Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/3675
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMurray, Jenniferen_UK
dc.contributor.authorThomson, Mary Een_UK
dc.contributor.authorCooke, David Jen_UK
dc.contributor.authorCharles, Kathy Een_UK
dc.date.accessioned2014-09-14T15:20:54Z-
dc.date.available2014-09-14T15:20:54Zen_UK
dc.date.issued2013-02en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/3675-
dc.description.abstractPurpose. The present research investigated the relationship between underlying justice and vengeance motivations and sentencing recommendations made by expert clinicians, semi-experts, and lay-people. It was hypothesized that the semi-experts would recommend significantly different sentence lengths from those recommended by the expert and lay-person groups, in line with previous research findings. It was also hypothesized that justice and vengeance motivations would be related to punitive sentencing recommendations, and that these would not be the same across the three levels of expertise. Method. An independent groups design was utilized in the main analysis, with participants belonging to three distinct levels of clinical experience (experts, semi-experts, and lay-people). A questionnaire was administered, with participants being measured on levels of justice and vengeance motivations, and asked to recommend appropriate sentence lengths based on nine separate crime-scenarios. These covariables were correlated and the correlation coefficients were compared across the three levels of expertise. Results. The former hypothesis was not upheld. Findings do, however, support the latter hypothesis, with the key finding indicating that for both justice and vengeance motivations in punitive judgement, it is the lay-participants who appear distinct from the experts and semi-experts. Conclusions. The current findings emphasize that while expert and lay-person judgements may often appear to be the same, different processes and motivations underlying clinical judgements are occurring at the different stages of expertise. With the differences in the relationships between justice and vengeance motivations and judgements found in the current research, it is argued that expert and lay judgements that appear to be the same are, in fact, distinguishable and are related to quite different underlying motivations and decision-making processes.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell / The British Psychological Societyen_UK
dc.relationMurray J, Thomson ME, Cooke DJ & Charles KE (2013) Investigating the relationship between justice-vengeance motivations and punitive sentencing recommendations. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18 (1), pp. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02021.xen_UK
dc.rightsThe publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author; you can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/under-embargo-all-rights-reserveden_UK
dc.subjectjusticeen_UK
dc.subjectvengeanceen_UK
dc.subjectsentencingen_UK
dc.subjectpunitive decision-makingen_UK
dc.titleInvestigating the relationship between justice-vengeance motivations and punitive sentencing recommendationsen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.rights.embargodate2999-12-29en_UK
dc.rights.embargoreason[Investigating the Relationship.pdf] The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository therefore there is an embargo on the full text of the work.en_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02021.xen_UK
dc.citation.jtitleLegal and Criminological Psychologyen_UK
dc.citation.issn2044-8333en_UK
dc.citation.issn1355-3259en_UK
dc.citation.volume18en_UK
dc.citation.issue1en_UK
dc.citation.spage1en_UK
dc.citation.epage15en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.author.emailjennifer.murray@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationNMAHPen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationGlasgow Caledonian Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationGlasgow Caledonian Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationEdinburgh Napier Universityen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000313830800001en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84872875870en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid814819en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2013-02-28en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2012-02-29en_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorMurray, Jennifer|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorThomson, Mary E|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorCooke, David J|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorCharles, Kathy E|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2999-12-29en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/under-embargo-all-rights-reserved||en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameInvestigating the Relationship.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
local.rioxx.source1355-3259en_UK
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Investigating the Relationship.pdfFulltext - Published Version562.22 kBAdobe PDFUnder Embargo until 2999-12-29    Request a copy


This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.