Savannah Turner Thesis
-
Upload
savannah-turner -
Category
Documents
-
view
21 -
download
3
Transcript of Savannah Turner Thesis
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES
Religious Orientation and its Relationship with Legal Attitudes
Savannah D. Turner
2015
A thesis presented to the
Department of Psychology
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the B.A. with honours degree
Carleton University
Ottawa, Ontario
© 2015, Savannah Turner
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES ii
Abstract
Using Carleton University students (n=59) correlational analysis was used to examine the
relationship between religious orientation and legal attitudes. Intrinsic and extrinsic religious
orientation was examined alongside the legal attitudes: trust in the legal system, juror bias, and
punishment orientation. Overall, we found that the relationship between religious orientation
(i.e., intrinsic and extrinsic) and both juror bias and trust in the legal system varies. However,
intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation did not demonstrate a relationship to punishment
orientation in this study. Future research should be conducted to increase the generalizability
of the study and increase the strength of the data gathered. This research is imperative because
it can influence our understanding of the relationship between religious orientation and legal
attitudes, as the relationship between these variables has implications within society.
Keywords: religious orientation, legal attitudes, punishment orientation
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES iii
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Evelyn Maeder for all her support,
knowledge, patience, and guidance. I would also like to thank Kendra McLaughlin who was
always available to help, and was a valued mentor. Without both Evelyn and Kendra my thesis
would not have come together. Finally, I would like to thank the Carleton University students
who allowed me to use their data for my research.
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES iv
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ ii
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... v
List of Appendices ...................................................................................................................... vi
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
Legal Attitudes: Religious Orientation .................................................................................... 4
Legal Attitudes: Trust in the Legal System ............................................................................. 6
Legal Attitudes: Juror Bias ...................................................................................................... 8
Legal Attitudes: Punishment Orientation .............................................................................. 10
Rationale of Study ................................................................................................................. 14
Hypotheses ............................................................................................................................. 14
Method ....................................................................................................................................... 15
Participants ............................................................................................................................ 15
Materials ................................................................................................................................ 15
Procedure ............................................................................................................................... 17
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 25
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 30
References ................................................................................................................................. 32
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES v
List of Tables
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics: Gender …………………………………………………………...22
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics: Age……………………………………………………………….22
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics: Current Year of Study………………………………………........22
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics: Religious Affiliation……………………………………………..23
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics: Political Affiliation………………………………………...…….23
Table 6
Correlational Analyses Between Religious Orientation and Trust in the Legal System.. 24
Table 7
Correlational Analyses Between Religious Orientation and Juror Bias........................... 24
Table 8
Correlational Analyses Between Religious Orientation and Punishment Orientation..... 24
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES vi
List of Appendices
Appendix A. Informed Consent.........................................................................................38
Appendix B. Intrinsic/Extrinsic-Reviewed Scale………………………..........................40
Appendix C. Juror Bias Scale ……………………….......................................................41
Appendix D. The Attitudes Toward the Criminal Legal System Scale …........................42
Appendix E. Punishment Orientation Scale …..................................................................44
Appendix F. Demographics…...........................................................................................46
Appendix G. Debriefing….................................................................................................48
Appendix H. Informed Consent to the Use of Data …......................................................50
Appendix I. Notice for Recruitment ….............................................................................51
Appendix J. Completion Code to receive credit for participation….................................52
Appendix K. Ethics Approval Form ….............................................................................53
Appendix L. Ethics Approval Form- Addendum ….........................................................54
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 1
Religious Orientation and its Relationship to Legal Attitudes
Occasionally within a court of law a judge, prosecutor, defendant, and jury panel are
assembled for a trial (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1983). The jurors are crucial members associated
with a trial because their job is to relay a final verdict to the judge presiding over the case
(Kassin & Wrightsman, 1983). Each juror must review the evidence provided by both the
prosecution and defence in order to reach a final verdict. However, the evidence presented in
trial is not the only mechanism that plays a role in the decision making process of jurors
(Bornstein & Miller, 2009; Carlsmith, 2006; Keller, Oswald, Stucki & Gollwitzer, 2010). A
jury member’s personal beliefs, motivations, and attitudes also contribute to the decision-
making process of reaching a final verdict (Bornstein & Miller, 2009; Carlsmith, 2006; Keller,
Oswald, Stucki & Gollwitzer, 2010). For example, jurors’ attitudes or beliefs regarding race,
religion, or gender may influence the decisions made along with the evidence presented in trial
(e.g., attitudes towards the defendant’s racial group may predispose the juror to be more or
less likely to convict the defendant). Understanding the factors that influence jury decision-
making has been a point of interest for psychology in recent years (e.g., Bader, Desmond,
Carson, Mencken & Johnson, 2010; Miller, Maskaly, Peoples & Sigillo, 2014; Tiliopoulos,
Bikker, Coxon & Hawkin, 2007). However, there is a lack of research surrounding jury
members’ religious attitudes and motivations or orientations, and how these factors are related
to decisions made in court (Bader et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2014). Specifically, little
information is known about the relationship between religious orientation (i.e., intrinsic or
extrinsic) and legal attitudes such as juror bias, trust in the legal system, and punishment
orientation, and how these relationships may influence jury decision-making.
According to Bornstein & Miller (2009) as cited in Berman (2000), Hamburger (1993),
Marty (2005), and Sergest (1994), religion and law are connected, as law was founded on
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 2
values formed by religion. The fundamental association between religion and law suggests
that there may be a relationship between religious orientations, legal attitudes, and jury
decision-making (Bornstein & Miller, 2009; Proctor, 2006; Tiliopoulos et al., 2007). First, it is
important to note the difference between religiosity, religion, and religious orientation. The
term religiosity refers to how devoted or faithful an individual is to practicing their religion;
religiosity can be measured by recording an individuals church attendance (Bader et al., 2010;
Walker, Smither & DeBode, 2011/2012; Wisneski, Lytle & Skitka, 2009). However, the term
religiosity has been criticized by previous researchers for over simplifying the term by relating
it to simplistic measures such as church attendance (Walker et al., 2011/2012). Religion refers
to the specific denomination with which an individual affiliates him or herself, for example an
individual may affiliate themselves as someone who practices Catholicism, Judaism, or Islam
as a religion (Miller et al., 2014). Religious orientation, which is the variable of interest in this
study, refers to the beliefs an individual has regarding the existence of a deity and how these
beliefs contribute to the formation of his or her moral, social, and spiritual motivations
(Allport, 1950; Allport & Ross, 1967). For example, an individual’s church attendance may be
motivated by social gains (e.g., friendship) or may be motivated by spiritual gain (e.g.,
maintaining a relationship with an individuals respective deity).
Gordon Allport (1950) was the main contributor to the development and understanding
of the concepts of religious orientation (also see Allport and Ross, 1967; Flere, Edwards &
Klanjsek, 2008; Tiliopoulos et al., 2007). Allport initially began researching religious
orientation due to his interest in the “orientations” or motives behind religious actions
(Allport, 1950; Flere et al., 2008). By expanding on Allport’s (1950) initial research, Allport
and Ross (1967) further developed ideas surrounding religious orientation and produced a
questionnaire capable of determining ones religious orientation known as the
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 3
Intrinsic/Extrinsic scale (Allport, 1950; Flere et al., 2008; Tiliopoulos et al., 2007). Through
further research, Allport (1950) and Allport and Ross (1967) identified two components of
religious orientation or motivation. Allport (1950) first referred to these components of
religious orientations as immature and mature religiosity. However, through additional
exploration, these components soon evolved once religious orientation was better understood;
immature religiosity evolved to become extrinsic religiosity and mature religiosity evolved
into intrinsic religiosity (Allport, 1950; Allport and Ross, 1976; Flere et al., 2008).
Since Allport (1950) and Allport and Ross (1967), the topic of religious orientation has
been increasingly researched; the topic has not only become better defined and understood, but
has been increasingly applied to the “real world”. Over the last 40 years research has
determined that religious orientation can be an important construct for predicting ethical
judgments, intentions, moral actions, and decision making within a courtroom (Miller &
Hayward, 2007/2008; Miller et al., 2014; Vitell, Bing, Davison, Ammeter, Garner &
Novicevic, 2009). For example, Bader, Desmond, Mencken, and Johnson (2010) examined
participants’ conceptions of a God. Bader and colleagues (2010) examined whether an
individual perceives God as loving, punishable, or angry and the relationship these perceptions
had on participants’ punitive attitudes toward criminals. In doing this, Bader and colleagues
(2010) demonstrated that it is reasonable to assume that moral reasoning fostered by
religiosity (i.e., terms defined as amount of “religiousness” measured by church attendance,
biblical literalism etc.) in terms of conceptions of a God shapes the attitudes society members
foster toward a variety of issues such as criminal punishment. Previous research has also
demonstrated that religious characteristics (e.g., Evangelists or Devotionals) or orientations
(e.g., intrinsic religiosity) are related to legal attitudes and cognitive frameworks for decision-
making (Miller, 2013; Miller & Hayward, 2007/2008; Miller et al., 2014; Walker et al.,
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 4
2011/2012). While investigating the relationship between religious characteristics and
motivations, Miller (2013) found that religious characteristics and motivations do in fact relate
to legal attitudes and cognitive frameworks for decision-making. For example, Miller
demonstrated that Devotionalists (i.e., “how religious someone is: how often they attend
church or base their daily decisions on their religious beliefs”; Miller, 2013, p. 497) were
consistently related to being punitive (Miller, 2013). Based on these findings it is important to
continue to research the relationship between religion and legal attitudes, and how this
potential relationship might influence jury decision-making (Bader et al., 2010; Bornstein &
Miller, 2009; Miller, 2013).
Despite the important research findings establishing a relationship between religious
characteristics and legal attitudes, Miller and colleagues (2014) note that researchers have not
yet fully determined how religious orientations (e.g., religious motivations) correlate with
legal attitudes and legal outcomes (e.g., jury verdicts). Specifically, Allport and Ross’s (1967)
religious orientation framework has not been empirically associated with various legal
attitudes such as attitudes of juror bias, trust in the legal system, and punishment orientation.
