Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study explores public attitudes toward restorative justice (RJ) in cases of intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexual abuse within the Israeli multiethnic society. The research investigates the role of perceived offense severity and malleability beliefs, moderated by ethnic identity. Findings reveal that Jewish participants perceive intrafamilial offenses as more severe and show lower support for RJ, mediated by malleability beliefs. In contrast, Arab participants do not differentiate between intra- and extrafamilial offenses in terms of severity, and their support for RJ is less influenced by these factors. These results highlight cultural factors shaping support for RJ in sexual abuse cases.

Keywords

restorative justice malleability beliefs intrafamilial/extrafamilial sexual abuse offense severity ethnic differences

Introduction

A substantial body of research has explored public perceptions of individuals who have committed sexual offenses (e.g., Harper & Bartels, 2017; Hartley & Bartels, 2022). These investigations include diverse groups, such as the general populace (McCoy & Gray, 2007), students (Fuselier et al., 2002), and law enforcement officers (Kite & Tyson, 2004), and cover multiple countries (e.g., Bartels et al., 2021; Sparks, 2021; Wurtele, 2021). The evidence suggests that the public generally holds very negative attitudes toward those convicted of sexual offenses (Richards & McCartan, 2018; Weimann-Saks et al., 2022). Society perceives even “nonviolent” individuals who have committed sexual offenses as posing “a far more immediate menace than the mugger, robber, murderer, confidence trickster, or corporate polluter” (Jenkins, 1998, p. 200). In fact, individuals who have committed sexual offenses face hatred “unmatched by attitudes to any other offenders” (Sampson, 1994, p. 124). Consequently, the public is more inclined to support restricting their civil liberties than those of any other type of offender, including armed robbers and murderers (Pickett et al., 2013). These negative attitudes significantly impact offenders, fostering internalized stigma, which can lead to diminished self-worth and reluctance to seek rehabilitation (Moore et al., 2018). They also influence legislation and policies by reinforcing punitive approaches that limit opportunities for reintegration (Clark, 2007; Kernsmith et al., 2009; Mancini et al., 2010).

Recent studies have begun to investigate the impact of these harsh attitudes on public perceptions regarding the implementation of restorative justice (RJ) processes in sexual offenses (Marsh & Wager, 2015; Peleg-Koriat & Klar-Chalamish, 2020). RJ is a way of doing justice following an offense that is primarily oriented toward repairing individual, relational, and social harm (Walgrave, 2013). Redressing the harm caused by the offense may be achieved by unprejudiced, guided dialogue between the parties affected by the offense on what the participants need to do to address the needs of those affected by the offense (Zehr & Mika, 2003).

This research contributes to this literature by examining attitudes toward RJ in cases involving adolescent victims of sexual abuse. Specifically, it focuses on scenarios where a female adolescent victim reports an assault perpetrated by an adult male after she has reached adulthood. The current study further distinguishes between offenses committed within and outside the family. Finally, for the first time, it explores the influence of participants’ ethnicity, their perception of the offense's severity, and their malleability beliefs on the implementation of RJ processes.

Restorative Justice in Sexual Abuse Cases

RJ typically involves a meeting between the victim, the offender, and, if appropriate, family members, friends, and community representatives, with a primary focus on addressing the needs of all participants. During the process, the offender must confront the consequences of their actions, recognize the harm they have caused, and explore ways to make amends (Roche, 2003). Effective harm alleviation occurs when the offender adopts a reintegrative approach by acknowledging their wrongdoing, understanding the severe hardships experienced by the victim and others, and showing willingness to address the resulting needs (Zehr, 2002).

Braithwaite's (1989) reintegrative shaming theory, which is central to the RJ approach (Harris & Maruna, 2005), distinguishes between reintegrative and disintegrative shaming (stigmatization). The former is based on a process that condemns the act while accepting the perpetrators and showing concern for their rehabilitation. According to this approach, shaming during the RJ process must be reintegrative and not stigmatizing, as in legal procedures that often prevent convicts from reintegrating into the community. Reintegrative shaming uncouples self and behavior so that the perpetrator's self is sustained “as sacred rather than profane” (Braithwaite & Mugford, 1994, p. 146).

To facilitate reintegration and ensure the process's success, RJ meetings require preparation, typically ranging from 1 month to 2 years. Facilitators ensure a safe environment by considering the victim's psychological readiness and the offender's sincerity and remorse (Klar-Chalamish & Peleg-Koriat, 2021). These preparatory meetings assess safety needs and the potential scope of dialogue (Jülich, 2006; Koss, 2014). Only then do the parties engage in a structured, facilitated discussion about the offense and its impact (Umbreit & Armour, 2010). In the process, offenders often experience a significant shift in recognizing their responsibility and making reparations (Gal, 2015). A successful process entails redressing the harm caused and turning over a new leaf for all involved (Hayes & Daly, 2003).

The specific challenges of sexual offenses, including their underreporting and the inadequacies of the criminal justice system, have led to the belief that RJ processes can provide more effective outcomes. These processes foster healing and growth by addressing survivors’ needs, offering a less intimidating alternative to the formal legal system, and promoting offender accountability (Jülich, 2010; Koss, 2014; Koss & Achilles, 2008). RJ allows victims to share their stories in a safe and supportive environment (Daly & Curtis-Fawley, 2006; Jülich, 2006; Marsh & Wager, 2015). Victims receive acknowledgment and validation of the harm, public condemnation of the offense, and relief from guilt and shame (Herman, 2005), in a respectful manner (Stern, 2010). Moreover, the process empowers victims by allowing them to exercise control (Daly & Curtis-Fawley, 2006; Jülich, 2010; McGlynn et al., 2012). Unlike legal procedures, RJ depends on the offender's assumption of responsibility from the outset. Participation in RJ, where the offender admits guilt and the victim is supported by loved ones, facilitators, or victim advocacy groups, can reduce self-blame and aid in recovery and healing (Daly & Curtis-Fawley, 2006; Miller, 2011; Toren, 2015).

Moreover, the RJ process focuses on the offense and its restoration. Rather than adhering to strict rules, it is tailored to the needs of participants, emphasizing the victim's voice, choice, and control—elements that empower victims and contribute to their recovery (Braithwaite, 2002). In a study by Klar-Chalamish and Peleg-Koriat (2021), participants often described RJ as a turning point in their healing, providing a platform for agreements regarding future interactions within their family and close social environment in a constructive, forward-looking manner. This aligns with studies demonstrating RJ's role as an alternative path to justice that fosters recovery, growth, and development (e.g., Daly & Curtis-Fawley, 2006; Jülich, 2006, 2010; Koss, 2014; Koss & Achilles, 2008).

Despite the potential benefits of RJ in cases of sexual offenses, there are some concerns. RJ generally requires the offender to acknowledge their accountability and the consent of both victim and offender—two necessary conditions. Therefore, RJ cannot be a universal alternative to a formal legal system (Mika et al., 2002; Shapland, 2014). However, the development of RJ for sexual abuse aims not to replace the criminal justice system but to provide an alternative or complementary process to a formal legal system.

