.

Methods

Using a nationally representative survey experiment, we examine public support for violence prevention stipends. We employ a referendum-style, contingent valuation design to measure the impact of tax increases versus tax savings on public opinion, and we randomize message framing that emphasizes the stipend program’s risky versus protective features.

Results

Both tax changes and risk framing matter. The public is willing to vote for stipends when they reduce taxes and are framed as a method to save lives. Most Republicans oppose stipends under all conditions.

Conclusions

Reformers can increase public support for effective, nonpunitive policies that target violent offenders by emphasizing both their economic and social benefits. However, such policies are likely to face consistent opposition from certain portions of the public.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx

  2. The stipend of up to $1000 per month is substantially less than the average cost to house a single inmate in the USA of roughly $35,000 per year (Vera Institute of Justice 2017).

  3. The cities noted by ONS in their 2016 annual report are Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Coatesville, Detroit, Gary, Hartford, Indianapolis, Lexington, Lima, Los Angeles, Memphis, Miami Gardens, Miami, New Orleans, New York, Oakland, Omaha, Philadelphia, Sacramento, Salina, San Jose, St. Louis, Washington DC, and Wilmington.

  4. The timing of the program’s costs versus savings may also influence public opinion. The public may be less supportive if taxpayer costs are immediate but savings are delayed, even if the savings outweigh the costs.

  5. The GfK Group invited 3458 panelists to participate in our survey, of whom 1002 completed the questionnaire, for a study-specific completion rate of 29%. Of those 1002 respondents, a subset of 668 were assigned to receive the experimental manipulations reported herein; the other 334 were randomly assigned to different conditions. The average profile rate was 63%, and the average panel recruitment rate was 12%. To adjust for nonresponse, the data were weighted using population benchmarks from the U.S. Census and Current Population Survey. Nonresponse bias is not strongly related to response rates, nor will it affect the internal validity of experimental findings.

  6. In a supplementary analysis (not shown), we examined whether the experimental conditions interacted to influence voting intentions. They did not (b = − .179, OR = .836, p < .602), indicating that tax changes and risk framing have additive effects on public opinion.

  7. Because of the well-known issues with testing for interactions in nonlinear probability models, we also estimated supplementary heterogeneous choice models including partisan identification in the variance equation. Finally, we estimated linear probability models, which are appropriate for experimental analyses (Huang 2019). The findings were substantively the same across all model specifications.

  8. At the request of a reviewer, we estimated a supplementary model including three-way interactions between the experimental manipulations and partisan identification, along with the two-way interactions. Neither three-way interaction was statistically significant: reduction × protective × independent (b = .564, OR = 1.758, p = .541) and reduction × protective × democrat (b = 1.611, OR = 5.010, p = .108).

References

  • Arnold, R. D. (1992). The logic of congressional action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P. R., Leamer, E. E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register, 58, 4601–4614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkin-Plunk, C. A. (2020). Should all violent offenders be treated equally? Perceptions of punishment and rehabilitation for violent offenders with varying attributes. Victims & Offenders, 2, 218–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auspurg, K., & Hinz, T. (2015). Factorial survey experiments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aviram, H. (2015). Cheap on crime: recession-era politics and the transformation of American punishment. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baumer, E. P. (2008). An empirical assessment of the contemporary crime trends puzzle: a modest step toward a more comprehensive research agenda. In A. Goldberger & R. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Understanding crime trends. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumer, E. P., Lauritsen, J. L., Rosenfeld, R., & Wright, R. (1998). The influence of crack cocaine on robbery, burglary, and homicide rates: a cross-city, longitudinal analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 316–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. B., Davidson, M., Johnson, K. R., Krishnamurthy, A., & Wilson, C. P. (2018). Deadly justice: a statistical portrait of the death penalty. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, R., Boyle, K. J., Carson, R. T., Chapman, D., Hanemann, W. M., Kanninen, B., et al. (2017). Putting a value on injuries to natural assets: the BP oil spill. Science, 356, 253–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, M. J., Reyna, C., Chambers, J. R., Crawford, J. T., & Wetherell, G. (2014). The ideological-conflict hypothesis: intolerance among both liberals and conservatives. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronson, J., & Carson, E. A. (2019). Prisoners in 2017. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, E. K., & Socia, K. M. (2017). Twenty-first century punitiveness: social sources of punitive American views reconsidered. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33, 935–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, A. L., Cullen, F. T., Burton Jr., V. S., Graham, A., Butler, L. C., & Thielo, A. J. (2020a). Belief in redeemability and punitive public opinion: ‘once a criminal always a criminal’ revisited. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47, 712–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, A. L., Cullen, F. T., Pickett, J. T., Burton Jr., V. S., & Thielo, A. J. (2020b). Beyond the enteral criminal record: public support for expungement. Criminology & Public Policy.