Expanding research on the relationship between religious orientation, legal attitudes, and
punishment orientations can help predict how religious orientation may influence jury
decision-making. An improved understanding of the relationships can help educate the courts
and psychological research on the associations between religious orientation, legal attitudes,
and processes within jury decision-making (Miller et al., 2014).
Religious Orientation
Allport (1950) and Allport and Ross (1967) identified two aspects of religious
orientation: Extrinsic religious orientation and Intrinsic religious orientation. Extrinsic
religious orientation is defined as an “externalized” religion, meaning these individuals are
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 5
motivated by religion because it assists them in making friends, creating social support
systems, increasing popularity, and allows them to personally benefit rather than spiritually
benefit (Flere et al., 2008; Miller, 2013; Power & McKinney, 2014; Tiliopoulos et al., 2007;
Weaver & Agle, 2002). As a result, an individual who has an extrinsic religious orientation is
motivated by religion as a tool for non-spiritual self-serving purpose; using religion selfishly
for personal gain (e.g., social benefits) not for religious or spiritual benefits (Flere et al., 2008;
Miller, 2013; Power & McKinney, 2014; Tiliopoulos et al., 2007; Weaver & Agle, 2002).
Extrinsically oriented individuals have been found to be less likely to utilize religion in day-to-
day behavior, as such respective religious beliefs are less likely to guide life or appear in
motivations behind decision-making compared to those who foster intrinsic religiosity (Clark
& Dawson, 1996; Miller et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2011/2012; Wisneski et al., 2009).
Alternatively, an individual who has an intrinsic religious orientation is described as
being motivated by his or her religion; intrinsic religious orientation is defined as
“internalized” religion (Flere et al., 2008). An individual who is intrinsically oriented uses
religion to fulfill a relationship with a higher power (e.g., deity) and does not use religion for
non-spiritual outcomes such as to gain popularity or status (Clark & Dawson, 1996; Miller et
al., 2014; Power & McKinney, 2014; Walker et al., 2011/2012; Wisneski et al., 2009). People
who have an intrinsic religious orientation tend to live lives based on the guidance of spiritual
leaders and religious tenets on what is right and wrong (Power & McKinney, 2014). They also
allow their religion to govern their attitudes and behaviors (Walker et al., 2011/2012). As
such, these individuals will use religion as a framework for guiding their day-to-day life and
decision-making (Clark & Dawson, 1996; Miller et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2011/2012;
Wisneski et al., 2009). Overall, people with an intrinsic religious orientation tend to develop a
lifestyle and make decisions appropriate for their religious beliefs using their religion as a
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 6
means to a “non-selfish”, spiritual end (Clark & Dawson, 1996; Miller et al., 2014; Walker et
al., 2011/2012; Wisneski et al., 2009).
Research surrounding religious orientation has been able to determine that both
intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation foster different characteristics, and are associated
with different attitudes, beliefs, and motivations. For example, intrinsic individuals tend to
exhibit higher levels of fundamentalism (i.e., represents traditional religious beliefs;
fundamentalists take religious text literally), while extrinsic individuals tend to exhibit higher
levels of authoritarianism (i.e., following the law strictly) (Chau, Johnson, Bowers, Darvill &
Danko, 1990; Miller, 2013; Miller et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2011/2012). Research has also
demonstrated that people with an extrinsic religious orientation tend to be utilitarian and more
trusting of secular beliefs in comparison to people who have an intrinsic religious orientation
(Clark & Dawson, 1996). The various attitudes, beliefs, and motivations (e.g.,
authoritarianism) should continue to be examined as they are exhibited differently based on
religious orientations, and have been demonstrated to be related to legal attitudes (e.g.,
religious orientation predisposes individuals to be more or less authoritarian, and in turn, more
or less punitive; Miller, 2013).
Legal Attitudes: Trust in the Legal System
Perceptions of trust in the legal system are important constructs for the legitimacy of
the institution of law (Martin & Cohn, 2004; Proctor, 2006; Sprott & Greene, 2010; Wisneski
et al., 2009). This is because if citizens do not perceive or believe they can trust in their legal
system, then the likelihood established laws are conformed to is decreased (Sprott & Green,
2010). As such, trust in the legal system is related to the perceptions or opinions individuals in
society have regarding the legal systems ability to make the “right” or moral decision, in order
to protect and treat the public justly (Finamore & Carlson, 1987; Sprott & Greene, 2010;
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 7
Wisneski et al., 2009). Tyler (2001) has found that public perceptions of the legal system (i.e.,
police officers, the court system) are evaluated based on fairness, competence, and integrity
demonstrated by the legal system (see also Martin & Cohn, 2004; Sprott & Greene, 2010).
Overall, evaluations of fairness, competence, and integrity influence how the public perceives
how they are treated by the legal system and are also related to citizen’s trust with the legal
system (Martin & Cohn, 2004; Sprott & Greene, 2010; Tyler, 2001).
Citizens’ trust in the legal system is socialized through public institutionalization (i.e.,
schools, families, friends, and religious institutions) (Martin & Cohn, 2004). Martin and Cohn
(2004) demonstrated that religious institutions (i.e., church, church groups etc.) influence
attitudes and trust towards the legal system. For example, religious institutions may teach
citizens to trust in the teaching of religious laws over secular “man made” laws (Bornstein &
Miller, 2009). Previous research has also demonstrated that religious orientation is related to
one’s tendency to trust the legal system’s ability to make decisions for the general public
(Wisneski, Lytle, & Skitka, 2009). For example, Wisneski and colleagues (2009) found
religious orientation can be related to an individual’s ability to trust in the Supreme Courts
capability to make decisions related to physician assisted suicide. Specifically, results from
Wisneski and colleagues (2009) study demonstrated that religious people are less likely to
trust legitimate authorities to makes decisions about issues deemed as moral issues such as
physician assisted suicide.
Previous research demonstrated that extrinsically orientated individuals are not
significantly motivated, affected, or guided by religious beliefs or laws whereas, intrinsically
religious individuals develop lives in relation to their religious beliefs or laws, and as such are
less likely to trust a secular law over the laws of their own religion (Clark & Dawson, 1996;
Miller et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2011/2012; Wisneski et al., 2009). For these reasons, it is
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 8
believed that extrinsically oriented individuals will report higher levels of trust in the legal
system, whereas intrinsically oriented individuals will report lower levels of trust in the legal
system (Proctor, 2006; Wisneski et al., 2009). Although there is previous research relating to
religious orientation and legal attitudes, according to Martin and Cohn (2004), little attention
has been given to legal attitudes such as trust in the legal system. This research can contribute
to an enhanced understanding of the relationship between religious orientation and a legal
attitude such as trust in the legal system.
Legal Attitudes: Juror Bias
A juror’s task is to evaluate trial evidence and provide a verdict of the case after
evaluating the information presented to them in court (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1983). Jurors
are instructed to consider verdicts based on two factors: the probability of commission (i.e.,
likelihood defendant committed the crime) and reasonable doubt (i.e., juror member’s
certainty the defendant committed the crime) (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1983). Jury members are
asked to remain impartial during the course of the trial (Norton, Sommers, & Brauner, 2007).
Specifically, in Canada the jury is instructed to set aside any personal biases or attitudes about
religion, race, and gender (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1983; Tanovich, Paciocco, & Skurka,
1997). Although jury members are interviewed before trial to increase neutrality and
impartiality in Canada, it is nonetheless possible for bias to be present in the decision-making
process (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1983; Tanovich, Paciocco, & Skurka, 1997).
As such, the concept of neutrality has been accepted by legal scholars and researchers
as legal fiction (Kaplan & Miller, 1978; Kassin & Wrightsman, 1983; Miller, Maskaly, Green
& Peoples, 2011). For example, personal characteristics of jurors and situational case-specific
factors (i.e., strength of evidence presented in court) have both been demonstrated to influence
bias in the courtroom (De La Fuente, De La Fuente, Immaculada & Garcia, 2003; Kassin &
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 9
Wrightsman, 1983; Miller et al., 2011). Jurors’ personal characteristics such as intelligence,
age, gender and religious affiliation are characteristics that create personal biases, and these
biases can be related to legal outcomes in court (e.g., religious affiliation can lead a juror to
assign more guilty verdicts) (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1983; Miller et al., 2011). According to
Kassin and Wrightsman (1983), the most effective individual characteristic that is a predictor
of jury decision-making is authoritarianism; as an individual who demonstrates
authoritarianism is likely to strictly or obediently follow the law. As such, an individual who
demonstrates authoritarianism is more likely to be more biased toward siding with the
prosecution (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1983).
An individual can interact with a piece of evidence differently than another, suggesting
that juror bias varies individually. As juror bias is related to the ways in which individuals
organize, retrieve, and assess information presented at trial, juror bias can overwhelm the
evidence and influence their decision (i.e., predisposing them to lean towards verdicts of guilt
or innocence at trial; De La Fuente et al., 2003; Kassin & Wrightsman, 1983; Lecci & Myers,
2008; Miller et al., 2011). As such, an individual’s attitudes or bias to favour the defendant or
prosecution can affect how a piece of evidence in trial is interpreted and how this
interpretation is integrated into the decision making process (De La Fuente et al., 2003; Lecci
& Myers, 2008; Miller et al., 2011). For example, De La Fuente and colleagues (2003) found
that individuals who were biased towards the prosecution gave more guilty verdicts after
deliberation, meaning that the deliberation process was unable to unbiased the decision.
