Lyon (1998) found that 84% of recorded crime was committed by males and males make up 96% of the prison population in England and Wales. This brings us to the aim of this survey. It’s predicted females will be less satisfied with prison sentencing as a punishment of crime, and will want harsher punishment and change, as they commit less crime, and therefore have less reasons to be feared of prison. Therefore the experimental hypothesis is: ‘Females will be less satisfied than males with prison sentencing as a punishment of crime’. The null hypothesis is: ‘There will be no difference in male and female attitudes towards prison sentencing as a punishment of crime’.
METHOD
DESIGN
An experimental, between subjects design was used, as an independent and dependent variable were present and attitudes towards prison sentencing were compared between genders. The independent variable (IV) was the gender of participants. The dependent variable (DV) was how satisfied a participant was towards prison sentencing, as a punishment of crime, determined by points on a questionnaire.
PARTICIPANTS
Participants were selected using opportunity sampling. The sample consisted of 16 students (8 male, 8 female). Participants were aged 18-40 years old.
APPARATUS/MATERIALS
The main material was a questionnaire to assess attitudes towards prison sentencing (see appendix 1 for questionnaire). A pen was needed to complete the questionnaire. A calculator was used to total scores for each answer on the questionnaire to give an overall score.
PROCEDURE
A questionnaire was devised and piloted, using opportunity sampling. 5 female students were surveyed to identify any problem questions. As a result of the pilot study a few minor changes were made (see appendix 2 for pilot questionnaire and problems and see appendix 1 for final version of questionnaire).
In the final research 16 participants were approached using opportunity sampling (8 male, 8 female). They were briefed and told they were taking part in a survey as part of a psychology course. They were informed that information would be anonymised and they were under no obligation to participate and could withdraw anytime.
The surveyor then handed the participant a questionnaire (see appendix 1 for a copy of the questionnaire). When completed, the participant was debriefed and told they’d been surveyed on attitudes towards prison sentencing and whether they differed between genders.
When 16 participants were surveyed, the data was scored. (See appendix 1 for scoring details). Questions 1-2 were biographical questions and were not included in the scoring. Questions 3-6 were scored by recording the number circled by the participant. Questions 7-9 are reversed scored, and for question 10, a point was awarded for each suggested improvement, then an overall score was calculated, with the higher the score, the less satisfied with prison sentencing.
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
(Calculations can be seen in the appendices section. The table of raw data can be seen in appendix 3 ).
The questionnaire was scored, with the higher the score, the less satisfied with prison sentencing. (See appendix 1 for scoring information, and appendix 3 for the test score of each participant).
Figure 1 shows measures of central tendency for both genders. (See appendix 4 for full calculations).
Figure 1: Measures of central tendency for both genders
The mean, median and mode were higher in the female’s results than males, suggesting females scored higher on the questionnaire, therefore the least satisfied with prison sentencing.
Figure 2 shows measures of dispersion for each gender. (See appendix 6 for full workings).
Figure 2: Measures of dispersion
The range shows male’s scores were slightly more distributed than female scores. The standard deviation (S.D.) shows that male’s scores are further spread around the mean score, showing that male’s scores are more dispersed, and that female scores are more clustered.
(Appendix 7 shows all the tables of frequency for each answer on the questionnaire).
The first question related to prison sentencing was ‘how effective do you feel prison sentences are?’. Figure 3 shows the frequency of answers given for each gender.
Figure 3: Frequency of answers for question 3 on the questionnaire, for both genders
Females gained more points on this question as they gained 27 points overall (males scored 14). This suggests females are least satisfied with prison sentencing, (as they scored the highest marks).
A second question asked was ‘Do you feel rehabilitation is an important aspect of a prison sentence?’. (See appendix 8 for calculations). See figure 4
Figure 4: Percentages of answers for question 4 on the questionnaire, for both genders.
Male and female attitudes were quite opposite, with males tending to agree and females, disagreeing that rehabilitation is an important aspect of a prison sentence.
The third question related to prison sentencing was ‘Do you feel prison sentences act as an effective deterrent for committing crime?’. Results are in figure 5.
Figure 5: Frequency of answers for question5 on the questionnaire, for both genders
Females gained more points overall as they gained 29 points (males scored 13). As females score higher, this suggests females see prison sentencing as a poor deterrent for committing a crime, and are least satisfied with prison sentencing.
The fourth question asked was ‘Most offenders re-offend after having served a prison sentence’. How far do you agree with this statement? (See figure 6 for results).
