Biocriminology and the Adjudication of Criminal Responsibility: Is There a Consensus Among Scientists' Verdicts?
研究概览
详细说明
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.
研究类型
注册 (实际的)
阶段
- 不适用
联系人和位置
学习地点
-
-
South Holland
-
Leiden、South Holland、荷兰、2333 AK
- Leiden University
-
-
参与标准
资格标准
适合学习的年龄
接受健康志愿者
有资格学习的性别
描述
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
学习计划
研究是如何设计的?
设计细节
- 主要用途:基础科学
- 分配:随机化
- 介入模型:并行分配
- 屏蔽:双倍的
武器和干预
参与者组/臂 |
干预/治疗 |
---|---|
实验性的: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.
|
Participants in each of the two main groups see a case with and a case without a neurobiological explanation for criminal offending.
|
有源比较器: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.
|
Participants in each of the two main groups see a case with and a case without a neurobiological explanation for criminal offending.
|
研究衡量的是什么?
主要结果指标
结果测量 |
措施说明 |
大体时间 |
---|---|---|
Sentencing severity on 5-point questionnaire
大体时间:Immediately after case presentation, an average of 1 minute.
|
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.
|
合作者和调查者
研究记录日期
研究主要日期
学习开始 (实际的)
初级完成 (实际的)
研究完成 (实际的)
研究注册日期
首次提交
首先提交符合 QC 标准的
首次发布 (实际的)
研究记录更新
最后更新发布 (实际的)
上次提交的符合 QC 标准的更新
最后验证
更多信息
与本研究相关的术语
其他研究编号
- 2021-07-16-D.S.V.-V2-3332
计划个人参与者数据 (IPD)
计划共享个人参与者数据 (IPD)?
IPD 计划说明
IPD 共享时间框架
IPD 共享访问标准
IPD 共享支持信息类型
- 研究方案
- 分析代码
药物和器械信息、研究文件
研究美国 FDA 监管的药品
研究美国 FDA 监管的设备产品
此信息直接从 clinicaltrials.gov 网站检索,没有任何更改。如果您有任何更改、删除或更新研究详细信息的请求,请联系 register@clinicaltrials.gov. clinicaltrials.gov 上实施更改,我们的网站上也会自动更新.
Biocriminological Evidence的临床试验
-
University PotiguarUniversidade Federal do Ceara; Federal Institute of Science and Technology of Ceara完全的