An individual’s religious orientation has been previously demonstrated to be related to
juror bias (i.e., bias towards the prosecution or defence; Clark & Dawson, 1996; Miller, 2013;
Walker et al., 2011/2012; Weaver & Agle, 2002). Intrinsically oriented individuals have been
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 10
previously demonstrated to be more mature, (i.e., a mature form of religious sentiment that
services as a guide for ones way of life, intrinsically oriented individuals are related to better
mental health, are more integrative, and less self serving; these qualities lead intrinsically
oriented individuals to be described as more mature) and with this maturity they have been
correlated to tolerance (Clark & Dawson, 1996; Miller, 2013; Walker et al., 2011/2012;
Weaver & Agle, 2002). Higher levels of both tolerance and maturity demonstrated in
individuals who are intrinsically oriented are related to decreased levels of bias, as the ability
to demonstrate tolerance and maturity counteracts juror bias, predisposing them to be more
likely to have a pro-defence juror bias (Clark & Dawson, 1996; Miller, 2013; Walker et al.,
2011/2012; Weaver & Agle, 2002). However, individuals who are extrinsically oriented have
been demonstrated to be immature in comparison to intrinsically oriented individuals, and
have been demonstrated to be unrelated to tolerance (Clark & Dawson, 1996; Miller, 2013;
Walker et al., 2011/2012; Weaver & Agle, 2002). The qualities fostered by extrinsically
oriented individuals predispose them to be more likely to have a pro-prosecution juror bias
(Clark & Dawson, 1996; Miller, 2013; Walker et al., 2011/2012). For these reasons, it is
believed that individuals who are intrinsically oriented will be less related to juror bias (i.e.
more likely to side with defence) whereas, individuals who are extrinsically oriented will be
related to juror bias (i.e., more likely to side with prosecution) (Clark & Dawson, 1996;
Miller, 2013; Walker et al., 2011/2012). Understanding individual differences and how these
are related to legal attitudes is important in order to better understand the relationship between
jury bias and religious orientation (Lecci & Myers, 2008).
Legal Attitudes: Punishment Orientation
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 11
Punishment is a common aspect of daily life; therefore, punishment within society is
inescapable (Carlsmith, 2006). Every individual has developed their own orientation towards
punishment based on their attitudes and beliefs (Carlsmith, 2006; Keller, Oswald, Stucki &
Gollwitzer, 2010). Ideas of punishment are constructed similarly to our attitudes toward trust
in the legal system (Carlsmith, 2006; Carlsmith, Darley & Robinson, 2002; McKee & Feather,
2008; Keller et al., 2010). Consequently, our punishment attitudes are also socialized attitudes
and beliefs learned through families, school, and religious institutions. For example, Drinan
(2000) references the finding that a Catholic juror is less likely to support a verdict of capital
punishment because the Catholic Church has declared its opposition towards this kind of
punishment. Punishment is a fundamental component of our social life as social behavior is
derived from punishment (i.e., if you steal you will be punished; stealing is not a pro-social
behavior); however, little is known to psychologists about punishment orientation and its
relationship to religious orientation (Carlsmith, 2006; Carlsmith et al., 2002; Keller et al.,
2010). Specifically, psychologists know little about the individuals who are assigning
judgments to wrongdoers (i.e., jury members who make judgments on an offender) (Carlsmith,
2006; Carlsmith et al., 2002).
Punishment orientation is defined as either retributivism or utilitarianism. Retributive
punishment orientation style originates from the just deserts theory, a theory that is
retrospective rather than prospective (i.e., a style of punishment defined by backward looking
concerned with righting the past) (Carlsmith et al., 2002; Carlsmith, 2001; McKee & Feather,
2008; Weiner, 2006; Yamamoto, 2014). According to just deserts theory, individuals who
exhibit a retributive punishment style believe that when an individual harms society the
wrongdoing merits punishment; however, punishment must be justified (i.e., an eye for an
eye) (Carlsmith, 2006). Retributive punishment is morally proportional, meaning the severity
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 12
of punishment should mirror the severity of the offence committed (Carlsmith, 2006). When
making a decision on punishment, decision-makers with a retributive punishment orientation
will focus on society’s sense of moral outrage and the magnitude of harm inflicted, as such,
punishment is determined on a case-by-case basis (Carlsmith et al., 2002; Yamamoto, 2014).
Individuals who exhibit a utilitarian punishment orientation are concerned with the
well-being of an entire group (i.e., society as a whole) rather than individual rights, meaning
that punishment is justified if it will benefit the overall public or educates the public
(Bentham, 1789/2006; Carlsmith et al., 2002; Mill, 1859/2008; Yamamoto, 2014). A
Utilitarian punishment orientation is related to three theories: deterrence, incapacitation, and
rehabilitation (Carlsmith, 2006; Carlsmith et al., 2002; Yamamoto, 2014). Deterrence theory
assumes that the wrongdoer is a rational actor and that the punishment makes the wrongdoing
unattractive or unappealing (Carlsmith, 2001; Carlsmith, 2006). As such, the punishment
incurred by the wrongdoer should be sufficient to prevent future offenses (Carlsmith, 2001;
Carlsmith et al., 2002). Deterrence theory proposes that forms of punishment are created to
discourage individuals from committing crimes or continuing to commit crimes (i.e.
wrongdoers punishment should be sufficient to prevent future crimes), by altering the cost and
benefit framework, making crime look like an unattractive option (Carlsmith, 2006). Forms of
punishment that relate to deterrence theory are punishments involving fines or jail time
(Carlsmith, 2001; Carlsmith et al., 2002). In this theory the publicity and crime rate must be
relatable to the offense, meaning that a wrongdoer should be punished publically so the public
can learn by example (Carlsmith et al., 2002). Utilitarian punishment is similarly related to
incapacitation, meaning that incarcerating individuals for an offence would theoretically
prevent the offender from committing another crime (i.e., the goal of placing an offender in
jail is to prevent future crime; Carlsmith, 2006; Yamamoto, 2014). Thirdly, utilitarian
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 13
punishment is also related to rehabilitation, with a goal to assist the offender by educating or
encouraging the individual to exhibit pro-social behavior. Rehabilitation as related to
utilitarian punishment is based on reforming the offender rather than incapacitating (i.e.,
incarceration) to prevent future crimes (Yamamoto, 2014).
Punishment orientation has been linked to attitudes and beliefs or values fostered by
individuals (McKee & Feather, 2008). For example, McKee and Feather (2008) found that
vengeance attitudes (i.e., the desire for revenge, or desire to see an offender punished for his or
her injustices) are related to punishment orientation. Specifically, McKee and Feather (2008),
found that individuals with vengeance attitudes demonstrated patterns associated with
retribution. McKee and Feather (2008), also found that utilitarian punishment styles were
associated with authoritarians supporting incapacitation or deterrence theory. If punishment
orientation can be linked to attitudes, beliefs, or values, it is possible to assume that the idea of
punishment orientation can also be related to one’s religious orientation. To support this
statement, Clark and Dawson (1996) found that religion is one of the foundations for personal
moral decision-making. For this reason religious orientation in terms of intrinsic and extrinsic
religiosity will be examined to determine its relationship to punishment orientation. For the
purpose of this study, punishment orientation can be broken down into four subscales: Ideal
Utilitarianism, Ideal Retributivism, Harsh Retributivism, and Harsh Utilitarianism
(Yamamoto, 2014). Ideal retributivism is concerned with a desire to ensure that innocents are
never punished, whereas harsh retributivism is related to placing blame on a criminal, ensuring
those who deserve punishment receive it (Yamamoto, 2014). Harsh utilitarianism and ideal
utilitarianism sub scales are focused on punishing offenders (Yamamoto, 2014). There is no
research examining punishment orientation and the relationship to religious orientation,
therefore this study’s examination of the relationship is exploratory.
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 14
Rationale of Study
Research over the years has demonstrated that religion affiliation (i.e. Catholic, Hindu,
Buddhist) is related to legal attitudes and juror decision-making (Miller, 2013; Miller &
Hayward, 2007/2008; Miller et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2011/2012). However, according to
Miller and colleagues (2014), limited research has examined how religious orientation
correlates with legal attitudes. The purpose of this study is to explore and bridge this gap in the
research literature and to better understand how religious orientation relates to legal attitudes
and punishment orientation.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: People with a stronger intrinsic religious orientation will have less trust in the
legal system whereas, people with a stronger extrinsic religious orientation will have more
trust in the legal system. This is hypothesized because previous literature has demonstrated
that individuals with a stronger intrinsic religious orientation are more trusting of their own
religious laws rather than secular man-made. Whereas, extrinsically orientated individuals are
not significantly motivated, affected or guided by religious beliefs or laws, and therefore may
be more likely to trust in a secular legal system (Proctor, 2006; Wisneski et al., 2009).
Hypothesis 2: People with a stronger intrinsic orientation will exhibit a pro-defence jury bias
as they foster higher levels of tolerance and maturity, which has been previously demonstrated
to counteract bias, predisposing intrinsically religious individuals to be less related to juror
bias (i.e. more likely to side with the defence) (Clark & Dawson, 1996; Miller, 2013; Walker
et al., 2011/2012). People with a stronger extrinsic orientation will likely exhibit pro-
prosecution verdicts. This is hypothesized because research has demonstrated that extrinsically
oriented individuals have a negative relationship to tolerance, maturity, and a positive
relationship to authoritarianism (i.e. following the law strictly); predisposing them to be
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 15
related to juror bias (i.e. side with the prosecution) (Chau et al., 1990; Clark & Dawson, 1996;
Miller, 2013; Miller et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2011/2012).
Hypothesis 3: There is no research examining religious orientation and its relationship to
punishment orientation; therefore, this study’s examination of this relationship is exploratory.
Method
Participants
Participants (n=59) attending Carleton University were recruited through the
participant recruitment SONA system. Participants received .5% bonus credit toward their
final grade for their respective Psychology class for participating in this experiment. The study
was advertised on SONA as “Religiosity and Legal Attitudes” and took approximately 20-35
minutes to complete.
The participant sample consisted of 17 men and 42 women ranging from the ages of
18-52 years (M=20.72, SD= 5.61) enrolled in Carleton University’s various Psychology
classes (see Table 1 and Table 2). A total of 35 participants were in their 1st year of university
studies, 12 participants were in 2nd year, six participants were in 3rd year, and six participants
were in 4th year (M=1.71, SD= 1.01; see Table 3). A total of 13.6 % of participants identified
as Protestant, 42.4% as Roman Catholic, 3.4% as Orthodox, 1.7% as Jewish, 16.9% as
Muslim, 1.7% as Buddhist, 11.9% as Agnostic, and 8.5% participants indicated “other” as
their religious affiliation (see Table 4). A total of 3.4% of participants identified their political
affiliation as Very Conservative, 3.4% as Conservative, 32.2% as Moderate, 39% as Liberal,
8.5% as Very Liberal; another 3.4% indicated “other” political affiliation and specified their
political affiliation, and 10.2% of participants preferred not to disclose their political affiliation
(see Table 5).