Figure 6: Frequency of answers for question 6 on the questionnaire, for both genders
Females, again, scored higher (females scored 34, males, 22). This shows more females tended to agree with the statement, suggesting women agree that prison doesn’t solve the problem of crime.
Questions 7, 8 and 9 were reversed when scored. All three questions created results in which women scored higher. Again, suggesting females are least satisfied with prison sentencing as a punishment of crime, thus backing the hypothesis.
Question 10 was an open-ended question, with most participants (14/16) suggesting one improvement within the prison system, thus scoring one point. However, two female participants suggested more than one improvement, therefore gaining more points.
If inferential statistics were to be calculated, a parametric test (independent samples t-test) would be used as the results produce interval data.
DISCUSSION
The aim was to see if male and female attitudes differed towards prison sentencing. It was predicted females would be least satisfied with the prison system, and scores would be higher on the female’s questionnaires. Descriptive statistics support this prediction, therefore the experimental hypothesis is accepted and the null, rejected.
The mean score on the questionnaire for males was 17, and 29 for females. This shows on average, females scored 12 points higher on the questionnaire, suggesting females are least satisfied with prison sentencing.
The median figure was higher in female’s results by 13 points (females gained 28.5, males only scored 15.5). This shows the middle score is higher in the female’s set of scores and so females are least satisfied with prison sentencing.
The mode (most occurring score) (see appendix 4) was almost double in the female’s score than the males. (Females mode figure was 26, males only 14). Again this suggests females are least satisfied with prison sentencing as a punishment of crime, thus backing the hypothesis, as does the mean and median.
The range figure for males was 11 and 7 for females, showing that males scores on the questionnaire where much more distributed.
The standard deviation was higher in male’s results (standard deviation for males was 4, and for females was 2.64). This shows male’s scores are more dispersed (by 1.36 points), as scores are further spread around the mean score. This suggests female’s scores are more consistent and clustered.
Each question and answer given were analysed. (See appendix7 for frequency of answers given). All questions showed females scored higher than males. This shows that females were least satisfied with prison sentencing and this is reflected in every answer.
Descriptive statistics back the hypothesis, suggesting females are less satisfied than males with prison sentencing as a punishment of crime.
Results can be linked to McFatter, 1978, as participants views on imprisonment vary, the variety in scores reflect this statement. Question 6 relates to re-offending, results show that the majority of the sample agree that prisoners often re-offend, thus backing Lipsey (1992) and Home Office statistics (1994). Results show differences between males and females views on prison and crime, therefore backing Heidensohn (1996).
Although the survey was cheap and user-friendly some flaws were present. The sample was small, making results hard to generalise. Participants were of a similar background and age, (as they were all students). If the survey were repeated, a bigger, varied sample would help make results more representative and produce external validity.
The sampling method used was opportunity sampling and doesn’t create very reliable or representative results and makes results hard to generalise.
The survey was open to confounding variables, for example, time of day. Questionnaires were distributed during the day, therefore participant’s may have been late for lectures and rushed through the questions, not really giving them any thought. Another factor is the participant’s chosen to participate in the survey. Results may merely reflect the sample chosen, for example it may just be luck that the 8 females surveyed were less satisfied than the males surveyed. If the survey were repeated on different participants, results may differ.
Although participants were debriefed, they weren’t told how they’d scored in relation to others. In order to improve the debriefing process it would help to take a contact number to enable the surveyor to contact participants and enlighten them of the results (if participants requested to know the results).
Participants may have produced socially desirable answers, making results less valid. Also the response format may have produced bias (although reversed marking questions were incorporated into the questionnaire to try and overcome this). Both these issues challenge ecological validity.
Demand characteristics could have affected results as the surveyor was present when the questionnaire was completed and the participant may have answered accordingly to what they thought the surveyor wanted them to answer.
Participants may have misunderstood questions/interpreted them differently. For example, circling ‘very effective’ is perceived differently from participant to participant; again this makes results less valid. This could be improved by stating what ‘very effective’ means.
On the questions that included likert scales, a possible option as an answer was ‘ not sure’. It would be better to make the participant chose a more concrete answer if this questionnaire was to be improved.
Most questions were closed and of similar format. This could produce order effects as participants could lose interest during the questionnaire (although reverse marking was used to try and over come this). If the survey were repeated a wide choice of questions would improve the questionnaires layout (e.g. likert scales, multiple choice, open ended etc).
Participants weren’t given standardized instructions, therefore the surveyor may not have worded everything the same to all 16 participants. If the survey were repeated, standardized instructions would help considerably.