  • Callegaro, M., Manfreda, K. L., & Vehovar, V. (2015). Web survey methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T. (2012). Contingent valuation: a practical alternative when prices aren’t available. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26, 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2009). National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing versus the internet: comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 641–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2012). Dynamics in mass communication effects research. The Sage handbook of political communication., 307–326.

  • Clear, T., & Frost, N. A. (2014). The punishment imperative: the risk and failure of mass incarceration in America. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. A., & Bowles, R. (2010). Estimating costs of crime. In A. R. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. A., Rust, R. T., Steen, S., & Tidd, S. T. (2004). Willingness-to-pay for crime control programs. Criminology, 42, 89–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. A., Rust, R. T., & Steen, S. (2006). Prevention, crime control or cash? Public preferences towards criminal justice spending priorities. Justice Quarterly, 23, 317–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, J. T., Brandt, M. J., Inbar, Y., Chambers, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2017). Social and economic ideologies differentially predict prejudice across the political spectrum, but social issues are most divisive. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 112, 383–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creighton, M. J., & Wozniak, K. H. (2019). Are racial and educational inequities in mass incarceration perceived to be a social problem? Results from an experiment. Social Problems, 66, 485–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B. S., & Applegate, B. K. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice, 27, 1–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagan, D., & Teles, S. (2016). Prison break: why conservatives turned against mass incarceration. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denver, M., Pickett, J. T., & Bushway, S. D. (2017). The language of stigmatization and the mark of violence: experimental evidence on the social construction and use of criminal record stigma. Criminology, 55, 664–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denver, M., Pickett, J. T., & Bushway, S. D. (2018). Criminal records and employment: a survey of experiences and attitudes in the United States. Justice Quarterly, 35, 584–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doble, J. (2002). Attitudes to punishment in the U.S.: punitive and liberal opinions. In J. V. Roberts & M. Hough (Eds.), Changing attitudes to punishment: public opinion, crime, and justice. 148–162. Portland, OR: Willan.

  • Domínguez, P., & Raphael, S. (2015). The role of the cost-of-crime literature in bridging the gap between social science research and policy making: potentials and limitations. Criminology & Public Policy, 14, 589–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drakulich, K. M. (2015a). Explicit and hidden racial bias in the framing of social problems. Social Problems, 62, 391–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drakulich, K. M. (2015b). The hidden role of racial bias in support for policies related to inequality and crime. Punishment & Society, 17, 541–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drakulich, K. M., & Kirk, E. M. (2016). Public opinion and criminal justice reform: framing matters. Criminology & Public Policy, 15, 171–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drash, W., & Sambou, T. (2016). Paying kids not to kill. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/health/cash-for-criminals-richmond-california/index.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J. N. (2004). Political preference formation: competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98, 671–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutra, L., Stathopoulou, G., Basden, S. L., Leyro, T. M., Powers, M. B., & Otto, M. W. (2008). A meta-analytic review of psychosocial interventions for substance use disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 179–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enns, P. K. (2014). The public’s increasing punitiveness and its influence on mass incarceration in the United States. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 857–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enns, P. K. (2016). Incarceration nation: how the United States became the most punitive democracy in the world. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, D. A. (2008). On regression adjustments to experimental data. Advances in Applied Mathematics, 40, 180–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galvin, M., Loughran, T. A., Simpson, S. S., & Cohen, M. A. (2018). Victim compensation policy and white-collar crime: public preferences in a national willingness-to-pay survey. Criminology & Public Policy, 17, 553–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garland, B., Wodahl, E., & Smith, R. G. (2017). Religious beliefs and public support for prisoner reentry. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28, 879–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, A. (2017). The effect of message frames on public attitudes toward criminal justice reform for nonviolent offenses. Crime and Delinquency, 63, 636–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottschalk, M. (2015). Caught: the prison state and the lockdown of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, A., Cullen, F. T., Pickett, J. T., Jonson, C. L., Haner, M., & Sloan, M. M. (2020). Faith in Trump, moral foundations, and social distancing defiance during the coronavirus pandemic. Socius, 6, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grogger, J. 2000. An economic model of recent trends in violence. In The crime drop in America (revised edition), pp. 266-287, eds. A. Blumstein and J. Wallman. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Harvell, S., Welsh-Loveman, J., Love, H., Durnan, J., Eisenstat, J., Golian, L., et al. (2016). Reforming sentencing and corrections policy: the experience of justice reinvestment initiative states. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hetey, R. C., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2014). Racial disparities in incarceration increase acceptance of punitive policies. Psychological Science, 25, 1949–1954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschi, T. (2002). Causes of delinquency (2nd ed.). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, F. L. (2019). Alternatives to logistic regression models in experimental studies. The Journal of Experimental Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2019.1699769.