Materials
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 16
Intrinsic/Extrinsic-Reviewed Scale (I/E-R) (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989). The I/E-R
scale was used to determine the participants’ religious orientations (i.e., intrinsically
religiously oriented or extrinsically religiously oriented). A sample question from the I/E-R
scale measuring intrinsic religious orientation is “ I enjoy reading about my religion”; a
sample question to measure extrinsic religious orientation is “I go to church because it helps
me to make friends.” The I/E-R scale consists of 14 questions rated on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from “1 = Strongly Agree” to “5 = Strongly Disagree”; 8 items pertained to intrinsic
religious orientation, and 6 items pertained to extrinsic religious orientation (Gorsuch &
McPherson, 1989).
Juror Bias Scale (JBS; Kassin & Wrightsman, 1983). The JBS was used to determine
participants’ juror bias (i.e., tendency to side with the defence or prosecution). The JBS
consists of 22 questions all rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1 = Strongly Agree”
to “5 = Strongly Disagree”. A sample question related to pro-prosecution bias from the JBS
scale is “A defendant should be found guilty only if 11 out of 12 jurors vote guilty”. A sample
question related to pro-defence bias from the JBS scale was “The death penalty is cruel and
inhumane”.
The Attitudes Toward the Criminal Legal System Scale (ATCLS; Martin & Cohn,
2004). The ATCLS scale was used to determine attitudes toward the criminal legal system,
specifically examining individuals’ concepts of the integrity, competence, and fairness of the
legal system. The ATCLS consisted of 38 questions all rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging
from “1 = Strongly Agree” to “5 = Strongly Disagree”. A sample question from the ATCLS
scale is “Most of our laws are fair and just.”
Punishment Orientation Scale (POQ) (Yamamoto & Maeder, 2015). The POQ scale
was developed to determine punishment orientation. The POQ consists of 22 questions all
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 17
rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “1 = Strongly Agree” to “5 = Strongly Disagree”
with 4 subscales: Ideal Utilitarianism, Ideal Retributivism, Harsh Retributivism and Harsh
Utilitarianism. A sample question from the POQ scale relating to Ideal Utilitarianism is
“Punishment is more about righting a previous wrong than about the ‘greater good.” A sample
question from the POQ scale relating to Ideal Retributivism is “It is better to let 10 guilty
criminals go free than to punish 1 innocent person.” A sample question from the POQ scale
relating to Harsh Retributivism is “Criminals are bad people and get what is coming to them.”
A sample question from the POQ scale relating to Harsh Utilitarianism is “An overly harsh
punishment may be necessary to prevent others from committing the same crime.”
Demographics. Participants were asked questions pertaining to their demographics.
Participants were asked to provide information about their gender, age, and year of university
study (i.e., 1st year, 2nd year, 3rd, year, or 4th year undergraduate, Master’s student or Doctoral
student). Participants were also asked to report their religious affiliation (i.e.. Christian,
Muslim, Buddhist, etc.), and political affiliation (i.e., Conservative, Moderate, Liberal, etc.).
Procedure
First, participants read the consent form; if the student agreed to participate, the study
began. Participants answered questions from the Religious Orientation, Juror Bias, Attitudes
Toward The Criminal Legal System, and Punishment Orientation questionnaires and
completed questions regarding demographics. After the participants finished the
questionnaires, they received the online debriefing explaining the purpose of the study. Lastly,
participants were asked to allow or prohibit the use of their data for analysis. Following the
study, students received course credit for participating; students still received course credit if
they withdrew their data.
Results
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 18
Item Assessment
Intrinsic/Extrinsic-Reviewed Scale (I/E-R) (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989). Item 3
and 10 were reverse coded as per Gorsuch & McPherson (1989). Item 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12 and
14 related to intrinsic measurement while items 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 13 related to extrinsic
religious orientation measurement. Internal consistency of the intrinsic religious orientation
sub scale was moderate in this sample (a = .81, M = 2.89, SD = .80), as was the internal
consistency of the extrinsic religious orientation subscale (a = .70, M = 2.82, SD = .63).
Juror Bias Scale (JBS; Kassin & Wrightsman, 1983). Items relating to the defence
subscale were recoded as per Kassin and Wrightsman (1983). Items 8, 13, 15, 19, 20, and 21
measured juror bias related to the defence, while items 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 17
measured juror bias related to the prosecution. Item 1, 4, 7,18 and 22 were filler questions and
were removed from analysis similar to Kassin and Wrightsman’s (1983) analysis of the
questionnaire. Internal reliability for questions testing juror bias related to the prosecution was
weak in this sample (α = .65, M = 2.81, SD = .45). Internal reliability for questions testing for
juror bias related to the defence was also weak in this sample (α = .45, M = 2.68, SD = .51).
The Attitudes Toward the Criminal Legal System Scale (ATCLS; Martin & Cohn,
2004). Items 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 19, 20, and 21 were recoded as per Martin and Cohn
(2004). The Attitudes toward the Criminal Legal System scale had moderate internal
reliability in this sample (α = .89, M = 3.17, SD = .39).
Punishment Orientation Questionnaire (POQ) (Yamamoto & Maeder, 2015). The
Punishment Orientation scale had 4 subscales. Items 1, 2, 4, 8, and 15 related to measuring
Ideal Utilitarian. Items 3, 10, 13, 18, and 22 related to measuring Harsh Utilitarian. Items 5, 6,
11, 12, 16, 17, and 19 measured Harsh Retribution. While items 7, 9, 14, 20 and 21 measured
Ideal Retribution. Lastly, item 14 was reverse coded as per Yamamoto and Maeder (2015).
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 19
Ideal Utilitarian had weak internal reliability (a = .61, M = 3.38, SD = .53) and Harsh
Utilitarian demonstrated weak internal reliability in this sample (a = .49, M = 2.60, SD = .53).
Harsh Retribution had moderate internal reliability in this sample (a = .74, M = 3.12, SD =
.57), and Ideal Retribution had weak internal reliability in this sample (a = .62, M = 3.32, SD =
.60).
In total 139 students participated in this study; however, many participants were
removed for various reasons. While cleaning the data, 4 participants were removed
immediately as they did not consent to the informed consent. Another 5 participants were also
immediately removed, as they did not consent to the use of data at the end of the study.
Nineteen participants were removed because they did not provide any response feedback, or
only completed half the study. Fourteen participants failed one of the three attention checks,
and were removed from the study. Another 7 participants were removed as they completed the
study in less than 5 minutes; the questionnaire should have taken participant more than 5
minutes. Lastly, 31 participants were removed from the study as they did not indicate any
religious affiliation or identified as Atheist. After the data was cleaned a remaining participant
pool of 59 was analyzed (n = 59).
Trust in the Legal System.
First, we hypothesized people with higher levels of intrinsic religious orientation
would have lower levels of trust in the legal system, we also hypothesized people with higher
levels of extrinsic religious orientation would have higher levels of trust in the legal system.
This was examined using correlation analysis, by correlating the composite means of the
subscales of the I/R scale (i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic sub scales) with the composite mean of
the Attitudes Toward the Criminal Legal System scale. Table 6 shows that intrinsic religious
orientation was weakly correlated to the Attitudes Toward the Criminal Legal System (r = -
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 20
.34, p = < 0.01), which generally supports our hypothesis as participants with higher levels of
intrinsic religious orientation had more negative scores (i.e. lower levels) on the Attitudes
Toward the Criminal Legal System scale. This means that participants with higher levels of
intrinsic religious orientation had less trust in the legal system. A non-significant correlation
was demonstrated between extrinsic religious orientation and the Attitudes Toward the
Criminal Legal System scale (r = -.15, p = .23). This does not support our hypothesis as it was
hypothesized that participants with higher levels of extrinsic religious orientation would
demonstrate higher levels of trust in the legal system.
Juror Bias.
Secondly, we hypothesized that participants with higher levels of intrinsic religious
orientation would exhibit higher levels of a pro-defence bias and lower levels of a pro-
prosecution bias. We also hypothesized people with higher levels of extrinsic religious
orientation would exhibit higher levels of a pro-prosecution bias and lower levels of a pro-
defence bias. Correlational analysis was conducted between the mean sub-scales of the
intrinsic/extrinsic questionnaire (i.e., composite intrinsic mean scores and composite extrinsic
mean score) and mean subscales of the Juror Bias Scale (i.e., composite prosecution mean
scores and composite defence mean scores). A non-significant correlation was demonstrated
between intrinsic religious orientation and a pro-prosecution bias (r = .19, p = .14), and a pro-
defence bias (r = -.14, p = .29) on the Juror Bias scale. This means that participants with
higher levels of intrinsic religious orientation did not have a relationship to juror bias. These
non-significant correlations contradict our hypothesis as we hypothesized participants with
higher levels of intrinsic religious orientations would exhibit higher levels of a pro-defence
bias and lower levels of a pro-prosecution on the juror bias scale (See Table 7). We found that
participants with a higher extrinsic religious orientation tended to have a pro-prosecution bias
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 21
on the juror bias scale (r = .26, p < 0.05). This correlation generally supports our hypothesis as
we hypothesized participants with higher levels of extrinsic religious orientation would have a
pro-prosecution bias. A non-significant correlation was found between extrinsic religious
orientation and a pro-defence bias on the juror bias scale (r = -.22, p = .08). This does not
support our hypothesis as we hypothesized that participants with higher levels of extrinsic
religious orientation would have less pro-defence bias (see Table 7).
Punishment Orientation.