The questionnaire doesn’t give test-retest reliability as the questionnaire was only carried out once. It would help to distribute the questionnaire again to see if similar results are found (temporal validity).
The questionnaire however, seems to hold face validity as it appears to measure attitudes towards prison sentencing, and also construct validity.
Overall, results aren’t very reliable as there are many flaws in the survey and the sample isn’t very representative.
A better study would be to consider views on capital punishment between different generations (e.g. young, middle aged and elderly). This would allow for more attitudes and would produce a wider and more varied sample.
REFERENCES
Brewer, K. (2000), Psychology and Crime, Heinemann, Oxford, P25, 14
Clinard, M.B. (1974), Sociology of Deviant Behaviour, 4th edn, (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York) cited in Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M. (1995), Sociology, Themes and Perspectives, 4th edn, Collins Educational, London, P.385
Giddens, A. (1997). Sociology (3rd edn) Polity Press, Cambridge, cited in brewer, K (2000), Psychology and Crime, Heinneman, Oxford, P.25
Harrower, J. (1998), Applying psychology to crime, Hodder and Stoughton, London, cited in Gross, R (2001) Psychology. The Science of Mind and Behaviour, 4th edn, Hodder & Stoughton, London, P.685
Harrower, J. (2001), Applying psychology to crime, Hodder and Stoughton, London P.163
Harrower, J. (2002), Psychology in practice, Hodder and Stoughton, London P.2, 27, 103, 104
Heidensohn, F. (1996), Women and Crime (2nd edn), McMillan, Basingstoke, cited in Gross, R. (2001), Psychology, The Science of Mind and Behaviour, 4th edn, Hodder & Stoughton, London, P.685
Home office section 95 Report (1999), Statistics on women and the criminal justice system, HMSO, London, cited in Harrower, J (2002) Psychology in practice, Hodder & Stoughton, London, P.27
Lipsey, M.W. (1992), The effect of treatment on juvenile delinquents: Results from Meta-analysis. In Loser, F., Bliesener, T. & Bender, D. (eds) Psychology and Law: International Perspectives, Berlin, de Gruyter, cited in Harrower, J (2002), Psychology in Practice, Hodder & Stoughton, London, P.103
Lyon, J. (1998), Crime. In K.Trew & J.Kremer (eds) Gender and psychology, Arnold, London, cited in Gross, R (2001), Psychology, The Science of Mind and Behaviour, 4th edn, Hodder & Stoughton, London, P.685, 686
McFatter, R.M. (1978), Sentencing strategies and justice: Effects of punishment philosophy on sentencing decisions. Journal of personality and Social psychology, 36, 1490-1500, cited in Brehm, S.S. & Kassin, S.M. (1996) Social Psychology, 3rd edn, Houghton Mifflin, USA, P.487
Messerchmidt, J.W. (1993) Masculinities and Crime, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, cited in Harrower, J. (2002), Psychology in practice, Hodder & Stoughton, London, P.28
COMPUTER PACKAGES
Microsoft Windows ‘98
Microsoft Excel
Microsoft Word
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bassis, M.S., Gelles, R.J. And Levine, A (1991), Sociology, An Introduction, 4th edn, McGraw-Hill, USA
Bird, J et al (1997), Sociology, An interactive approach, Harper Collins Publishers Ltd, London
Brehm, S.S. and Kassin, S.M. (1996), Social Psychology, 3rd edn, Houghton Mifflin, USA
Brewer, K. (2000), Psychology and Crime, Heinemann, Oxford
Clegg, F. (1990), Simple Statistics. A course book for the social sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Cuff, E.C., Francis, D.W. and Sharrock, W.W. (1992), Perspectives in sociology, 3rd edn, Routledge, London
Gross, R. (2001), Psychology, The Science of Mind and Behaviour, 4th edn, Hodder and Sloughton, London
Haralambos, M and Holborn, M (1995), Sociology, Themes and Perspectives, 4th edn, Collins Educational, London
Harrower, J. (2001), Applying psychology to crime, Hodder and Stoughton, London
Harrower, J. (2002), Psychology in practice, Hodder and Stoughton, London
Heinman, G.W. (2002), Research methods in psychology, 3rd edn, Houghton Mifflin, Boston
Howe, A. (1994), Punish and Critique, towards a Feminist Analysis of Penality, Routledge, London
McGuire, J. (2001), What works: Reducing Re-offending, John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex
Prins, H. (1995), Offenders, Deviants or Patients? 2nd edn, Routledge, London
Weber, A.L. & Zimbardo, P.G. (1997), Psychology, 2nd edn, Longman, United States
RAW DATA: Table of results
