UMD Theses and Dissertations
Permanent URI for this collectionhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/3
New submissions to the thesis/dissertation collections are added automatically as they are received from the Graduate School. Currently, the Graduate School deposits all theses and dissertations from a given semester after the official graduation date. This means that there may be up to a 4 month delay in the appearance of a given thesis/dissertation in DRUM.
More information is available at Theses and Dissertations at University of Maryland Libraries.
Browse
4 results
Search Results
Item POWER AND STATUS IN JUDGING AND PUNISHING IMMORALITY(2018) Ho, Hsiang-Yuan; Lucas, Jeffrey W.; Sociology; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)This research offers a framework that explains how observers respond to moral violations when considering the amount of power and status held by violators. It follows the group processes literature on the characteristics of power and status. A proposed theory describes that prior to witnessing moral violations, observers develop moral expectations about potential violators on the basis of the levels of power and status attributed to the violators. When the moral violations occur, the moral expectations about the violators, as well as the resources available to the violators, in turn, affect the judgment and punishment decisions of the observers toward the violators. An online vignette study and a laboratory experiment test my predictions based on the proposed theory by varying the relative levels of perceived power and status between evaluation targets (i.e., violators) and evaluators (i.e., observers). Vignettes used in Study 1 described that observers had lower, equal, or higher power/status compared to violators in hypothetical scenarios. In Study 2, observers were assigned with either lower or higher power/status relative to violators in a group interaction setting in which the observers experienced differential risks of retaliation from the violators. Both studies assessed expectations of observers about the moral character of potential violators before exposing the observers to details of a moral violation committed by the designated violators. Punishment decisions of observers examined in Study 1 were attitudinal measures while those in Study 2 were based on behavioral reactions. Results indicate that prior to the immoral incident, observers developed lower moral expectations about violators with greater power and higher moral expectations about violators holding greater status. However, these expectations did not always translate into moral judgment and punishment. While viewing the violation as immoral regardless of power/status held by the violators, depending on the context, observers might or might not penalize the violators differentially across the power/status spectra. Fears of retaliation from violators who utilized resources attached to varied power and status positions did not affect how observers punished the violators. Therefore, results of the studies suggest a resilient power and status hierarchy despite the disruption of moral norms.Item A Tale of Two Crimes: An Analysis of Criminal Sentencing of White-Collar and Street Offenders(2015) Testa, Alexander; Simpson, Sally; Criminology and Criminal Justice; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)Though a long-standing history of scholarship has sought to understand the potential for disparities in criminal punishment based on ascribed status characteristics, contemporary research has largely ignored the ways in which punishment outcomes varies across offenders convicted of offenses traditionally viewed as either white-collar or street crimes. Using data from United States federal district courts from fiscal years 2008-2010, this research expands upon current knowledge by comparing embezzlement and larceny offenders in federal criminal courts across a variety of punishment processes and outcomes. The findings suggest a substantial degree of variation in punishment severity between embezzlement and larceny offenders across modes of punishment. Generally, the question of whether white-collar offenders are treated severely, leniently, or about the same as compared to non-violent property offenders is largely dependent upon the outcome of interest and the specific types of offenses included in the analysis.Item Examining General Deterrence Using Data from the National Football League(2014) Greenman, Sarah; Paternoster, Raymond; Criminology and Criminal Justice; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)To date, research studies have found only mild support for classic deterrence theory with the greatest support for increased certainty, little support for increased severity, and scant research on the effect of increased celerity. Much of this prior literature has used scenario-based data, relied heavily on student samples, and explored rule breaking behavior over relatively short time periods. Finally, the slow pace of punishment within the criminal justice system potentially reduces any existing deterrent effect of the certainty and severity of punishment. This dissertation seeks to address these limitations of prior deterrence studies by using 13 years of data (2000-2012) from the National Football League consisting of rule breakers who are punished with penalties and monetary fines almost immediately upon discovery of the infraction. The main question driving this research is whether there is evidence of general deterrence. Specifically, this dissertation seeks to determine whether prior punishment reduces current rule-breaking behavior. To address this question, this research explores the effect of on-field penalties and post-game fines on behavior within the National Football League at both the league and team levels. The dataset has several rare characteristics including: large variety and detail in the types of punishment administered, an opportunity to directly observe the effect of punishment, the near immediate imposition of punishment, and the transmission of almost perfect information about punishment. The primary finding is that there is no evidence of general deterrence in the National Football League, independent of control variables. Specifically, penalties and fines do not appear to prevent future rule breaking behavior. In general, when controlling for particular seasons, opponents, or the record of a team, the effects of penalties and fines loose significance and approach zero. The different controls for seasons, opponents, or record are fairly consistent in their statistical significance for all penalties and violent penalties, although it appears that violent penalties vary less according to these outside factors than all types of penalties. In sum, this dissertation finds no evidence that punishment affects future rule-breaking behavior at either the team or league level and thus, does not provide support for general deterrence.Item Alternatives to punishment: Counterterrorism strategies in Algeria(2009) Lesniewicz, Amber Lee Stoesser; LaFree, Gary D; Criminology and Criminal Justice; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)Rational choice theory has been one of the key theories used to explain the effectiveness of counterterrorism policies (Dugan, LaFree & Piquero, 2005; Enders & Sandler, 1993; 2003; Frey, 2004; LaFree, Dugan & Korte, 2009). These investigations have examined policies focused on increasing the costs of committing political violence, such as criminalization, increased police presence, and government strikes. However, few investigations have looked at policies that increase the benefits of not committing political violence such as negotiations and amnesties. In this study, I investigate the effectiveness of counterterrorism policies that seek to increase the benefits of not committing terrorism. I use Algeria as a case study and examine three counterterrorism policies between 1994 and 2004. One of the policies is a traditionally deterrent policy that increases the consequences of committing terrorism while the two other policies represent alternatively deterrent policies that increase the benefits of not committing terrorism. To analyze these policies, I use ARIMA modeling (N=120 months) and the Global Terrorism Database to determine whether each policy led to a significant change in overall attacks and the proportion of fatal attacks. While researchers have found mixed results when studying the effectives of traditional deterrence counterterrorist measures (Dugan, LaFree & Piquero; Enders & Sandler, 1993; Enders, Sandler & Cauley, 1990; LaFree, Dugan & Korte, 2009), I found that the Civil Concord Act, an amnesty program, as well as the Rome Platform, a negotiation policy, were related to a significant reduction in terrorism in Algeria.