Another concern is the power imbalance between victim and offender inherent in sexual abuse, complicating the pursuit of justice (Daly & Curtis-Fawley, 2006; McGlynn et al., 2012). RJ for sexual abuse seeks to achieve justice for both victims and offenders, requiring facilitators to intervene during meetings to address offenders’ explanations regarding the abuse based on gender differences, victim-blaming, or denial (Jülich, 2010). RJ aims to balance power through fair processes, support for the “weaker” party, and challenges to the “stronger” one (Morris, 2002).

Public Attitudes Toward Restorative Justice in Sexual Abuse Cases

RJ processes in cases of sexual offenses also face a significant hurdle in the form of public attitudes. In recent years, public attitudes toward crime, punishment, and alternatives to punishment have become a significant focus within criminological research (Kutateladze & Crossman, 2009; Payne et al., 2010). Policymakers frequently shape crime and justice policies based on perceived attitudes (Adriaenssen & Aertsen, 2015; Roberts et al., 2002).

Nevertheless, there is a scarcity of studies exploring the public's views on RJ in cases of sexual abuse. An Irish study (Keenan & Zinsstag, 2014) revealed public willingness to engage in RJ in sexual abuse cases. Similarly, research in England (Marsh & Wager, 2015) showed that 81% of participants and 70% of self-identified victims supported victim-offender encounters in sexual offense cases. More recently, a study conducted in Israel found that the majority of the public supports the idea of RJ in sexual abuse cases and understands the advantages inherent in the process (Peleg-Koriat & Klar-Chalamish, 2020).

These groundbreaking studies highlight the public's favorable attitude toward RJ in such contexts. However, these studies have not examined the differences in public attitudes toward RJ processes in cases of intrafamilial versus extrafamilial sexual abuse of minors, nor have they considered ethnic differences—the twin focuses of the current research.

Attitudes Toward Restorative Justice in Intrafamilial and Extrafamilial Sexual Abuse

Sexual abuse of children and adolescents is a uniquely traumatic experience that continues to resonate throughout their lives (Klar-Chalamish & Peleg-Koriat, 2021; Sánchez-Meca et al., 2011). Preventing and addressing these abuses requires a multidisciplinary approach, with substantial efforts and coordination among public administrators, numerous professionals, families, victims, and society at large. Numerous studies indicate that abuse can manifest in various forms and have different consequences, depending on whether the incidents occur within or outside the family (Hartley & Bartels, 2022; Magalhães et al., 2009).

The literature indicates that perpetrators of extrafamilial sexual abuse are typically more dangerous and pedophilic than perpetrators of intrafamilial abuse (Seto et al., 2015). However, according to research on incest taboo (Antfolk et al., 2012), the public considers the acts of intrafamilial perpetrators as more severe, a perception likely due to their incestuous nature, as suggested by the Westermarck effect (Westermarck, 1891). Hence, the current assumption is that in general, people would be less supportive of RJ processes in cases of sexual offenses within the family.

Reynolds and Birkimer (2002) demonstrated that the disparities between an external and an internal family perpetrator increased in the case of adolescent girls. They found that an 8-year-old girl was perceived as highly abused regardless of whether the abuser was a stepfather or a neighbor. In contrast, when the victim was 15 years old, she was considered less abused if the perpetrator was a neighbor rather than a stepfather. Similarly, Davies and Rogers (2009) found that child sexual abuse was regarded as more severe when committed by the victim's father compared to a stepfather. Conversely, Hartley and Bartels (2022) found that in extrafamilial cases (stranger and babysitter), the perceived danger and pedophilic tendencies were higher compared to a stepfather preparator.

The identities of the participants, their basic beliefs, and the offender–victim relationship may explain these unique and contradictory findings. Further research is required to thoroughly investigate the psychological mechanisms influencing the perceived severity of sexual offenses within and outside the family, as well as public willingness to support RJ processes in these cases, a topic that yet to be empirically studied. This study contributes to that end by examining, for the first time, attitudes toward RJ in cases of both intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexual abuse within a multiethnic society. Based on the literature reviewed above, indicating that differences in public perceptions emerge mainly in adolescence, it focuses on adolescent victims. Additionally, it investigates the mediating role of perceived offense severity and malleability beliefs in the relationship between the offense context (intra- or extrafamilial) and support for RJ.

Perceived Severity of Sexual Offenses, Malleability Beliefs, and Support for Restorative Justice

As explained above, the current study posits that although there is no definitive answer in the literature, the public is likely to perceive sexual offenses within the family as more severe. It is further hypothesized that this perception would negatively influence the public's belief in the offender's ability to change (malleability beliefs), which in turn will adversely affect support for RJ in cases of intrafamilial sexual offenses.

Dweck et al. (1995) propose that individuals hold one of two beliefs regarding the malleability of personal character traits: they either view these traits as unchangeable (entity theory) or as changeable (incremental theory). Research across various fields has demonstrated that holding incremental beliefs is linked to a reduced likelihood of making stereotypical judgments (Rydell et al., 2007), a decrease in negative reactions to social adversity (Yeager et al., 2014), and lower tendency to endorse punishment and retaliation in response to others’ misconduct (Chiu et al., 1997). Individuals who subscribe to incremental beliefs are generally inclined to perceive negative behaviors as challenges, and they are more likely to propose constructive solutions aimed at addressing the underlying motivations or circumstances. In contrast, those who believe that wrongdoing stems from unchangeable traits tend to favor punitive measures and retaliation (Dweck et al., 1995).

Recently, the exploration of incremental beliefs within the context of criminology has gained attention. For instance, Tam et al. (2013) discovered that individuals with entity beliefs were more prone to make internal attributions for criminal behavior, leading to stronger punitive inclinations. Rade et al. (2018) found that incremental beliefs predicted positive attitudes toward ex-offenders, fostering greater public support for their reintegration. Finally, Harper and Bartels (2017) found that people with entity-based beliefs made more punitive judgments about sexual offenders compared to those with incremental beliefs.

Specifically in the context of RJ, Moss et al. (2019) and Peleg-Koriat et al. (2020) found that participants who believed offenders could change were more likely to support RJ and rehabilitation over punishment. Moreover, Weimann-Saks et al. (2022) suggested that the greatest challenge in altering public attitudes toward RJ would be in the case of individuals who have committed sexual offenses given their perceived low malleability.

Accordingly, the current study hypothesizes that sexual offenses within the family would be perceived as more severe, leading to a stronger belief that the offender cannot change, and resulting in weaker support for RJ processes. Moreover, the current study seeks to present a more complex picture and examine whether this mediation model is applicable to both the Jewish and Arab communities in Israel.