Lastly, the investigation of the relationship between religious orientation and
punishment orientation was exploratory. These relationships were examined using correlation
analysis, by correlating the composite means of the subscales of the I/R scale with the
composite subscale means of the Punishment Orientation Questionnaire subscales (i.e., ideal
utilitarianism, harsh utilitarianism, harsh retributivism, ideal retributivism). Table 8 shows that
a non-significant correlation was present between intrinsic religious orientation and each of
the punishment orientations. Table 8 shows a non-significant correlation between participants
with higher levels of intrinsic religious orientation and higher levels of both ideal
utilitarianism (r = -.02, p = .87), and harsh utilitarianism (r = 0.00, p = .98). A non-significant
correlation was also found for participants with higher levels of intrinsic religious orientation
and higher levels of both harsh retribution (r = -.18, p = .15), and ideal retribution scores (r =
.08, p = .50). Extrinsic religious orientation was not significantly correlated to any of the
punishment orientations on the POQ scale. A non-significant correlation was found between
participants with higher levels of extrinsic religious orientation and higher levels of ideal
utilitarianism (r = .18, p = .15), harsh utilitarianism (r = .01, p = .90), harsh retribution (r = -
.13, p = .29), and ideal retribution scores (r =. 12, p = .35) on the punishment orientations
scale.
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 22
Table #1 Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Male 17 28.8 28.8 28.8
Female 42 71.2 71.2 100.0 Total 59 100.0 100.0
Note. Descriptive statistics of participant’s gender Table #2 Age Statistics N Valid 58
Missing 1 Mean 20.72 Std. Deviation 5.619 Age Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 18 21 35.6 36.2 36.2
19 10 16.9 17.2 53.4 20 8 13.6 13.8 67.2 21 8 13.6 13.8 81.0 22 3 5.1 5.2 86.2 23 4 6.8 6.9 93.1 24 1 1.7 1.7 94.8 28 1 1.7 1.7 96.6 44 1 1.7 1.7 98.3 52 1 1.7 1.7 100.0 Total 58 98.3 100.0
Missing System 1 1.7 Total 59 100.0
Note. Descriptive statistics of participant’s age
Table #3 Current Year of Study Statistics
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 23
N Valid 59 Missing 0
Mean 1.71 Std. Deviation 1.018 Current Year of Study Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1st year undergraduate 35 59.3 59.3 59.3
2nd year undergraduate 12 20.3 20.3 79.7 3rd year undergraduate 6 10.2 10.2 89.8 4th year undergraduate 6 10.2 10.2 100.0 Total 59 100.0 100.0
Note. Descriptive statistics of participant’s year of study
Table #4 Religious Affiliation Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Protestant 8 13.6 13.6 13.6
Roman Catholic 25 42.4 42.4 55.9 Orthodox 2 3.4 3.4 59.3 Jewish 1 1.7 1.7 61.0 Muslim 10 16.9 16.9 78.0 Buddhist 1 1.7 1.7 79.7 Agnostic 7 11.9 11.9 91.5 Other (please specify) 5 8.5 8.5 100.0 Total 59 100.0 100.0
Note. Descriptive statistics of participant’s religious affiliation
Table #5 Political Affiliation Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Very Conservative 2 3.4 3.4 3.4
Conservative 2 3.4 3.4 6.8 Moderate 19 32.2 32.2 39.0 Liberal 23 39.0 39.0 78.0
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 24
Very Liberal 5 8.5 8.5 86.4 Other (Please Specify) 2 3.4 3.4 89.8 Prefer not to disclose 6 10.2 10.2 100.0 Total 59 100.0 100.0
Note. Descriptive statistics of participant’s political affiliation
Table #6 Correlations Between I/R Scale and Attitudes Toward the Criminal Legal System
Attitudes Toward the Criminal Legal System
Composite Scale Mean Score Intrinsic Religiosity Mean Score
Pearson Correlation
-.349**
Sig. (2-tailed) .007 N 59
Extrinsic Religiosity Mean Score
Pearson Correlation
-.156
Sig. (2-tailed) .238 N 59
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table #7 Correlations Between I/R Scale and Juror Bias
Juror Bias Scale Prosecution Orientation
Mean Score Juror Bias Scale Defence Orientation Mean Score
Intrinsic Religiosity Mean Score
Pearson Correlation
.191 -.140
Sig. (2-tailed) .147 .291 N 59 59
Extrinsic Religiosity Mean Score
Pearson Correlation
.268* -.226
Sig. (2-tailed) .040 .085 N 59 59
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Table #8
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 25
Correlations Between I/R Scale and Punishment Orientation
Punishment Orientation
Questionnaire Ideal Utilitarian
Mean Score
Punishment Orientation
Questionnaire Harsh
Utilitarian Mean Score
Punishment Orientation
Questionnaire Harsh
Retributivist Mean Score
Punishment Orientation
Questionnaire Ideal
Retributivist Mean Score
Intrinsic Religiosity Mean Score
Pearson Correlation
-.021 -.002 -.189 .089
Sig. (2-tailed)
.874 .988 .152 .500
N 59 59 59 59 Extrinsic Religiosity Mean Score
Pearson Correlation
.189 .016 -.139 .123
Sig. (2-tailed)
.152 .906 .293 .353
N 59 59 59 59
Discussion
Little is known about the relationship between religious orientation and legal attitudes,
and how these relationships may influence jury decision-making (Bader et al., 2010). The
relationships between religious orientation and legal attitudes are important to understand as
religion and law are fundamentally connected (Bornstein & Miller, 2009 as cited in Berman,
2000; Hamburger, 1993; Marty, 2005; Sergest, 1994). For these reasons, we conducted a study
that would allow us to better understand the relationships between religious orientation as
outlined by Gordon and Ross (1967) and the legal attitudes trust in the legal system, juror bias,
and punishment orientation.
We hypothesized that people with a stronger intrinsic religious orientation would have
less trust in the legal system, because previous literature demonstrated that individuals with a
stronger intrinsic religious orientation are more trusting of their own religious laws rather than
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 26
secular man made laws (Proctor, 2006; Wisneski et al., 2009). This hypothesis was somewhat
supported as participants with strong intrinsic religious orientations were found to have less
trust in the legal system. This finding is consistent with previous research that has
demonstrated that individuals with intrinsic religious orientation are less likely to trust in the
legal system (Clark & Dawson, 1996; Miller et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2011/2012; Wisneski
et al., 2009). Our finding is also consistent with Wisneski and colleagues (2009) research
demonstrating that religious orientation can be related to an individual’s ability to trust in the
Supreme Court to make legal choices for society that are deemed as moral decisions (i.e.,
physicians assisted suicide). A lack of trust in the legal system demonstrated by participants
with a stronger intrinsic religious orientation may be because these participants have been
taught by their religious leaders to trust in religious laws over secular laws, making them more
likely to trust in laws established by their religion rather than established secular laws
(Bornstein & Miller, 2009). Additionally, we hypothesized that participants with stronger
extrinsic religious orientation would have more trust in the legal system, because they are not
motivated, affected, or guided by religious beliefs or laws (Clark & Dawson, 1996; Miller, et
al., 2014; Walker et al., 2011/2012; Wisneski et al., 2009). However, this hypothesis was not
supported, as extrinsically religious participants did not have attitudes that related to having
more or less trust in the legal system.
Secondly, we hypothesized that participants with a stronger intrinsic orientation would
exhibit a pro-defence jury bias. We hypothesized this because it has been previously
demonstrated that qualities of tolerance and maturity counteract pro-prosecution biases,
predisposing individuals with an intrinsic religious orientation to have a pro-defence bias. This
hypothesis was not supported, as individuals with a stronger intrinsic orientation did not
demonstrate a significant relationship to a pro-defence bias or even a pro-prosecution defence.
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 27
Perhaps, intrinsically religiously oriented individuals relationship to tolerance and maturity
does not predispose them to have a pro-defence bias as previously believed, or even a pro-
prosecution in the courtroom (Clark & Dawson, 1996; Miller, 2013; Walker et al., 2011/2012;
Weaver & Agle, 2002).
We also hypothesized that participants with stronger extrinsic orientation would
exhibit pro-prosecution verdicts because of their tendency to be less tolerant and mature
(Clark & Dawson, 1996; Walker et al., 2011/2012; Weaver & Agle, 2002). This hypothesis
was generally supported, as participants with a stronger extrinsic religious orientation were
more likely to have a pro-prosecution bias. It is important to note that participants with a
stronger extrinsic religious orientation typically did not have a pro-defence bias. This effect is
consistent with previous research that demonstrated that extrinsically religious individuals are
less related to tolerance and maturity predisposing them to be more likely to have a pro-
prosecution bias rather than a pro-defence bias (Clark & Dawson, 1996; Miller, 2013; Walker
et al., 2011/2012; Weaver & Agle, 2002). Perhaps, an extrinsically oriented individual’s
tendency to exhibit a pro-prosecution may also be predicted by their attitudes towards
authoritarianism, as authoritarians are likely to be biased toward siding with the prosecution
because they tend to follow laws strictly (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1983).
Lastly, we examined how religious orientation and legal attitudes relate to punishment
orientation, because McKee and Feather (2008) demonstrated that punishment orientation had
links to ones attitudes, beliefs and values. Additionally, Clark and Dawson (1996) found that
religion is the foundation for personal moral decision making, such as decisions regarding
punishment. As such, we examined how ones religious orientation rather than religious
affiliation could be linked to punishment orientation. We did not find a significant relationship
between either intrinsic or extrinsic religious orientation and any of the punishment
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 28
orientations. Perhaps, religious orientation is not related to punishment orientation. However,
the relationship between religious orientation and punishment orientation was exploratory, as
little research has been conducted around this framework.
This study had two main strengths associated with it: this study was able to acquire a
good sample size as per Gravetter & Forzano (2012), and this study adds to the gap in
research, because research such as this has not yet been done; specifically in relation to
punishment orientation. Although there are considerable strengths, there are some limitations
associated with this study. For example, the use of Carleton University students can be viewed
as a weakness. The use of university students may limit the study’s ability to be generalized to
the rest of the population; as university students are only a segment of the population (Payne
& Chappell, 2008). Secondly, the use of students may have limited the strength of the data
relating to religious orientation and legal attitudes, as many students may not have developed
strong affiliations or opinions concerning their religious orientation or legal attitudes (Payne &
Chappell, 2008). As such, this study should be replicated with a more diverse population to
increase generalizability and strength of data. The analysis used was also correlation; this
analysis only shows the direction and strength of the relationship between the variables, rather
than a cause and effect relationship. This study could also be replicated using different
analysis such as one-sample t-tests, in order to improve the understanding of the variables.