  • Huguet, R., & Li, J. (2016). Cost benefit analysis: operation peacemaker. University of Southern California.

  • Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (2005). Playing the race card in the post-Willie Horton era. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 99–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: new evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 690–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, T. M., & Wozniak, K. H. (2020). Public opinion and the politics of collateral consequence policies. Punishment & Society. Advance online publication. 10.1177%2F1462474520941942.

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karch, A., & Cravens, M. (2014). Rapid diffusion and policy reform: the adoption and modification of three strikes laws. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 14, 461–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Perner, J. (1999). The effects of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 204–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lageson, S. E., Denver, M., & Pickett, J. T. (2019). Privatizing criminal stigma: Experience, intergroup contact, and public views about publicizing arrest records. Punishment & Society, 21, 315–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2012). The democratic deficit in the states. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 148–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, F. E. (2015). How party polarization affects governance. Annual Review of Political Science, 18, 261–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, P. S., Pickett, J. T., & Denver, M. (2020). Public opinion and criminal records and employment: a test of competing theoretical models. Crime & Delinquency, 66, 995–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenihan, K. J. (1978). Unlocking the second gate: the role of financial assistance in reducing recidivism among ex-prisoners. US Government Printing Office.

  • Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, W. (2013). Agnostic notes on regression adjustments to experimental data: reexamining Freedman’s critique. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 7, 295–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, T. A., Paternoster, R., & Weiss, D. (2012). Hyperbolic time discounting, offender time preferences and deterrence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28, 607–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughran, T. A., Paternoster, R., Chalfin, A., & Wilson, T. (2016). Can rational choice be considered a general theory of crime? Evidence from individual-level panel data. Criminology, 54, 86–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, J., & Cook, P. J. (2001). The benefits of reducing gun violence: evidence from contingent-valuation survey data. Journal of Risk & Uncertainty, 22, 207–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lussier, J. P., Heil, S. H., Mongeon, J. A., Badger, G. J., & Higgins, S. T. (2006). A meta-analysis of voucher-based reinforcement therapy for substance use disorders. Addiction, 101, 192–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthay, E. C., Farkas, K., Rudolph, K. E., Zimmerman, S., Barragan, M., Goin, D. E., & Ahern, J. (2019). Firearm and nonfirearm violence after operation peacemaker fellowship in Richmond, California, 1996-2016. American Journal of Public Health, 109, 1605–1611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mears, D. P., & Cochran, J. C. (2018). Who goes to prison? In J. Wooldredge & P. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prisons and imprisonment (pp. 29–52). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mears, D. P., Pickett, J. T., & Mancini, C. (2015). Support for balanced juvenile justice: assessing views about youth, rehabilitation, and punishment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 459–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. C., & Carson, R. T. (1989). Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resource for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mood, C. (2010). Logistic regression: why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review, 26, 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. E., & Oudekerk, B. A. (2019). Criminal victimization, 2018. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumola, C. J., & Karberg, J. C. (2006). Drug use and dependence, state and federal prisoners, 2004. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nagin, D. S., Piquero, A. R., Scott, E. S., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Public preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders: evidence form a contingent valuation survey. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 301–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson-Crotty, S., Peterson, D. A. M., & Ramirez, M. D. (2009). Dynamic representation(s): federal criminal justice policy and an alternative dimension of public mood. Political Behavior, 31, 629–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ouellette, H. M., Applegate, B. K., & Vuk, M. (2017). The public’s stance on prisoner reentry: policy support and personal acceptance. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 768–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peffley, M., & Hurwitz, J. (2010). Justice in America: the separate realities of blacks and whites. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia, J., & Cullen, F. T. (2015). Liberal but not stupid: meeting the promise of downsizing prisons. Stanford Journal of Criminal Law and Policy, 2, 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petry, N. M. (2010). Contingency management treatments: controversies and challenges. Addiction, 105, 1507–1509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, J. T. (2016). Reintegrative populism? Public opinion and the criminology of downsizing. Criminology & Public Policy, 15, 131–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, J. T. (2019). Public opinion and criminal justice policy: theory and research. Annual Review of Criminology, 2, 405–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, J. T., Barnes, J. C., Wilson, T., & Roche, S. P. (2019). Prospect theory and criminal choice: experiments testing framing, reference dependence, and decision weights. Justice Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1531142.