Ethnicity and Attitudes Toward Restorative Justice in Sexual Abuse

The present study assumes that attitudes toward RJ would also be affected by the participant's ethnicity. Specifically, differences are expected between Arabs and Jews in Israel in their attitudes toward RJ in cases of both intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexual abuse, which stem from the participants’ culture.

Israeli society is made up of multiple sociocultural groups, the largest being the Jewish majority and Arab minority (21.1% of the total population; Central Bureau of Statistics, 2022). The Jewish majority is characterized by strong pronatalist and familial attitudes. Nevertheless, Jewish society is largely secular, individualistic, and Western (Sharabi et al., 2020), with gender patterns and attitudes resembling those in other industrialized societies (Kulik et al., 2016; Lavee & Katz, 2003). Therefore, we will not elaborate on its characteristics here.

Arab culture, on the other hand, is more religious and marked by collectivism. In Arab families, relationships are typically hierarchical, age-based, and patriarchal, with children expected to be submissive to their parents (Abu-Baker, 2013; Attrash-Najjar & Katz, 2023; Haboush & Alyan, 2013). The traditionalism of Arab society also means an emphasis on modesty and restrictions on sex education, inhibiting open conversations about sexual abuse. The situation is further complicated when the perpetrator is a family member, as Arab families struggle between loyalty to the offending relative and the need to protect the victim, leading often to the decision to keep such incidents hidden (Abu-Baker, 2013).

Responses to sexual abuse in Arab societies, worldwide as well as in Israel, face several challenges, including the taboo nature of the topic and the difficulty in accessing child victims (Attrash-Najjar & Katz, 2023). In some instances, families view the victim as a threat to the family's honor and reputation (Abu-Baker, 2013; Hasan, 2003). In particular, loss of virginity is considered a source of shame for the entire family, leading to a cultural norm where children are taught to avoid discussing sexuality (Attrash-Najjar & Katz, 2023; Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2005).

Arab families often prefer to handle criminal matters within the community or family, such as through the traditional sulha process. Sulha (“reconciliation”) is a common practice with religious roots, similar to RJ. It aims to transform the parties’ attitudes from the desire for retribution to forgiveness (Pely & Luzon, 2018). This preference stems, among other things, from concerns that involving authorities might damage the family's reputation. In the case of Arab society in Israel, this apprehension is rooted in a widespread sense of distrust and alienation toward state-provided mental health services and the discriminatory criminal justice system (Al-Krenawi, 2009; Diab & Sandler-Loeff, 2011). Studies have shown that Arabs in Israel report lower levels of trust in the police compared to Jews, which affects their willingness to report crimes (Ben-Porat & Yuval, 2012; Hasisi & Weisburd, 2014; Nanes, 2020).

Informed by this literature, this study hypothesizes that RJ, which is characterized by privacy and integration, would be well-received in Arab society, particularly in cases of offenses considered “shameful.” Furthermore, in contrast to the individualistic Jewish society, in Arab society where sexual offenses within the family are seen as tarnishing both the victim and family and discretion is more valued, there would be support for RJ even in these cases.

The Present Study

The present study examined differential public attitudes toward RJ processes in cases of intrafamilial versus extrafamilial sexual assault against adolescents. The purpose was to investigate attitudes toward RJ processes between an offender and an adult victim, where the offense occurred when the victim was a minor. It tests a comprehensive model that integrates a two-stage mediation of offense severity and malleability beliefs, moderated by ethnic identity. The model is intended to elucidate the underlying psychological and cultural mechanisms that shape these attitudes. By employing a rigorous quantitative approach, this study addresses a significant gap in the literature and provides a nuanced perspective on the complexities of public perceptions regarding RJ in the context of sexual violence. Specifically, this research examines the following hypotheses:

H1: Arab participants would support RJ more than Jewish participants would in cases of sexual abuse, whether intra- or extrafamilial.

H2: Participants would judge intrafamilial sexual abuse as more severe than extrafamilial sexual abuse.

H3: Based on a serial mediation model wherein intrafamilial sexual abuse is associated with higher offense severity compared to extrafamilial sexual abuse, higher offense severity would be linked to lower perceived malleability, which in turn, correlates with reduced support for RJ.

H4: The mediation effect would be moderated by ethnicity. Specifically, while significant mediation is expected in both ethnic groups, the effect would be stronger among Jews.

In addition to the specific research hypotheses, participants were asked about their support for retributive punishment, as well as whether they believed punishment should consider the victim's needs. These questions were examined separately from the primary hypotheses to preliminarily assess whether participants support RJ as opposed to punitive retributive processes, and to explore the potential relationship between support for RJ and the desire to consider the victim's needs, or vice versa.

Method

Participants

The sample size in Study 1 was determined using GPower (Faul et al., 2009), based on small- to medium-sized effects (Cohen's f = .18), to obtain a 95% power to detect significant differences. The sample was obtained from iPanel, a major and reliable Israeli online panel. Since 2006, iPanel has provided an online platform for various information collection services, including polls and public opinion surveys. Participants sign up to the panel and get paid for their participation (the equivalent of two dollars for this study). We used quota sampling to obtain a roughly even number of Jews and Arabs. The study's 517 participants included 257 Jews and 260 Arabs.

Demographic characteristics and group comparisons are presented in Table 1. Jewish participants were significantly older. There was also a significant difference in marital status, and post hoc analysis (with Bonferroni corrected p values) showed Jews had a lower proportion of single participants, χ²(1) = 8.28, p = .012. No difference was observed in the “married,” χ²(1) = 4.31, p = .111, or “other” category, χ²(1) = 1.51, p = .654. Jews also had a higher income status, but both groups had similar education levels and gender distributions.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics.

	Jews (n = 257)	Arabs (n = 260)	Statistics	p
Age	46.15 ± 13.99	37.66 ± 12.32	t(505.39) = 7.30	<.001
Education	4.42 ± 1.30	4.26 ± 1.30	t(514.92) = 1.31	.189
Income status	3.09 ± 1.20	1.99 ± 1.13	t(468) = 10.16	<.001
Gender (% female)	49.41 (n = 127)	50.00 (n = 130)	χ2(1) = .01	.894
Marital status (%)	Single—24.51 (n = 63)	Single—36.15 (n = 94)	χ2(2) = 8.79	.012
	Married—66.92 (n = 172)	Married—58.07 (n = 151)
	Other—8.56 (n = 22)	Other—5.76 (n = 15)

Measures

All measures were assessed on a six-item scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).

Offense severity (α = .736) was assessed based on Warr's (1989) and Alter et al.'s (2007) questionnaires, with minor adjustments. The questions identified the wrongfulness of criminal acts in terms of perceived seriousness (e.g., “The behavior described deviates from accepted norms”) and harm (e.g., “The behavior described may cause serious injury”).