There are several future directions for research suggested by this study. For example, this
study can be replicated with a population that may be more inclusive and generalizable. Future
research can also apply religious orientation in terms of intrinsic or extrinsic orientation as
outlined by Allport and Ross (1967) to other legal attitudes such as attitudes toward capital
punishment or doctor assisted suicide.
Implications
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 29
Trust in the legal system is essential because it increases the likelihood that laws will
be followed by society members (Sprott & Green, 2010). We found that participants who
were more intrinsically religiously orientated had less trust in the criminal legal system, while
participants with stronger extrinsic religious orientation were not significantly more or less
likely to trust in the criminal legal system. As we found that an intrinsic religious orientation
predispositions individuals to trust the legal system less, this can impact the likelihood that
these people will respect secular laws (Sprott & Green, 2010). As such, if the rates of
obedience to the law increase with trust, should the legal system spend more time gaining the
trust of the public in order to increase the probability that established laws are followed,
possibly decreasing offender rates and recidivism?
The most significant relationship we found was that extrinsically religious participants
scores demonstrated a weak relationship to a pro-prosecution bias. As such, religious
orientation (i.e. extrinsic religious orientation) can be related to an individual’s juror bias. By
identifying individual differences in legal attitudes (i.e. juror bias) and its relationship to
religious orientations (i.e. intrinsic/extrinsic) we can better understand how information
presented at trial is processed and integrated into the decision making process. This research
can allow us to understand why a juror member is more or less likely to side with the
prosecution or defence based on their religious orientation. This research can alter our
understanding of how constructs of bias within a jury may contribute to the decision-making
process (i.e. allow us to understand the variation in guilt/not guilty judgments) (Lecci &
Myers, 2008). In better understanding the relationship between juror bias and religious
orientation, serious questions and implications arise. For example, if our religious orientation
predisposes us to have a bias towards the defence or prosecution, while participating as a juror
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 30
can we be trusted to provide an impartial verdict? Can regular citizens be trusted to give a
verdict impartially if ones religious orientation is related to juror bias?
Understanding the relationship between religious orientation and juror bias may also
impact attorneys ability to dispose of juror members based on a challenge for cause (i.e. the
ability to remove a juror from the jury) motions proving that a juror is bias and cannot be
impartial (Norton, Sommers, & Brauner, 2007). As such, research like this can bring change to
juror’s tasks in court if the concept of impartiality is called into question, due to an
individual’s religious orientation and the relationship to juror bias. Overall, by continuing to
research legal attitudes and the relationship to religious orientation we are able to answer
questions and better understand the relationships implications within society.
Conclusion
Religion and the law are connected; however little information is known about the
relationship between religious orientation (i.e., intrinsic or extrinsic) and legal attitudes such
as juror bias, trust in the legal system, and punishment orientation (Bader et al., 2010; Miller et
al., 2014). This study was conducted in order to close the gap in knowledge regarding
religious orientation and legal attitudes. This study was also conducted to better understand
punishment orientation and its relationship to religious orientation, as this has never been
researched. Overall, we found that the relationship between religious orientation (i.e., intrinsic
and extrinsic) and both juror bias and trust in the legal system varies. However, intrinsic and
extrinsic religious orientation did not relate to punishment orientation in this study. Although
this study has strengths due to the use of university students, this study should be replicated to
increase the generalizability and strength of data. Future research should continue to examine
the relationship between religious orientations and legal attitudes set out by this study, and
should also expand research to other legal attitudes. However, this research is impetrative as it
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 31
tends to the gap in Psychological research and sheds light on the implications of the
relationship between religious orientation and legal attitudes within society.
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 32
References
Allport, G. W. (1950). The individual & his religion. New York: MacMillan.
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432-443. doi:10.1037/h0021212
Bader, C. D., Desmond, S. A., Carson Mencken, F., & Johnson, B. R. (2010). Divine justice: The
relationship between images of god and attitudes toward criminal punishment. Criminal
Justice Review, 35(1), 90-106. doi:10.1177/0734016809360329
Bentham, J. (2006). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. In S. Cahn, & P.
Markie (Eds.), Ethics – History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues 3rd Ed (pp. 309- 316).
Oxford University Press (original work published 1789).
Berman, H. J. (2000). Faith and order: The reconciliation of law and religion. Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (Original work published 1993)
Bornstein, B. H., & Miller, M. K. (2009). God in the courtroom: Religion's role at trial. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Carlsmith, K. M. (2001). Why do we punish? retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation as motives
for punishment
Carlsmith, K. M. (2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 42(4), 437-451. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.06.007
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 33
Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish? deterrence and just
deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,83(2), 284-
299. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.284
Chau, L. L., Johnson, R. C., Bowers, J. K., Darvill, T. J., & Danko, G. P. (1990). Intrinsic and
extrinsic religiosity as related to conscience, adjustment, and altruism. Personality and
Individual Differences, 11(4), 397-400. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(90)90222-D
Clark, J. W., & Dawson, L. E. (1996). Personal religiousness and ethical judgements: An empirical
analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(3), 359-372. doi:10.1007/BF00382959
De La Fuente, L., De La Fuente, E. Inmaculada, & García, J. (2003). Effects of pretrial juror bias,
strength of evidence and deliberation process on juror decisions: New validity evidence of the
juror bias scale scores. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9(2), 197-209.
doi:10.1080/1068316031000116283
Drinan, R. F. (2000). Religious organizations and the death penalty. The William and Mary Bill of
Rights Journal, 9(1), 171.
Finamore, F., & Carlson, J. M. (1987). Religiosity, belief in a just world and crime control
attitudes. Psychological Reports, 61(1), 135-138. doi:10.2466/pr0.1987.61.1.135
Flere, S., Edwards, K. J., & Klanjsek, R. (2008). Religious orientation in three central european
environments: Quest, intrinsic, and extrinsic dimensions. International Journal for the
Psychology of Religion, 18(1), 1-21. doi:10.1080/10508610701719280
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 34
Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/Extrinsic measurement: I/E-revised and single-
item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(3), 348.
Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L. B. (2012). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (4th ed.).
Belmont, CA;Australia; Thompson/Wadsworth.
Hamburger, P.A. (1993). Natural rights, natural law, and American constitutions. Yale Law Journal,
102,907-960
Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, L. E. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,36(12), 1443-1455. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1443
Kassin, S., & Wrightsman, L. (1983). The construction and validation of a juror bias scale. Journal of
Research in Personality, 17(4), 423-442.
Keller, L. B., Oswald, M. E., Stucki, I., & Gollwitzer, M. (2010). A closer look at an eye for an eye:
Laypersons’ punishment decisions are primarily driven by retributive motives. Social Justice
Research, 23(2), 99-116. doi:10.1007/s11211-010-0113-4
Lecci, L., & Myers, B. (2008). Individual differences in attitudes relevant to juror decision making:
Development and validation of the pretrial juror attitude questionnaire (PJAQ)1. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 38(8), 2010-2038. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00378.x
Martin, T. A., & Cohn, E. S. (2004). Attitudes toward the criminal legal system: Scale development
and predictors. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(4), 367-391.
doi:10.1080/10683160310001629265
Marty, M.E. (2005) The religious foundations of law. Emory Law Journal, 54, 291-323.
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 35
McKee, I. R., & Feather, N. T. (2008). Revenge, retribution, and values: Social attitudes and punitive
sentencing. Social Justice Research, 21(2), 138-163. doi:10.1007/s11211-008-0066-z
Mill, J. S. (2008). On liberty . A. S. Kahan (Ed.). Boston: Bedford (original work published 1859).
Miller, M. (2013). Relationship between religious characteristics and responses to
vigilantism. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(5), 496-501.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.014
Miller, M. K., & Hayward, R. D. (2007;2008). Religious characteristics and the death penalty. Law
and Human Behavior, 32(2), 113-123. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9090-z
Miller, M. K., Maskaly, J., Green, M., & Peoples, C. D. (2011). The effects of deliberations and
religious identity on mock jurors’ verdicts. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,14(4),
517-532. doi:10.1177/1368430210377458
Miller, M., Maskaly, J., Peoples, C., & Sigillo, A. (2014). The relationship between mock jurors'
religious characteristics and their verdicts and sentencing decisions. Psychology of Religion
and Spirituality, 6(3), 188-197. doi:10.1037/a0036344
Norton, M. I., Sommers, S. R., & Brauner, S. (2007). Bias in jury selection: Justifying prohibited
peremptory challenges. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(5), 467-479.
doi:10.1002/bdm.571
Payne, B. K., & Chappell, A. (2008). Using student samples in criminological research. Journal of
Criminal Justice Education, 19(2), 175-192. doi:10.1080/10511250802137226
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 36
Power, L., & McKinney, C. (2014). The effects of religiosity on psychopathology in emerging adults:
Intrinsic versus extrinsic religiosity. Journal of Religion and Health, 53(5), 1529-1538.
doi:10.1007/s10943-013-9744-8
Proctor, J. (2006). Religion as trust in authority: Theocracy and ecology in the united states. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers, 96(1), 188-196. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8306.2006.00508.x
Sergest, D. (1994). Conscience and command: A motive theory of law. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press
Sprott, J. B., & Greene, C. (2010). Trust and confidence in the courts: Does the quality of treatment
young offenders receive affect their views of the courts? Crime & Delinquency, 56(2), 269-
289. doi:10.1177/0011128707308176
Tanovich, D. M., Paciocco, D. M., & Skurka, S. (1997). Jury selection in criminal trials: Skills,
science and the law. Concord, Ont: Irwin Law.
Tiliopoulos, N., Bikker, A., Coxon, A., & Hawkin, P. (2007). The means and ends of religiosity: A
fresh look at Gordon Allport's religious orientation dimensions. Personality and Individual
Differences, 42(8), 1609-1620. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.034
Tyler, T. R. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority
group members want from the law and legal institutions? Behavioral Sciences & the
Law, 19(2), 215-235. doi:10.1002/bsl.438
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 37
Vitell, S. J., Bing, M. N., Davison, H. K., Ammeter, A. P., Garner, B. L., & Novicevic, M. M. (2009).
