Biocriminology and the Adjudication of Criminal Responsibility: Is There a Consensus Among Scientists' Verdicts?

NCT ID: NCT05007314

Last Updated: 2022-08-16

Basic Information

• Recruitment Status: COMPLETED
• Clinical Phase: NA
• Total Enrollment: 160 participants
• Study Classification: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Start Date: 2021-07-01
• Study Completion Date: 2022-07-01

Brief Summary

Because of the evolving nature of psychology research, non-scientists are more likely to struggle or misinterpret evidence regarding a person's psychological state. Misconceptions may thus be highly prevalent within the justice system, leading to negative consequences for people with psychological or neurobiological disorders. At the same time, no research has been conducted to compare the punishment perspectives of non-scientists, that typically make sentencing decisions, to scientists who possess a more advanced understanding of human biology and behavior.

Detailed Description

In this study, closely inspired by the paradigms of Berryessa, Coppola, and Salvato, perspectives on punishment based on psychobiological explanations of behaviour are assessed, aiming to understand how scientists with knowledge of human psychobiology versus lay people (of similar educational level) interpret offending behaviour. Human-science is contrasted to natural-science/arts graduates because the former have been exposed to and may possess scientific knowledge that shapes their understanding of behaviour, their views, and potential (essentialist) biases. In contrast, non-scientists have been found to possess scientific misconceptions that can impact their sentencing decisions. This leads to the question whether scientists may draw different judgements based on their professional knowledge and experience with psychological phenomena. If indeed scientists with greater insight on human behaviour are found to hold less punitive views on punishment and rehabilitation, that has important implications for criminal justice systems that rely on lay peoples' understanding of science.

One hundred sixty participants who completed all study procedures (2 main groups of 80 participants) will be surveyed. A sample size calculation was performed using G*Power version 3.1.9.4, based on Berryessa and colleagues who conducted a similar survey study in 2021 with comparable outcome measures and analyses. The required effect size is based upon approximately 3-4 outcome measures. The primary research question is between-groups, while secondary ones include within groups measures. Based on the power analysis, a sample of 160 participants will be targeted, which is enough for sufficient power for f = 0.25, power = 0.80, df = 4, for 2 different groups.

Conditions

Criminalism

Study Design

• Allocation Method: RANDOMIZED
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Primary Study Purpose: BASIC_SCIENCE
• Blinding Strategy: DOUBLE

Study Groups

Human Science

Arm 1 will include university graduates that hold at least a science undergraduate degree (or equivalent) in human science, including psychology, neuroscience, human biology, or medicine.

Group Type: EXPERIMENTAL

Biocriminological Evidence

Intervention Type: BEHAVIORAL

Participants in each of the two main groups see a case with and a case without a neurobiological explanation for criminal offending.

Natural or non-science

Arm 2 will include university graduates from non-human or non-scientific fields such as engineering, history, language studies, or law.

Group Type: ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Biocriminological Evidence

Intervention Type: BEHAVIORAL

Participants in each of the two main groups see a case with and a case without a neurobiological explanation for criminal offending.

Interventions

Biocriminological Evidence

Participants in each of the two main groups see a case with and a case without a neurobiological explanation for criminal offending.

Intervention Type: BEHAVIORAL

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

• Aged between 18 and 65
• Holding a university diploma or equivalent

Exclusion Criteria

• Participants who did not complete the survey (appropriately) will be excluded

• Minimum Eligible Age: 18 Years
• Maximum Eligible Age: 65 Years
• Eligible Sex: ALL
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes

Sponsors

Leiden University Medical Center

OTHER

Sponsor Role: lead

Responsible Party

Mia Athina Thomaidou

Principal Investigator

Responsibility Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Locations

Leiden University

Leiden, South Holland, Netherlands

Countries

Netherlands

Other Identifiers

2021-07-16-D.S.V.-V2-3332

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id