Malleability beliefs (α = .916) were assessed based on the original scale by Chiu et al. (1997), with minor modifications by Weimann-Saks et al. (2019). These adjustments were tailored specifically to the domain of the current research (e.g., “I believe that a person who has committed such an offense has a chance to return to a normative life”; “I think a person who commits such an offense can change”).

RJ support (α = .928) was assessed by a scale based on Peleg-Koriat and Klar-Chalamish's (2020) questionnaire, with slight alterations (e.g., “I think it is right that the victim will meet the person who harmed him as part of an RJ process”; “I welcome the opportunity given to the victim and offender to choose whether they are interested in an RJ process”).

Retributive punishment support (α = .814) was assessed by a scale based on Einat and Lallo's (2011) questionnaire, with slight alterations (e.g., “George needs to be sent to prison”; “It is fair for society to punish people like George who commit crimes against it”).

Victim-oriented punishment (α = .893) was assessed by a scale developed for the current study (e.g., “Anna's well-being should be considered when considering George's punishment”; “Anna's wishes should be paramount in George's punishment considerations”).

Procedure

Participants were assigned to one of two conditions using the online panel's built-in randomization mechanism, one detailing an intrafamilial and the other an extrafamilial sexual abuse case. The victim and offender were named Anna and George, respectively, rather than using popular local names, to prevent participants from assuming the characters’ ethnicity, thereby minimizing the potential of racial bias or prejudice. In the two conditions, the victim was an adult woman who pressed charges against a man who had abused her when she was 16. In the intrafamilial condition, the man was her uncle, and in the extrafamilial condition, the man was an employee at the community center (see Appendix A for the full scenarios).

After reading the scenarios, the participants were then asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their stance on the severity of the offense and their malleability beliefs. After completing these two scales, participants read a short description of the RJ procedure (see Appendix B, adapted from Peleg-Koriat and Klar-Chalamish, 2020), and were asked to complete a questionnaire that examined their support for RJ, retributive punishment, and victim-oriented punishment. Approval for the present study was granted by the institutional ethics committee.

Data Analysis

Before factor analysis was conducted, sampling adequacy for the newly developed victim-oriented punishment questionnaire was examined using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test, and sphericity was examined using Bartlett's test. The KMO index was .862, suggesting the sampling was adequate for factor analysis. Bartlett's test was significant, χ²(15) = 1878.97, p < .001, suggesting the correlation matrix was not an identity matrix, and was therefore suitable for factor analysis. Next, factor analysis was conducted and yielded a single factor (eigenvalue = 3.94), which explained 65.82% of the variance. Factor loadings were: Q1- .737, Q2- .816, Q3- .837, Q4- .873, Q5- .834, Q6- .759.

After calculating Pearson correlations, the first and second hypotheses were examined via independent samples t-test and ANCOVA, respectively. The third and fourth hypotheses were examined via structural equations analysis (AMOS v27). Bootstrapping (5,000 samples) was conducted to assess the significance of the model coefficients.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

The preliminary analyses examined whether people viewed RJ as contradictory to retributive justice and whether support for RJ was associated with attitudes prioritizing victim-centered considerations in the context of punishment. To do so, Pearson correlations between support for RJ, retributive punishment, and victim-oriented punishment were calculated. Negative and significant correlations were found between RJ support and retributive punishment support (r = −.493, p < .001; 95% bootstrapped CI [−0.558, −.0426]); and between RJ support and victim-oriented punishment (r = −.207, p < .001; 95% bootstrapped CI [−299, −.113]). These correlations suggested that higher support for retribution, and higher consideration of the victim regarding the offender's punishment, were correlated with lower RJ support. Note that the correlation of RJ support with retributive punishment support was significantly higher than the one with victim-oriented punishment (Z = −5.29, p < .001; Fisher z-transformation).

Since group differences were found in age, income, and marital status, it was important to examine whether they correlate with any of the variables. As age was correlated with RJ support for Jews (but not Arabs), it was used as a covariate in all analyses examining ethnicity differences. Income and marital status were not correlated with any of the study's variables, so they were excluded from the analyses.

Hypothesis Testing

The first hypothesis suggested Arab participants would support RJ more than Jewish participants in cases of sexual abuse, whether intra- or extrafamilial. A significant ANCOVA test, F(1, 514) = 9.76, p = .001, adjusted for age, revealed that as hypothesized, Arab participants (3.23 ± 1.24) supported RJ more than did Jewish participants (2.96 ± 1.20).

According to the second hypothesis, participants would judge intrafamilial sexual abuse as more severe. A significant independent samples t-test, t(514.18) = 2.11, p = .035, confirmed the hypothesis: participants found intrafamilial sexual abuse (6.18 ± 0.98) to be more severe than extrafamilial sexual abuse (5.99 ± 1.03).

The third hypothesis suggested a serial mediation model, wherein intrafamilial sexual abuse was associated with higher offense severity compared to extrafamilial sexual abuse. As higher offense severity is linked to lower perceived malleability, this would correlate with reduced support for RJ. Additionally, the mediation effect was hypothesized to be moderated by ethnicity (H4), so that the effect would be stronger among Jews (Table 2).

Table 2.

Moderated Mediation Model Analysis of RJ Support Through Intra-/Extrafamilial Sexual Abuse, Offense Severity, and Malleability.

	Path	B	95% CI (Bootstrapped)	p
Jews	Intra-/Extrafamilial sexual abuse (1 = Intrafamilial)→ Offense severity	.268	.090, .446	.002
	Offense severity → Malleability	−.328	−.541, −.127	.001
	Malleability → RJ support	.226	.124, .331	<.001
	Direct effect: Intra-/Extrafamilial sexual abuse (1 = Intrafamilial)→ RJ support	.020	−.253, .294	.870
	Indirect effect: Intra/Extrafamilial Sexual abuse (1 = Intrafamilial)→ Offense severity → Malleability → RJ support	−.020	−.052, −.006	.001
	Additional paths
	Intra-/Extrafamilial sexual abuse (1 = Intrafamilial)→ Malleability	.122	−.206, .426	.470
	Offense severity → RJ support	−.356	−.526, −.173	<.001

Arabs	Intra-/Extrafamilial sexual abuse (1 = Intrafamilial)→ Offense severity	.054	−.222, .328	.702
	Offense severity → Malleability	−.219	−.334, −.104	.001
	Malleability → RJ support	.124	−.041, .289	.138
	Direct effect: Intra-/Extrafamilial sexual abuse (1 = Intrafamilial)→ RJ support	−.022	−.324, .258	.850
	Indirect effect: Intra-/Extrafamilial sexual abuse (1 = Intrafamilial)→ Offense severity → Malleability → RJ support	−.001	−.018, .005	.464
	Additional paths
	Intra-/Extrafamilial sexual abuse (1 = Intrafamilial)→ Malleability	−.209	−.507, .059	.128
	Offense severity → RJ support	−.259	−.389, −.129	.001
Moderated mediation		−.018	−.050, −.001	.034

Note. Age was used as a covariate. RJ = restorative justice.

The hypothesis was partially confirmed (see Figure 1 and Table 2). For Jews, but not Arabs, intrafamilial sexual abuse was associated with higher offense severity. In both groups, higher offense severity was associated with lower malleability, but only for Jews were higher malleability beliefs associated with higher RJ support. The direct effect in both groups was nonsignificant. A negative and significant serial mediation was found for Jews, but not for Arabs, so that for Jews, intrafamilial sexual abuse was associated with lower RJ support, compared to extrafamilial sexual abuse. This effect was fully mediated by offense severity and malleability beliefs. The strength of the mediation was significantly moderated by ethnicity, so that the mediation effect was significantly higher for Jews compared to Arabs (whose mediation effect was nonsignificant).

Figure 1.

Serial Moderated Mediation Model of RJ Support Through Intra- and Extrafamilial Sexual Abuse, Offense Severity and Malleability. Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

The full model was saturated, so that model fit indices could not be computed. To estimate the model's goodness of fit, the weakest path of the model that did not involve a covariate [Intra-/Extrafamilial sexual abuse (1 = Intrafamilial)→ Malleability] was removed. The path was removed for this analysis only and is included in the full model. All path coefficients remained virtually the same, and high goodness of fit was found: χ²(2) = 2.72, p = .256; χ2 relative = 1.36; CFI = .992; TLI = .924; RMSEA = .027, p = .606; SRMR = .012; Bollen-Stine bootstrap p = .263. These goodness-of-fit values suggest a well-specified model and a high degree of compatibility between the theoretical model and data.

Discussion

As public attitudes play a crucial role in the implementation of RJ practices (Adriaenssen & Aertsen, 2015; Indermaur et al., 2012), their comprehensive understanding is important. Thus, the primary aim of the present study was to explore the public attitudes toward RJ in cases of sexual abuse, with a specific focus on the distinction between intra- and extrafamilial sexual abuse. Additionally, this research sought to investigate, for the first time, whether ethnicity—specifically, Arabs and Jews in Israel—influenced these attitudes.

A key preliminary finding is that ethnic identity significantly influences support for RJ processes in cases of sexual offenses. Specifically, Arabs exhibited greater support for RJ than did Jews. This finding can be understood from a cultural perspective and in light of the sociopolitical status of Arabs in Israel. In Arab culture, family honor and communal cohesion are paramount, often leading to a preference for maintaining the family's reputation over seeking justice through a formal legal system (Haj-Yahia & Tamish, 2001; Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2005). The intense concern for family honor and fear of stigmatization can result in victims avoiding disclosure of abuse (Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2005), and sometimes have extreme consequences such as “honor killings.” A Lebanese study revealed that among the 54% of children who disclosed sexual abuse to their parents, responses varied widely, from carefully listening to dismissing the disclosure or instructing the child not to discuss it (Usta & Farver, 2010).

This cultural context suggests that RJ may be particularly effective, as it offers a conflict resolution approach that aligns with the cultural emphasis on safeguarding the family and victim's honor. The current study proposes that RJ can align with these cultural emphases, providing a framework that may be more acceptable within the societal norms of the Arab community. This preference is consistent with Braithwaite's (1989) reintegrative shaming theory. In cultures where avoiding public disgrace is critical, as in Arab society, reintegrative shaming offers a culturally sensitive framework that supports RJ, avoiding the stigmatization associated with formal legal procedures.

Another explanation for the greater support of Arabs in Israel for RJ is related to their underrepresentation in and discrimination by the police force and judicial system. These factors likely drive the inclination toward RJ, which can operate independently of the state. Comparative studies reveal that Arabs exhibit significantly lower trust in the police than do Jews, which adversely impacts crime reporting (Ben-Porat & Yuval, 2012). For instance, Hasisi and Weisburd (2014) found that while 70.1% of Jews would contact the police if they witnessed a crime, only 50.6% of non-Jews would do so (see also Nanes, 2020). This highlights the need for additional conflict resolution procedures in Israel as a whole and among Arabs in particular. RJ, in these cases, should not be presented to the public as an alternative to traditional law enforcement, but rather as an alternative to something more common—disregarding the harm and offering no intervention at all (Peleg Koriat & Klar Chalamish, 2022).

In a more global context, the present findings underscore the significance of cultural factors in research on attitudes toward RJ. In general, it was found that in cases of intrafamilial sexual abuse, there was lower support for RJ compared to extrafamilial sexual abuse. This is consistent with the current hypothesis that the public perceives intrafamilial sexual abuse as more severe and views the offender in these cases as undeserving of “leniency,” in the form of participation in RJ. The preliminary findings of this study—a negative correlation between prioritizing victim-centered considerations in sentencing and support for RJ, and the negative correlation between support for retributive punishment and support for RJ—suggest that the public perceives RJ as an offender-focused process that offers a degree of leniency to the perpetrator. The study's findings show that this perceived leniency is a “privilege” the public is unwilling to extend to those who commit sexual offenses within the family. However, a deeper analysis of the findings and the research model reveals a more nuanced picture that incorporates cultural factors.

Among Jews, intrafamilial sexual abuse was perceived as more severe than, leading to the belief that the offender was incapable of change and thereby unsuitable for participation in RJ processes. In contrast, among Arabs, no significant difference was identified in the perceived severity of intra- and extrafamilial sexual abuse. Additionally, among Arabs, belief in the offender's malleability was not associated with support for RJ. This finding is particularly significant as it contradicts a substantial body of recent research, which has consistently highlighted malleability beliefs as a crucial variable in fostering support for RJ (e.g., Moss et al., 2019; Peleg-Koriat et al., 2020). According to Weimann-Saks et al. (2022), belief in an offender's malleability is often more influential in generating support for RJ than is the perceived severity of the offense or fear of the offender, even in the context of sexual offenses. The current study introduces a new perspective by showing that the impact of belief in malleability on support for RJ is culturally dependent, varying between Jews and Arabs in the context of sexual offenses. The collectivistic nature of Arab culture and the significance attributed to the honor of the family and close community (Abu Baker, 2013; Attrash-Najjar & Katz, 2023; Haboush & Alyan, 2013) may be more influential than fundamental psychological beliefs regarding the offender's nature in shaping attitudes toward RJ.

Another significant finding is that for the Jewish participants, the primary challenge is supporting RJ in intrafamilial sexual abuse cases, even though previous studies have demonstrated the importance of such processes precisely in those cases. A recent study by Klar-Chalamish and Peleg-Koriat (2021), relying on interviews with incest survivors, nonoffending family members, friends, and RJ facilitators, highlighted the unique contribution of RJ to families affected by sexual abuse. Participants described the RJ process as pivotal in their recovery by establishing agreements on future conduct within the family. They viewed RJ as addressing unique needs in incest cases within a supportive environment. These findings align with the literature highlighting RJ's benefits in facilitating recovery and growth in both intra- and extrafamilial sexual offenses (Jülich, 2006, 2010; McGlynn & Westmarland, 2019).

In sum, understanding the cultural and psychological mechanisms that shape public attitudes is essential for advancing and regulating RJ processes tailored to diverse populations in sexual abuse cases. The management of these processes is crucial: they must be conducted with the utmost professionalism and sensitivity, ensuring that victims feel a sense of control and are fully and respectfully heard. Prioritizing the victim's protection and well-being, while also addressing the needs of all participants, are paramount.

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite its contributions, the present study has several limitations. First, it differentiates between intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexual abuse using two conditions. In one, the perpetrator is the victim's uncle, while in the other, the perpetrator is employed at a community center. It is reasonable to assume that varying types of relationships—whether more distant (e.g., assault by a stranger) or closer (e.g., assault by a brother or father)—could affect the findings, warranting examination in future research.

Second, the respondents were not informed or given any indication of the ethnic identities of the perpetrator and victim in order to avoid ingroup bias (Tajfel, 1982). This bias results in more lenient judgments when the offender is perceived by the participant as part of the same group (Schiller et al., 2014; Wenzel & Thielmann, 2006). Future research should explore the interaction between participants’ ethnicity and that of the parties involved in the crime.

Third, the current study focused on an adolescent victim. Prior research suggests that while intrafamilial abuse is perceived as especially severe regardless of age, due to the incest taboo, and while abuse of young children is viewed as unequivocally serious, cases involving adolescents introduce additional considerations, some of which pertain to the issue of consent (Reynolds & Birkimer, 2002). However, the findings indicate that this pattern is not uniform across all groups, as Arab respondents did not perceive intrafamilial abuse as more severe than extrafamilial abuse. To achieve a deeper understanding of this finding, further research should examine cases involving victims and perpetrators of different ages, from different cultural backgrounds, and in instances where the victim and perpetrator come from different ethnic groups.

Last but not least, the Arab participants in this study included both Muslims and Christians. Christians constitute 7.1% of the Arab population in Israel (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2020) and thus represent a minority religion within a minority ethnicity (Raheb, 2002). In the current study, given that the Christians represented a minority similar to their proportion in the general population of Israel, it was not feasible to examine them as a separate group. Similarly, the Jewish population is not monolithic. The Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) community, a minority within the Jewish population, shares certain values with Arab society, such as an emphasis on family honor and lack of cooperation with state authorities, which affect disclosure in the case of sexual abuse (Tener & Katz, 2021). The research literature will also benefit from further studies exploring intra-group differences in attitudes toward RJ among various religions within Arab society.

Hopefully, the present study will inspire further research in this area, as well as the continued implementation of RJ processes in cases of intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexual abuse, as well as in others.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Inbal Peleg-Koriat

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Inbal Peleg-Koriat, is a lawyer, senior lecturer, and faculty member in the Department of Criminology at the Yezreel Valley Academic College. She earned her PhD from the Conflict Resolution, Management and Negotiation Graduate Program at Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Her research focuses on therapeutic jurisprudence and restorative justice, particularly in prison settings and in cases involving sexual victimization.

Appendix A: Questionnaire Scenarios

Appendix B: Description of Restorative Justice

Restorative justice is an approach from the field of criminal law that focuses on the needs of perpetrators and victims, rather than the need to punish the offender to the letter of the law. The main goal of the restorative justice procedure is to redress the harm caused to individuals as a result of a criminal offense. This goal is achieved through a guided, fair dialogue between the parties affected, which is similar to the mediation process, with one crucial difference: the parties are not equal as their identities as perpetrator and victim are clear. Healing the vulnerability is enabled when the offender recognizes the act and the harm as well as the victim's consequent needs, accepts responsibility, and acts to meet them (for example, by providing financial compensation, apology, and community service). The process takes place only with the consent of the parties involved and can either complement or replace the legal process.

References

Abu-Baker

(2013). Arab parents’ reactions to child sexual abuse: A review of clinical records. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 22(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2013.744378

Adriaenssen

Aertsen

(2015). Punitive attitudes: Towards an operationalization to measure individual punitivity in a multidimensional way. European Journal of Criminology, 12(1), 92–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370814535376

Al-Krenawi

(2009). The epidemiology of mental health disorders among Arabs in Israel. In Levav

(Ed.), Psychiatric and behavioral disorders in Israel: From epidemiology to mental health action (pp. 75–87). Ministry of Health.

Alter

A. L.

Kernochan

Darley

J. M.

(2007). Transgression wrongfulness outweighs its harmfulness as a determinant of sentence severity. Law and Human Behavior, 31(4), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9060-x

Antfolk

Karlsson

Bäckström Santtila

(2012). Disgust elicited by third-party incest: The roles of biological relatedness, co-residence, and family relationship. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(3), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2011.09.005

Attrash-Najjar

Katz

(2023). Child sexual abuse studies in Arab societies: A systematic review and directions for future research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(3), 1300–1324. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211061773

Bartels

Gelb

Spiranovic

Warner

Roberts

Davis

(2021). What does the public think about sex offender registers? Findings from a national Australian study. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28(4), 560–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1805813

Ben-Porat

Yuval

(2012). Minorities in democracy and policing policy: From alienation to cooperation. Policing and Society, 22(2), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2011.636814

Braithwaite

(1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge University Press.

10.

Braithwaite

(2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. Oxford University Press.

11.

Braithwaite

Mugford

(1994). Conditions of successful reintegration ceremonies: Dealing with juvenile offenders. The British Journal of Criminology, 34(2), 139–171. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048400

12.

Central Bureau of Statistics Estimates . (2022). https://www.cbs.gov.il/en/mediarelease/pages/2021/population-of-israel-on-the-eve-of-2022.aspx

13.

Chiu

Dweck

C. S.

Tong

J. Y.

J. H.

(1997). Implicit theories and conceptions of morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 923–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.923

14.

Clark

L. M.

(2007). Landlord attitudes toward renting to released offenders. Federal Probation, 71(1), 20–30.

15.

Daly

Curtis-Fawley

(2006). Justice for victims of sexual assault: Court or conference? In Heimer

Kruttschnitt

(Eds.), Gender and crime: Patterns of victimization and offending (pp. 230–265). NYU Press.

16.

Davies

Rogers

(2009). Perceptions of blame and credibility toward victims of childhood sexual abuse: Differences across victim age, victim-perpetrator relationship, and respondent gender in a depicted case. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18(1), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538710802584668

17.

Diab

Sandler-Loeff

(2011). Mental health and mental disorders in Arab society in Israel. Status quo in the Triangle region. JDC-Israel (Hebrew).

18.

Dweck

C. S.

Chiu

C. Y.

Hong

Y. Y.

(1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1

19.

Einat

Lallo

(2011). To punish or not to punish – that is the question: Students’ attitudes toward the punishment of offenders. Crimes and Penalties in Israel: Theory and Practice, 14, 199–213. (Hebrew).

20.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses usingG Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

21.

Fuselier

D. A.

Durham

R. L.

Wurtele

S. K.

(2002). The child sexual abuser: Perceptions of college students and professionals. Sexual Abuse, 14(3), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320301400306

22.

Gal

(2015). Evidence-based legislation or promise-based legislation: Organizing restorative justice procedures for youth justice-involved. In Elisha

Timor

Ben Baruch

(Eds.), Youth in chaos: Juvenile delinquents in Israel— prevention, enforcement, and rehabilitation (pp. 234–267). Magnes (Hebrew).

23.

Haboush

K. L.

Alyan

(2013). “Who can you tell?” Features of Arab culture that influence conceptualization and treatment of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 22(5), 499–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2013.800935

24.

Haj-Yahia

M. M.

Tamish

(2001). The rates of child sexual abuse and its psychological consequences as revealed by a study among Palestinian university students. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(10), 1303–1327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00277-0

25.

Harper

C. A.

Bartels

R. M.

(2017). The influence of implicit theories and offender characteristics on judgments of sexual offenders: A moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 23(2), 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2016.1250963

26.

Harris

Maruna

(2005). Shame, shaming and restorative justice: A critical appraisal. In Sullivan

Tifft

(Eds.), Handbook of restorative justice: A global perspective (pp. 452–462). Routledge.

27.

Hartley

Bartels

R. M.

(2022). Public perception of men who have committed intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexual offenses against children. Sexual Abuse, 34(8), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1177/10790632211062188

28.

Hasan

(2003). The politics of honor: Patriarchy, the state and the murder of women in the name of family honor. In Naveh

(Ed.), Israeli Family and community: Women’s time (pp. 1–38). Vallentine Mitchel.

29.

Hasisi

Weisburd

(2014). Policing terrorism and police–community relations: Views of the arab minority in Israel. Police Practice and Research, 15(2), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2013.874173

30.

Hayes

Daly

(2003). Youth justice conferencing and reoffending. Justice Quarterly, 20(4), 725–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820300095681

31.

Herman

J. L.

(2005). Justice from the victim’s perspective. Violence Against Women, 11(5), 571–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801205274450

32.

Indermaur

Roberts

Spiranovic

Mackenzie

Gelb

(2012). A matter of judgement: The effect of information and deliberation on public attitudes to punishment. Punishment & Society, 14(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474511434430

33.

Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. (2020). Population of Israel on the eve of 2021. https://www.cbs.gov.il/en/mediarelease/Pages/2020/ Population-of-Israel-on-the-Eve-of-2021.aspx

34.

Jenkins

(1998). Moral panic: Changing concepts of the child molester in modern America. Yale University Press.

35.

Jülich

(2006). Views of justice among survivors of historical child sexual abuse: Implications for restorative justice in New Zealand. Theoretical Criminology, 10(1), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480606059988

36.

Jülich

(2010). Restorative justice and gendered violence in New Zealand. In Ptacek

(Ed.), Restorative justice and violence against women (pp. 239–254). Oxford University Press.

37.

Keenan

Zinsstag

(2014). Restorative justice and sexual offenses: Can changing lenses be appropriate in this case too? Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform, 97(1), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.1515/mks-2014-970113

38.

Kernsmith

P. D.

Craun

S. W.

Foster

(2009). Public attitudes toward sexual offenders and sex offender registration. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 18(3), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538710902901663

39.

Kite

Tyson

G. A.

(2004). The impact of perpetrator gender on male and female police officers’ perceptions of child sexual abuse. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 11(2), 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1375/pplt.2004.11.2.308

40.

Klar-Chalamish

Peleg-Koriat

(2021). From trauma to recovery: Restorative justice conferencing in cases of adult survivors of intrafamilial sexual offenses. Journal of Family Violence, 36(8), 1057–1068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00239-0

41.

Koss

M. P.

(2014). The RESTORE program of restorative justice for sex crimes: Vision, process, and outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(9), 1623–1660. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513511537

42.

Koss

M. P.

Achilles

(2008). Restorative justice responses to sexual assault. National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women. http://www.antoniocasella.eu/restorative/Koss_Achilles_2011.pdf

43.

Kulik

Walfisch

Liberman

(2016). Spousal conflict resolution strategies and marital relations in late adulthood. Personal Relationships, 23(3), 456–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12137

44.

Kutateladze

Crossman

A. M.

(2009). An exploratory analysis of gender differences in punitiveness in two countries. International Criminal Justice Review, 19(3), 322–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567709338921

45.

Lavee

Katz

(2003). Division of labor, perceived fairness, and marital quality: The effect of gender ideology. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00027.x

46.

Magalhães

Taveira

Jardim

Santos

Matos

Santos

(2009). Sexual abuse of children: A comparative study of intra and extra-familial cases. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 16(8), 455–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2009.05.007

47.

Mancini

Shields

R. T.

Mears

D. P.

Beaver

K. M.

(2010). Sex offender residence restriction laws: Parental perceptions and public policy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 1022–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.07.004

48.

Marsh

Wager

N. M.

(2015). Restorative justice in cases of sexual violence: Exploring the views of the public and survivors. Probation Journal, 62(4), 336–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/026455051561957

49.

McCoy

M. L.

Gray

J. M.

(2007). The impact of defendant gender and relationship to victim on juror decisions in a child sexual abuse case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(7), 1489–1500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00223.x

50.

McGlynn

Westmarland

(2019). Kaleidoscopic justice: Sexual violence and victim-survivors’ perceptions of justice. Social & Legal Studies, 28(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663918761200

51.

McGlynn

Westmarland

Godden

(2012). “I just wanted him to hear me”: Sexual violence and the possibilities of restorative justice. Journal of Law and Society, 39(2), 213–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2012.00579.x

52.

Mika

Achilles

Halbert

Amstutz

L. S.

Zehr

(2002). Taking victims and their stories seriously: A listening project. Mennonite Central Committee USA.

53.

Miller

S. L.

(2011). After the crime. NYU Press.

54.

Moore

K. E.

Milam

K. C.

Folk

J. B.

Tangney

J. P.

(2018). Self-stigma among criminal offenders: Risk and protective factors. Stigma and Health, 3(3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000092

55.

Morris

(2002). Children and family violence: Restorative messages from New Zealand. In Strang

Braithwaite

(Eds.), Restorative justice and family violence (pp. 89–107). Cambridge University Press.

56.

Moss

S. A.

Lee

Berman

Rung

(2019). When do people value rehabilitation and restorative justice over the punishment of offenders? Victims & Offenders, 14(1), 32–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2018.1539688

57.

Nanes

M. J.

(2020). Policing in divided societies: Officer inclusion, citizen cooperation, and crime prevention. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 37(5), 580–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894218802580

58.

Payne

B. K.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

(2010). Attitudes about rehabilitating sex offenders: Demographic, victimization, and community-level influences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 580–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.029

59.

Peleg-Koriat

Klar-Chalamish

(2020). The #MeToo movement and restorative justice: Exploring the views of the public. Contemporary Justice Review, 23(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2020.1783257

60.

Peleg-Koriat

Klar-Chalamish

(2022). Sexual offense victims’ responses to the question #WhyIDidntReport? Examining restorative justice as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 40(3), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21369

61.

Peleg-Koriat

Weimann-Saks

Halperin

(2020). The moderating role of psychological distance on the impact of malleability beliefs on public attitudes toward punishment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 59(7), 416–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2020.1784349

62.

Pely

Luzon

(2018). The Muslim/Arab sulha and the restorative justice model same purpose, different approach. Cardozo Law Review, 19(2), 289–307. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/cardcore19&div=18&id=&page=

63.

Pickett

J. T.

Mancini

Mears

D. P.

(2013). Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: Explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 51(3), 729–759. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12018

64.

Rade

C. B.

Desmarais

S. L.

Burnette

J. L.

(2018). An integrative theoretical model of public support for ex-offender reentry. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(8), 2131–2152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17714110

65.

Raheb

(2002). Sailing through troubled waters: Palestinian Christians in the Holy Land. Dialog, 41(2), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6385.00105

66.

Reynolds

L. L.

Birkimer

J. C.

(2002). Perceptions of child sexual abuse: Victim and perpetrator characteristics, treatment efficacy, and lay vs. legal opinions of abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 11(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v11n01_03

67.

Richards

McCartan

(2018). Public views about reintegrating child sex offenders via circles of support and accountability (COSA): A qualitative analysis. Deviant Behavior, 39(3), 400–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1304800

68.

Roberts

J. V.

Stalans

L. J.

Indermaur

Hough

(2002). Penal populism and public opinion: Lessons from five countries. Oxford University Press.

69.

Roche

(2003). Accountability in restorative justice. Oxford University Press.

70.

Rydell

R. J.

Hugenberg

Ray

Mackie

D. M.

(2007). Implicit theories about groups and stereotyping: The role of group entitativity. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(4), 549–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206296956

71.

Sampson

(1994). Acts of abuse: Sex offenders and the criminal justice system. Routledge.

72.

Sánchez-Meca

Rosa-Alcázar

A. I.

López-Soler

(2011). The psychological treatment of sexual abuse in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 11(1), 67–93.

73.

Schiller

Baumgartner

Knoch

(2014). Intergroup bias in third-party punishment stems from both ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35(3), 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.12.006

74.

Seto

M. C.

Babchishin

K. M.

Pullman

L. E.

Mcphail

I. V.

(2015). The puzzle of intrafamilial child sexual abuse: A meta-analysis comparing intrafamilial and extrafamilial offenders with child victims. Clinical Psychology Review, 39, 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.04.001

75.

Shalhoub-Kevorkian

(2005). Disclosure of child abuse in conflict areas. Violence Against Women, 11(10), 1263–1291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801205280180

76.

Shapland

(2014). Implications of growth: Challenges for restorative justice. International Review of Victimology, 20(1), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758013510808

77.

Sharabi

Shdema

Abboud-Armaly

(2020). Nonfinancial employment commitment among Muslims and Jews in Israel: Examination of the core–periphery model on majority and minority groups. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 43(1), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-12-2019-0486

78.

Sparks

(2021). Attitudes towards the punishment of juvenile and adult sexual offender in Canada: The roles of sentencing goals and criminal justice motivations. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 30(2), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2020.1862947

79.

Stern

B. V.

(2010). The Stern review: A report by baroness Vivien Stern CBE of an independent review into how rape complaints are handled by public authorities in England and Wales. Government Equalities Office and Home Office.

80.

Tajfel

(1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245

81.

Tam

Shu

H. K.

Tong

(2013). Belief about immutability of moral character and punitiveness towards criminal offenders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(3), 603–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2013.01041.x

82.

Tener

Katz

(2021). Space-time, offender, others and me: Towards a conceptual model of child sexual abuse based on survivors’ perspectives. Children and Youth Services Review, 120, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105800

83.

Toren

T. Y.

(2015). Theoretical and practical aspects of positive victimology. In Ronel

Segev

(Eds.), Positive criminology (pp. 237–249). Routledge.

84.

Umbreit

M. S.

Armour

M. P.

(2010). Restorative justice dialogue: An essential guide for research and practice. Springer.

85.

Usta

Farver

(2010). Child sexual abuse in Lebanon during war and peace. Child: Care, Health and Development, 36(3), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01082.x

86.

Walgrave

(2013). Restorative justice, self-interest and responsible citizenship. Willan.

87.

Warr

(1989). What is the perceived seriousness of crimes? Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27(4), 795–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1989.tb01055.x

88.

Weimann-Saks

Peleg-Koriat

Halperin

(2019). The effect of malleability beliefs and emotions on legal decision making. Justice System Journal, 40(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1590264

89.

Weimann-Saks

Peleg-Koriat

Halperin

(2022). Incremental beliefs and public attitudes toward restorative justice: The cases of sexual, violent and property offenses. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 61(4), 169–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2022.2062518

90.

Wenzel

Thielmann

(2006). Why we punish in the name of justice: Just desert versus value restoration and the role of social identity. Social Justice Research, 19(4), 450–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0028-2

91.

Westermarck

(1891). The history of human marriage. Macmillan & Co.

92.

Wurtele

S. K.

(2021). “They’re not monsters!” Changing university students’ perceptions of child sex offenders through education and contact. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 32(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2021.1892159

93.

Yeager

D. S.

Johnson

Spitzer

B. J.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

Powers

Dweck

C. S.

(2014). The far-reaching effects of believing people can change: Implicit theories of personality shape stress, health, and achievement during adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(6), 867–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036335a

94.

Zehr

(2002). The little book of restorative justice. Good Books.

95.

Zehr

Mika

(2003). Fundamental concepts of restorative justice. In McLaughlin

Fergusson

Hughes

Westmarland

(Eds.), Restorative justice: Critical issues (pp. 40–43). Sage & Open University.

Ethnic Differences in Support for Restorative Justice in Sexual Abuse Cases: The Role of Offense Severity and Malleability Beliefs

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Restorative Justice in Sexual Abuse Cases

Public Attitudes Toward Restorative Justice in Sexual Abuse Cases

Attitudes Toward Restorative Justice in Intrafamilial and Extrafamilial Sexual Abuse

Perceived Severity of Sexual Offenses, Malleability Beliefs, and Support for Restorative Justice

Ethnicity and Attitudes Toward Restorative Justice in Sexual Abuse

The Present Study

Method

Participants

Measures

Procedure

Data Analysis

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Hypothesis Testing

Discussion

Limitations and Future Directions

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Author Biography

Appendix A: Questionnaire Scenarios

Appendix B: Description of Restorative Justice

References