Biocriminology and the Adjudication of Criminal Responsibility: Is There a Consensus Among Scientists' Verdicts?

Because of the evolving nature of psychology research, non-scientists are more likely to struggle or misinterpret evidence regarding a person's psychological state. Misconceptions may thus be highly prevalent within the justice system, leading to negative consequences for people with psychological or neurobiological disorders. At the same time, no research has been conducted to compare the punishment perspectives of non-scientists, that typically make sentencing decisions, to scientists who possess a more advanced understanding of human biology and behavior.

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Criminalism
• Intervention / Treatment: Behavioral: Biocriminological Evidence

Detailed Description

In this study, closely inspired by the paradigms of Berryessa, Coppola, and Salvato, perspectives on punishment based on psychobiological explanations of behaviour are assessed, aiming to understand how scientists with knowledge of human psychobiology versus lay people (of similar educational level) interpret offending behaviour. Human-science is contrasted to natural-science/arts graduates because the former have been exposed to and may possess scientific knowledge that shapes their understanding of behaviour, their views, and potential (essentialist) biases. In contrast, non-scientists have been found to possess scientific misconceptions that can impact their sentencing decisions. This leads to the question whether scientists may draw different judgements based on their professional knowledge and experience with psychological phenomena. If indeed scientists with greater insight on human behaviour are found to hold less punitive views on punishment and rehabilitation, that has important implications for criminal justice systems that rely on lay peoples' understanding of science.

One hundred sixty participants who completed all study procedures (2 main groups of 80 participants) will be surveyed. A sample size calculation was performed using G*Power version 3.1.9.4, based on Berryessa and colleagues who conducted a similar survey study in 2021 with comparable outcome measures and analyses. The required effect size is based upon approximately 3-4 outcome measures. The primary research question is between-groups, while secondary ones include within groups measures. Based on the power analysis, a sample of 160 participants will be targeted, which is enough for sufficient power for f = 0.25, power = 0.80, df = 4, for 2 different groups.

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 160
• Phase: Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• Netherlands
  • South Holland
    • Leiden, South Holland, Netherlands, 2333 AK
      • Leiden University

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years to 65 years (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Aged between 18 and 65
• Holding a university diploma or equivalent

Exclusion Criteria:

• Participants who did not complete the survey (appropriately) will be excluded

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Basic Science
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Double

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Human Science; Arm 1 will include university graduates that hold at least a science undergraduate degree (or equivalent) in human science, including psychology, neuroscience, human biology, or medicine.	Behavioral: Biocriminological Evidence; Participants in each of the two main groups see a case with and a case without a neurobiological explanation for criminal offending.
Active Comparator: Natural or non-science; Arm 2 will include university graduates from non-human or non-scientific fields such as engineering, history, language studies, or law.	Behavioral: Biocriminological Evidence; Participants in each of the two main groups see a case with and a case without a neurobiological explanation for criminal offending.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Sentencing severity on 5-point questionnaire	This is the primary outcome measure of attitudes towards sentencing, measured via a questionnaire on a visual analogue scale from 1 (only treatment) to 5 (more than 5 years in prison)	Immediately after case presentation, an average of 1 minute.

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Leiden University Medical Center

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): July 1, 2021
• Primary Completion (Actual): July 1, 2022
• Study Completion (Actual): July 1, 2022

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: August 2, 2021
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: August 10, 2021
• First Posted (Actual): August 16, 2021

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): August 16, 2022
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: August 15, 2022
• Last Verified: August 1, 2022

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: Attitudes; Punishment; Responsibility
• Other Study ID Numbers: 2021-07-16-D.S.V.-V2-3332

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: YES
• IPD Plan Description: Raw anonymised data, processing and analysis steps, and all code, will be provided via an online repository or as required by a scientific journal.
• IPD Sharing Time Frame: After the publication of the study
• IPD Sharing Access Criteria: For quality assurance and potential use in relevant research when deemed applicable
• IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type: STUDY_PROTOCOL; ANALYTIC_CODE

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No