  • Piquero, A. R., & Steinberg, L. (2010). Public preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piquero, N. L., Cohen, M. A., & Piquero, A. R. (2011). How much is the public willing to pay to be protected from identity theft? Justice Quarterly, 28, 437–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pogarsky, G., Roche, S. P., & Pickett, J. T. (2018). Offender decision-making in criminology: contributions from behavioral economics. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 379–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez, M. D. (2013). Punitive sentiment. Criminology, 51, 329–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raphael, S. (2014). How do we reduce incarceration rates while maintaining public safety? Criminology & Public Policy, 13, 579–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauna, D., & Berk, R. A. (1987). Remuneration and recidivism: the long-term impact of unemployment compensation on ex-offenders. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V., & Hough, M. (2005). The state of the prisons: exploring public knowledge and opinion. The Howard Journal, 44, 286–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, R. (2002). Crime decline in context. Contexts, 1, 25–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, R. (2016). Documenting and explaining the 2015 homicide rise: research directions. National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249895.pdf.

  • Rosenfeld, R., & Fornango, R. (2007). The impact of economic conditions on robbery and property crime: the role of consumer sentiment. Criminology, 45, 735–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H., Berk, R. A., & Lenihan, K. J. (1980). Money, work, and crime: experimental evidence. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabol, W. J., & Baumann, M. L. (2020). Justice reinvestment: vision and practice. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 317–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, J., Ellis, S. K., & Wozniak, K. H. (2019). The role of poverty and income in the differential etiology of violence: an empirical test. Journal of Poverty, 23, 384–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87, 334–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, L., Lu, Y., & Pickett, J. T. (2020). The public salience of crime, 1960-2014: age-period-cohort and time-series analyses. Criminology, 58, 568–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silver, J. R., & Silver, E. (2017). Why are conservatives more punitive than liberals? A moral foundations approach. Law and Human Behavior, 41, 258–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime: how the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sklansky, D. A. (2018). The problems with prosecutors. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 451–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stimson, J. A. (1999). Public opinion in America: moods, cycles, and swings. 2nd edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

  • Sundt, J., Cullen, F. T., Thielo, A. J., & Jonson, C. L. (2015). Public willingness to downsize prisons: implications from Oregon. Victims & Offenders, 10, 365–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thielo, A., Cullen, F. T., Cohen, D. M., & Chouhy, C. (2016). Rehabilitation in a red state: public support for correctional reform in Texas. Criminology & Public Policy, 15, 137–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin., 133, 859–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, S. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: exploring causes and consequences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatachalam, L. (2004). The contingent valuation method: a review. Environment Impact Assessment Review, 24, 89–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vera Institute of Justice. (2017). The price of prisons: examining state spending trends, 2010 2015. New York: Vera.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbruggen, J., Apel, R., Van Der Geest, V. R., & Blokland, A. A. J. (2015). Work, income support, and crime in the Dutch welfare state: a longitudinal study following vulnerable youth into adulthood. Criminology, 53, 545–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wikoff, N., Linhorst, D. M., & Morani, N. (2012). Recidivism among participants of a reentry program for prisoners released without supervision. Social Work Research, 36, 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. (2010). Fitting heterogeneous choice models with oglm. The Stata Journal, 10, 540–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M., Del Prado Lippman, A., Glesmann, C., & Castro, E. (2015). Process evaluation for the office of neighborhood safety. Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wozniak, K. H. (2016). Public opinion and the politics of criminal justice policy making: reasons for optimism, pessimism, and uncertainty. Criminology & Public Policy, 15, 179–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wozniak, K. H. (2019). The effect of exposure to racialized cues on white and black public support for justice reinvestment. Justice Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1486448.

  • Wozniak, K. H. (2020a). An analysis of black-white racial differences in public support for nonviolent sentencing reform. Race and Justice, 10, 456–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wozniak, K. H. (2020b). Public discussion about critical issues in criminal justice reform. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology, 8, 401–429.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Teddy Wilson for his help with designing the survey and collecting the data.

Funding

This research was supported by funding from the Hindelang Criminal Justice Research Center at the University at Albany, SUNY.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, SUNY, 135 Western Avenue, Albany, NY, 12222, USA

    Justin T. Pickett & Stefan Ivanov

  2. Department of Sociology, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, 02125, MA, USA

    Kevin H. Wozniak

Authors
  1. Justin T. Pickett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Ivanov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kevin H. Wozniak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin T. Pickett.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Replication data and code are at: https://osf.io/7gehm/files/

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pickett, J.T., Ivanov, S. & Wozniak, K.H. Selling effective violence prevention policies to the public: a nationally representative framing experiment. J Exp Criminol 18, 387–409 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09447-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09447-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation