Although the use of person-centered language has increased in recent years, its usage remains limited within the field of criminal justice, wherein terms such as ex-offender are frequently used to describe formerly incarcerated individuals. Research suggests that person-centered language matters for public opinion, but prior work has not examined the effect of language on support for the social reintegration of returning citizens. The present research experimentally manipulates the effects of the language used to describe individuals released from incarceration and the race of a hypothetical returning citizen on the following outcomes: negative stereotype endorsement, attitudinal social distance, and support for reintegrative initiatives. I find that person-centered language significantly reduces stigmatization of returning citizens, which ultimately increases support for reintegrative services. These findings suggest that humanizing changes to criminal justice discourse may have the capacity to shift public opinion and create a social context more conducive to reintegration after incarceration.
AbrahamLAppiahO (2006) Framing news stories: The role of visual imagery in priming racial stereotypes. The Howard Journal of Communications17(3): 183–203.
2.
AlexanderM (2010) The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: The New Press.
3.
AlperMDuroseMRMarkmanJ (2018) 2018update on prisoner recidivism: A 9-year follow-up period (2005–2014). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available at:https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf(accessed Aug 15, 2020).
4.
AustinR (2001) Crime statistics, disparate impact analysis, and the economic disenfranchisement of minority ex-offenders. Race & Society4(2): 177–193.
5.
BandaraSNMcGintyEEBarryCL (2020) Message framing to reduce stigma and increase support for policies to improve the wellbeing of people with prior drug convictions. International Journal of Drug Policy76: 102643.
6.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (2009) Agendas and Instability in American Politics, 2nd ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
BeckettKBeachLKnaphusE, et al. (2018) US criminal justice policy and practice in the twenty-first century: Toward the end of mass incarceration?Law & Policy40(4): 321–345.
8.
BerinskyAJMargolisMFSancesMW (2014) Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys. American Journal of Political Science58(3): 739–753.
9.
BrownEKSociaKM (2017) Twenty-first century punitiveness: Social sources of punitive American views reconsidered. Journal of Quantitative Criminology33: 935–959.
10.
BurtonALBurtonVS JrCullenFT, et al. (2020) Beyond the New Jim Crow: Public support for removing and regulating collateral consequences. Federal Probation84(3): 19–33.
CerdaJAStenstromDMCurtisM (2015) The role of type of offense and work qualifications on perceived employability of former offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice40(2): 317–335.
13.
Cerda-JaraMCzifraSGalindoA, et al. (2019) Language Guide for Communicating About Those Involved in the Carceral System. Berkeley, CA: Underground Scholars Initiative, UC Berkeley.
14.
ChiricosTEschholzS (2002) The racial and ethnic typification of crime and the criminal typification of race and ethnicity in local television news. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency39(4): 400–420.
15.
ChiricosTWelchKGertzM (2004) Racial typification of crime and support for punitive measures. Criminology42(2): 359–389.
16.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2007) Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science10: 103–126.
17.
ClearTR (2007) Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse. New York: Oxford University Press.
18.
CoppockA (2019) Generalizing from survey experiments conducted on mechanical Turk: A replication approach. Political Science Research and Methods7(3): 613–628.
19.
CoppockALeeperTJMullinixKJ (2018) Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115(49): 12441–12446.
20.
CoxA (2020) The language of incarceration. Incarceration1(1): 1–13.
21.
CullenFTFisherBSApplegateBK (2000) Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice27: 1–79.
22.
DearM (1992) Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association58(3): 288–300.
23.
DenverMPickettJTBushwaySD (2017) The language of stigmatization and the mark of violence: Experimental evidence on the social construction and use of criminal record stigma. Criminology55(3): 664–690.
24.
DomkeD (2001) Racial cues and political ideology: An examination of associative priming. Communication Research28(6): 772–801.
25.