Religiosity and moral identity: The mediating role of self-control. Journal of Business
Ethics, 88(4), 601-613. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9980-0
Walker, A. G., Smither, J. W., & DeBode, J. (2012;2011). The effects of religiosity on ethical
judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(4), 437-452. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1009-4
Weaver, G. R., & Agle, B. R. (2002). Religiosity and ethical behavior in organizations: A symbolic
interactionist perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 77-97
Weiner, B. (2006). Social Motivation, Justice, and the Moral Emotions (pp. 125-159).
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wisneski, D. C., Lytle, B. L., & Skitka, L. J. (2009). Gut reactions: Moral conviction, religiosity, and
trust in authority. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1059-1063. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2009.02406.x
Yamamoto, S. M. (2014). Theses and Dissertations. Psychology. The reasons we punish: Creating
and validating a measure of utilitarian and retributive punishment orientation. Ottawa
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 38
Appendix A
Informed Consent
The purpose of an informed consent is to ensure that you understand the purpose of the study and the nature of your involvement. The informed consent must provide sufficient information such that you have the opportunity to determine whether you wish to participate in the study. ________________________________________________________________________Present study: Religiosity and Legal Attitudes
Research personnel. The following people are involved in this study, and may be contacted at any time if you have questions or concerns: Savannah Turner (Principal Investigator) [email protected]; Dr. Evelyn Maeder (Faculty Sponsor): [email protected], Phone: 613-520-2600 ext. 2421; Kendra McLaughlin (Research Assistant) [email protected].
Concerns. Should you have any ethical concerns about this research, please contact Dr. Shelley Brown (Chair, Carleton University Research Ethics Board-B, [email protected], Phone: 613-520-2600 ext. 1505). You may also contact the Carleton University Research Office at [email protected].
Purpose. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships among mock jurors' legal attitudes and demographics.
Task requirements. We are asking you to read and answer a series of questions pertaining to religious orientation and legal attitudes. The study will take approximately 20-35 minutes.
Benefits/compensation. You will receive a 0.05% increase in your final grade in one of PSYC 1001, 1002, 2001, 2002 or NEUR 2001, 2002 for participating in this study.
Potential risk/discomfort. There are no physical risks to participating in this study. Some individuals might feel uncomfortable when asked to answer sensitive questions regarding religious orientation, legal attitudes, or personal attitudes. If you feel any discomfort or distress, you may choose not to answer specific questions, and you will not be penalized in any way if you do this. The debriefing form at the end of the study provides contact information for local support services that you may contact if you need or want help.
Anonymity/Confidentiality. All participants’ information will be non-attributable to participants names and contact information and coded for analysis. Participants will be given a participation code; this code will not be traced back to their name, personal information, or data. We collect data through the software Qualtrics, which uses servers with multiple layers of security to protect the privacy of the data (e.g., encrypted websites and pass-word protected storage). Please note that Qualtrics is hosted by a server located in the USA. The United States Patriot Act permits U.S. law enforcement officials, for the purpose of an anti-terrorism investigation, to seek a court order that allows access to the personal records of any person without that person's knowledge. In view of this we cannot absolutely guarantee the full
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 39
confidentiality and anonymity of your data. Participant’s IP addresses will not be collected in this study; this function has been disabled in Qualtrics to maintain anonymity/confidentiality. The data obtained will be retained for 5 years after the study’s completion on password protected computers and may be shared with colleagues and competent professionals in the future. With your consent to participate in this study, you acknowledge this.
Right to withdraw. Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. You may skip any question that makes you feel uncomfortable and/or you do not want to answer for any reason by clicking the next button at the bottom of their screen. You may withdraw after giving your consent by selecting the withdraw button at the bottom of the page and you will still receive the full compensation for participating. If you withdraw, you have the right to request that your data be deleted. If you decide to drop out, we ask that you read the Debriefing form at the end and move to the last page to retrieve your Completion Code. Please be advised after you consent to allow the use of your data at the end of the study you will no longer be able to withdraw data.
________________________________________________________________________
This study has received clearance from Carleton University Research Ethics-Board-B (Reference # 15-229)
________________________________________________________________________
Consent to participate:
___ I have read the above form and understand the conditions of my participation. My participation in this study is voluntary, and I understand that if at any time I wish to leave the experiment, I may do so without having to give an explanation and with no penalty whatsoever. Furthermore, I am also aware that the data gathered in this study are confidential and anonymous with respect to my personal identity. By clicking this box I AGREE to participate in this study.
___ I have read the above form and understand the conditions of my participation. My participation in this study is voluntary, and I understand that if at any time I wish to leave the experiment, I may do so without having to give an explanation and with no penalty whatsoever. Furthermore, I am also aware that the data gathered in this study are confidential and anonymous with respect to my personal identity. By clicking this box I DISAGREE to participate in this study.
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 40
Appendix B
Intrinsic/Extrinsic-Reviewed Scale (Gorsuch &McPherson, 1989)
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements using the 5-point scale: (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree, 4 = Agree, 5= Strongly Agree)
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree, 4 = Agree, 5= Strongly Agree
1. I enjoy reading about my religion. (I)
2. I go to church because it helps me to make friends. (E)
3. It doesn't much matter what I believe so long as I am good. (reverse score) (I)
4. It is important to me to spend time in private thought and prayer. (I)
5. I have often had a strong sense of God's presence. (I)
6. I pray mainly to gain relief and protection. (E)
7. I try hard to live all my life according to my religious beliefs. (I)
8. What religion offers me most is comfort in times of trouble and sorrow. (E)
9. Prayer is for peace and happiness. (E)
10. Although I am religious, I don't let it affect my daily life. (reverse score) (I)
11. I go to church mostly to spend time with my friends. (E)
12. My whole approach to life is based on my religion. (I)
13. I go to church mainly because I enjoy seeing people I know there. (E)
14. Although I believe in my religion, many other things are more important in life. (reverse score) (I)
*Subscales: (I)= Intrinsic items: 1,3,4,5,7,10,12,14 and (E)= Extrinsic items: 2,6,8,9,11,13****
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 41
Appendix C
Juror Bias Scale (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1983)
This questionnaire is designed to assess people's opinions and attitudes on various legal issues. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements using the 5-point scale:
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree, 4 = Agree, 5= Strongly Agree
1. Appointed judges are more competent than elected judges. (filter) 2. A suspect who runs from the police most probably committed the crime. (P) 3. A defendant should be found guilty only if 11 out of 12 jurors vote guilty. (P) 4. Most politicians are really as honest as humanly possible. (Filter) 5. Too often jurors hesitate to convict someone who is guilty out of pure sympathy. (P) 6. In most cases where the accused presents a strong defense, it is only because of a good
lawyer. (P) 7. In general, children should be excused for their misbehavior. (filter) 8. The death penalty is cruel and inhumane. (D) 9. Out of every 100 people brought to trial, at least 75 are guilty of the crime with which
they are charged. (P) 10. For serious crimes like murder, a defendant should be found guilty if there is a 90%
chance that he committed the crime. (P) 11. Defense lawyers don't really care about guilty or innocence, they are just in the
business to make money. (P) 12. Generally, the police make an arrest only when they are sure about who committed the
crime. (P) 13. Circumstantial evidence is too weak to use in court. (D) 14. Many accident claims filed against insurance companies are phony. (P) 15. The defendant is often a victim of his own bad reputation. (D) 16. If a grand jury recommends that a person be brought to trial, then that person probably
committed the crime (P) 17. Extenuating circumstances should not be considered-if a person commits a crime, then
that person should be punished. (P) 18. Hypocrisy is on the increase in society. (Filter) 19. Too many innocent people are wrongfully imprisoned. (D) 20. If a majority of evidence- but not all of it-suggests that the defendant committed the
crime, then the jury should vote not guilty. (D) 21. If someone commits a victimless crime like gambling or possession of marijuana, he
should not be convicted. (D) 22. Some laws are made to be broken. (filter)
*Sub scales: Filter, P= Prosecution, D= Defense *All Defense (D) subscales were reverse scored
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 42
Appendix D
The Attitudes Toward the Criminal Legal System Scale (Martin & Cohn, 2004)
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements using the 5-point scale:
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree, 4 = Agree, 5= Strongly Agree
1. Juries make accurate decisions most of the time. 2. Punishment in this country is basically ineffective. (R) 3. Prosecuting attorneys care more about justice than getting a conviction. 4. Most of our laws are fair and just. 5. Juries often base decisions on their prejudices instead of facts. (R) 6. Minorities are often given unfair punishments. (R) 7. Defense attorneys are dishonest if it means they can win a case. (R) 8. Most police are genuinely honest and concerned with helping others. 9. Juries often lack the intelligence to make reasonable decisions.(R) 10. One reason there is so much crime is because police officers are incompetent. (R) 11. Judges usually make fair decisions. 12. Most prosecuting attorneys don’t have the time or resources to do their jobs well. (R) 13. Only the brightest, most knowledgeable people can become judges. 14. Most defense attorneys are as fair to the defendant and the victim as possible. 15. Police officers unfairly harass certain groups such as minorities and high-school kids
(R) 16. Trial by jury is one thing that keeps the legal system from being corrupted. 17. In general, prosecuting attorneys do a good job of getting guilty people convicted. 18. Most of our laws are effective at protecting people. 19. Lots of police are corrupt and hypocritical. (R) 20. Prosecuting attorneys are out to get the defendant. (R) 21. Judges are easily ‘‘bought off’’ by corrupt politicians. (R) 22. Because police officers are trained so well there is less crime than there might be. 23. Our current system of punishment is effective at preventing crime. 24. Defense attorneys care more about their clients than about making money. 25. Judges are the most trustworthy of all the legal professions. 26. In general, defense attorneys represent their clients very well. 27. Because lawyers can pick jury members, juries can no longer be trusted. (R) 28. Most prosecuting attorneys are as fair to the victim and defendant as possible. 29. Our laws are too ‘‘loose’’ and open to interpretation. (R) 30. Police officers treat everyone equally because they are able to ignore prejudice. 31. There are too many laws that impose on personal freedom. (R) 32. Judges tend to let bias and prejudice affects their decisions. (R) 33. Prosecuting attorneys are dishonest if it means they can win a case. (R) 34. A lot of judges make poor decisions. (R) 35. Most defense attorneys don’t have the time or resources to do their jobs well. (R) 36. Juries make fair decisions most of the time.