EnnsPK (2016) Incarceration Nation: How the United States Became the Most Punitive Democracy in the World. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
EntmanRMRojeckiA (2001) The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
FreedmanDA (2008) On regression adjustments to experimental data. Advances in Applied Mathematics40(2): 180–193.
28.
GarlandBWodahlESaxonC (2017) What influences public support of transitional housing facilities for offenders during reentry?Criminal Justice Policy Review28(1): 18–40.
29.
GarlandBWodahlESchuhmannR (2013) Value conflict and public opinion toward prisoner reentry initiatives. Criminal Justice Policy Review24(1): 27–48.
30.
GilensM (1999) Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
GilliamFDIyengarS (2000) Prime suspects: The influence of local television news on the viewing public. American Journal of Political Science44(3): 560–573.
32.
GoffmanE (1963) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
33.
GottliebA (2017) The effect of message frames on public attitudes toward criminal justice reform for nonviolent offenses. Crime and Delinquency63(5): 636–656.
34.
GottschalkM (2016) Caught: The Prison State and the Lockdown of American Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
35.
HardcastleLBartholemewTGraffamJ (2011) Legislative and community support for offender reintegration in Victoria. Deakin Law Review16(1): 111–132.
36.
HarrisAJSociaKM (2016) What’s in a name? Evaluating the effects of the “sex offender” label on public opinions and beliefs. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment28(7): 660–678.
37.
HayesAFPreacherKJ (2014) Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology67: 451–470.
38.
HenryPJSearsDO (2002) The Symbolic Racism 2000 scale. Political Psychology23(2): 253–283.
39.
HippJRPetersiliaJTurnerS (2010) Parolee recidivism in California: The effect of neighborhood context and social service agency characteristics. Criminology48(4): 947–979.
HuberGALapinskiJS (2006) The ‘race card’ revisited: Assessing racial priming in policy contests. American Journal of Political Science50(2): 421–440.
42.
JohnstonTWozniakKH (2021) Public opinion and the politics of collateral consequence policies. Punishment & Society23(2): 190–217.
43.
KinderDRSandersLM (1996) Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44.
LagesonSEDenverMPickettJT (2019) Privatizing criminal stigma: Experience, intergroup contact, and public views about publicizing arrest records. Punishment & Society21(3): 315–341.
45.
LagesonSEMarunaS (2018) Digital degradation: Stigma management in the internet age. Punishment & Society20(1): 113–133.
46.
LeverentzA (2011) Neighborhood context of attitudes toward crime and reentry. Punishment & Society13(1): 64–92.
47.
LinW (2013) Agnostic notes on regression adjustments to experimental data: Reexamining Freedman’s critique. The Annals of Applied Statistics7(1): 295–318.
48.
LinkBGPhelanJC (2001) Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology27: 363–385.
49.
LinkBGPhelanJCBresnahanM, et al. (1999) Public conceptions of mental illness: Labels, causes, dangerousness, and social distance. American Journal of Public Health89(9): 1328–1333.
ManzaJBrooksCUggenC (2004) Public attitudes toward felon disenfranchisement in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly68(2): 275–286.
52.
MendelbergT (2001) The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
53.
MuhammadKG (2010) The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
54.
MullinixKJLeeperTJDruckmanJN, et al. (2015) The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science2(2): 109–138.
55.
OuelletteHMApplegateBKVukM (2017) The public’s stance on prisoner reentry: Policy support and personal acceptance. American Journal of Criminal Justice42(4): 768–789.
56.
PagerD (2007) Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
57.
PagerDWesternBSugieN (2009) Sequencing disadvantage: Barriers to employment facing young black and white men with criminal records. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Social and Political Science623(1): 195–213.
58.
PeerEVosgerauJAcquistiA (2014) Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods46(4): 1023–1031.
59.
PeffleyMHurwitzJ (2002) The racial components of ‘race-neutral’ crime policy attitudes. Political Psychology23(1): 59–75.
60.
PeffleyMHurwitzJ (2009) Racial stereotyping and political attitudes: The view from political science. In: BorgidaEFedericoCMSullivanJL (eds) The Political Psychology of Democratic Citizenship. New York: Oxford University Press, 247–274.
61.
PeffleyMHurwitzJ (2010) Justice in America: The Separate Realities of Blacks and Whites. New York: Cambridge University Press.
62.
PettitBWesternB (2004) Mass imprisonment and the life course: Race and class inequality in U.S. incarceration. American Sociological Review69(2): 151–169.
63.
RadeCBDesmaraisSLBurnetteJL (2018) An integrative theoretical model of public support for ex-offender reentry. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology62(8): 2131–2152.
64.
RadeCBDesmaraisSLMitchellRE (2016) A meta-analysis of public attitudes toward ex-offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior43(9): 1260–1280.
65.
Russell-BrownK (1998) The Color of Crime: Racial Hoaxes, White Fear, Black Protectionism, Police Harassment and Other Microaggressions. New York: New York University Press.
66.
SampsonRJLoefflerC (2010) Punishment’s place: The local concentration of mass incarceration. Daedalus139(3): 20–31.
67.
SampsonRJRaudenbushSWEarlsF (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science277(5328): 918–924.
68.
SeedsC (2017) Bifurcation nation: American penal policy in late mass incarceration. Punishment & Society19(5): 590–610.
69.
SimesJT (2018) Place and punishment: The spatial context of mass incarceration. Journal of Quantitative Criminology34(2): 513–533.
70.
SlovicPFinucaneMLPetersE, et al. (2007) The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research177: 1333–1352.
71.
SociaKMDumCPRydbergJ (2019) Turning a blind eye: Public support of emergency housing policies for sex offenders. Sexual Abuse31(1): 25–49.
72.
SugieNFZatzNDAugustineD (2020) Employer aversion to criminal records: An experimental study of mechanisms. Criminology58(1): 5–34.
73.
ThompsonAJPickettJT (2020) Are relational inferences from crowdsourced and opt-in samples generalizable? Comparing criminal justice attitudes in the GSS and five online samples. Journal of Quantitative Criminology36: 907–932.
74.
TravisJ (2002) Invisible punishment: An instrument of social exclusion. In: MauerMChesney-LindM (eds) Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment. New York: The New Press, 15–36.
75.
TravisJWesternBRedburnS (eds) (2014) The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
76.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1974) Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science185: 1124–1131.
77.
UggenCStewartR (2015) Piling on: Collateral consequences and community supervision. Minnesota Law Review99(1): 1871–1910.
78.
UnneverJDCullenFT (2010) The social sources of Americans’ punitiveness: A test of three competing models. Criminology48(1): 99–129.
79.
VaughanTJHolleranLBSilverJR (2019) Applying moral foundations theory to the explanation of capital jurors’ sentencing decisions. Justice Quarterly36(7): 1176–1205.
80.
WakefieldSUggenC (2010) Incarceration and stratification. Annual Review of Sociology36(1): 387–406.
81.
WarrMEllisonCG (2000) Rethinking social reactions to crime: Personal and altruistic fear in family households. American Journal of Sociology106(3): 551–578.
82.
WelchK (2007) Black criminal stereotypes and racial profiling. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice23(3): 276–288.
83.
WesternB (2006) Punishment and Inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
84.
WesternB (2018) Homeward: Life in the Year After Prison. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
85.
WesternBKlingJRWeimanDF (2001) The labor market consequences of incarceration. Crime & Delinquency47(3): 410–427.
86.
WhiteIK (2007) When race matters and when it doesn’t: Racial group differences in response to racial cues. American Political Science Review101(2): 339–354.
87.
WozniakKH (2020) Public discussion about critical issues in criminal justice reform. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology8(4): 401–429.
88.
YoungJ (1999) The Exclusive Society: Social Exclusion, Crime and Difference in Late Modernity. London: Sage Publications.
89.
ZhaoXLynchJGChenQ (2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research37(2): 197–206.