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 43
37. Defense attorneys aren’t fair to victims because they represent criminals. (R) 38. The punishment given usually fits the crime.
* R= Reverse Scored
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 44
Appendix E
Punishment Orientation Questionnaire (Yamamoto & Maeder, 2015)
This questionnaire is designed to assess people's opinions and attitudes on various legal issues. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements using the 5-point scale:
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Disagree nor Agree, 4 = Agree, 5= Strongly Agree
Ideal Utilitarianism
1. Punishment is not about “an eye for an eye” – if we are to harm a person using punishment, there must be some benefit to the community.
2. Punishment should be about looking forward to improve society, not backward to address the criminal’s misdeeds.
3. Punishment is only justified when it benefits society. 4. When considering an appropriate punishment, the potential benefit to society is more
important than the need to avenge the particular injustice. 5. Punishment is more about addressing society’s needs than serving out justice to a
single individual. 6. Punishment is inherently wrong and should only be administered when the benefit of
doing so outweighs the harm it causes.
Ideal Retributivism
1. It is better to let 10 guilty criminals go free than to punish 1 innocent person. 2. It is more important to keep innocent people free from punishment than it is to ensure
that all guilty persons are punished for their crimes. 3. It is better to let one dangerous criminal go unpunished than it is to punish an innocent
person. 4. It is inevitable that the justice system will “misfire”; we should just accept that
sometimes people are accidentally punished. (Reverse scored)
Harsh Retributivism
1. Punishment is necessary because it restores the balance of justice. 2. It is more important to punish a guilty person because he deserves it than it is to punish
him to benefit society. 3. The goal of punishment should be to give the guilty person what he deserves. 4. Criminals are bad people and deserve punishment. 5. Even if society would not benefit at all from punishing a guilty person, he should still
be punished because he deserves it. 6. Criminals are in prison because they deserve to be there.
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 45
7. Making sure that a criminal is punished appropriately for the crime he committed is more important than making sure that the punishment addresses societal needs such as deterrence.
8. I feel emotionally satisfied when a criminal gets what he deserves.
Harsh Utilitarianism
1. An overly harsh punishment may be necessary to prevent others from committing the same crime.
2. If a crime has a low detection rate (i.e. it is difficult to catch criminals who commit this particular crime), we should punish those who are caught harshly to prevent others from thinking they can get away with it.
3. Crimes that receive a great deal of publicity should be punished severely, even if the crime was not severe, so that society knows there is a strong response.
4. If someone commits a crime, that person is dangerous and must be removed from the community to protect other people.
5. Criminals deserve to be publically identified and shamed
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 46
Appendix F
General Information/ Demographics
Gender:
Man / Woman / Transgender / Other (Circle one)
Age: ______
What is your current year of study at Carleton University?
_____ 1st year (undergraduate) _____ 2nd year (undergraduate)
_____ 3rd year (undergraduate) _____ 4th year (undergraduate)
_____ Master's _____ Doctoral
Please indicate what your present religion is, if any?
1 Protestant (Baptist, Methodist, Non-denominational, Lutheran, Presbyterian,
Pentecostal, Episcopalian, Reformed, Church of Christ, etc.)
2 Roman Catholic (Catholic)
3 Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/LDS)
4 Orthodox (Greek, Russian, or some other orthodox church)
5 Jewish (Judaism)
6 Muslim (Islam)
7 Buddhist
8 Hindu
9 Atheist (do not believe in God)
10 Atheist (do not believe in God)
11 Nothing in particular
12 Other (Please Specify)
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 47
Other ________________
How would you describe your political orientation, if any?
1. Very conservative
2. Conservative
3. Moderate
4. Liberal
5. Very liberal
6. Other (Please Specify)
Other _______________
7. Prefer not to disclose
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 48
Appendix G
Debriefing
Thank you for your participation in this study! This is a debriefing form, which will clarify the purpose of our study and why we are interested in this issue.
What are we trying to learn in this research?
The purpose of this research was to understand how an individual’s religious orientation is related to their general views of the law (e.g., punishment orientation, juror bias, and trust in the legal system). This study will provide a framework to assist in understanding how one’s religious orientation is related to legal attitudes, which can enhance our understanding of jury decision-making.
Why is this important to scientists or the general public?
Previous research has demonstrated that an individual’s religious orientation can be related to their legal attitudes (Miller, 2013; Miller, Maskaly, Peoples, Sigillo, 2014; Walker, Smither, Debode, 2012; 2011). For example, someone who uses religion as a framework for day-to-day decision making (i.e. intrinsically orientated) is less likely to trust a secular law as they place more trust in their religious beliefs, whereas someone who does not use religion as a means to an end (i.e. extrinsically orientated) is more likely to trust a secular law (Clark & Dawson, 1996; Miller, Maskaly, Peoples, Sigilo, 2014; Walker, Smither, Debode, 2012;2011; Wisneski, Lytle, Skitka, 2009). The present study will provide a framework to assist in creating a better understanding of how one’s religious orientation is related to their legal attitudes. Specifically, this research can provide a better understanding of jury decision-making, and how decisions can be related to juror’s religious orientation and legal attitudes (i.e. fostering more or less bias in the court room). Why was the use of deception necessary?
Partial deception was used in this study because we did not want participants to know the exact purpose of the study. The exact purpose of the study was not disclosed because we did not want participants to modify answers to conform to our hypotheses, or feel concerned about how they were being evaluated.
What are our hypotheses and predictions?
We hypothesized that individuals who are intrinsically religious will be less trusting in the legal system because they are more trusting of their own religious laws, whereas extrinsically religious individuals will be more likely to trust the legal system as they do not use religion as a means to an end as intrinsically orientated individuals do (Clark & Dawson, 1996; Miller, Maskaly, Peoples, Sigilo, 2014; Walker, Smither, Debode, 2012;2011; Wisneski, Lytle, Skitka, 2009). We also hypothesize that religious orientation can influence juror bias.
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 49
Juror bias is the inability to put prejudices and biases aside (i.e. prejudice or biases towards gender, race, religion etc.), which can in turn, affect the outcome of a jury’s legal decisions and verdicts (Norton, Sommers, Brauner, 2007; Kaplan & Miller, 1987). We hypothesized that intrinsic religiosity will not be related to juror bias as previous research has demonstrated intrinsically orientated individuals are less prejudice and demonstrate tolerance, whereas extrinsically oriented individuals have been found to generally hold more prejudices (Clark & Dawson, 1996; Miller, 2013; Walker, Smither, Debode, 2012; 2011). Lastly, regarding punishment orientation and its relation to religiosity is currently exploratory research and no predictions were made.
Where can I learn more?
Miller, M. K. (2013). Relationship between religious characteristics and responses to vigilantism. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(5), 496. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.04.014
Walker, A. G., Smither, J. W., & DeBode, J. (2012; 2011). The effects of religiosity on ethical judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(4), 437-452. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1009-4
Is there anything I can do if I found this experiment to be emotionally upsetting?
Yes. If you feel any distress or anxiety after participating in this study, please feel free to contact the Carleton University Health and Counseling Services at: 613-520-6674, http://carleton.ca/health/our-services/counselling-services/, or the Distress Centre of Ottawa and Region at 613-238-3311 (http://www.dcottawa.on.ca).
What if I have questions later? If you have any remaining concerns, questions, or comments about the experiment, please feel free to contact Savannah Turner (Principal Investigator), at: [email protected], Dr. Evelyn Maeder (Faculty Sponsor), at: [email protected] (613-520-2600, ext. 2421), Kendra McLaughlin (Research Assistant) at: [email protected].
Should you have any ethical concerns about this research, please contact Dr. Shelley Brown (Chair, Carleton University Research Ethics Board-B, [email protected], Phone: 613-520-2600 ext. 1505). You may also contact the Carleton University Research Office at [email protected].
This study has received clearance from Carleton University Research Ethics-Board-B
Thank you for participating in this research!
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 50
Appendix H
Informed Consent to the Use of Data The purpose of an informed consent is to ensure that you understand the purpose of the study and that you agree to allow your data to be used for research and teaching purposes. We are now asking for your consent to allow your data to be used for research and teaching purposes. Purpose. The purpose of this study is to examine if prospective jurors' religious orientation is related to legal attitudes such as one's punishment orientation, juror bias, and trust in the legal system. Anonymity/Confidentiality. The data collected in this study are kept anonymous and confidential. Right to withdraw data. You have the right to indicate that you do not wish your data to be used in this study. If you indicate this is your choice, then all measures you have provided will be destroyed. At this time, if you consent, you will no longer be able to withdraw your data from the study, however; if you do not choose to give consent, you will still receive course credit. If you do not consent to the use of data, your data will be promptly destroyed and removed from the study. Signatures: I have read the above description of the study investigating religious orientation and its relationship to legal attitudes such as ones trust in the legal system, punishment orientation and juror bias. The data in the study will be used in research publications or for teaching purposes. By consenting, I agree to allow the data I have provided to be used for these purposes.
I CONSENT I DO NOT CONSENT
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 51
Appendix I
NOTICE FOR RECRUITMENT
Study Name: Religiosity and Legal Attitudes Description: This study asks participants to read and complete a series of questionnaires regarding religious and legal beliefs and attitudes. Eligibility Requirements: We are looking for Carleton University students participating in SONA. All participants must be fluent in reading English. Duration and locale: 25-35 minutes (online) Researchers: Savannah Turner, Psychology [email protected]; Dr. Evelyn Maeder, Criminology and Criminal Justice: [email protected], Phone: 613-520-2600 ext. 2421; Kendra McLaughlin (Research Assistant) [email protected]. This study has received clearance from Carleton University Research Ethics-Board – B (Reference # 15-229, insert your protocol reference number once obtained) and date of ethics expiration (08/31/2016).
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 52
Appendix J
Completion Code to receive credit for participation:
SURVEY COMPLETION CODE:
(Completion code in Qualtrics)
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 53
Appendix K
Ethics Approval
RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND LEGAL ATTITUDES 54
Appendix L
Ethics Approval- Addendum