Punitive attitudes: Towards an operationalization to measure individual punitivity in a multidimensional way
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370814535376 |
| Author | Ivo Aertsen,An Adriaenssen |
| Date | 01 January 2015 |
| Published date | 01 January 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
European Journal of Criminology
2015, Vol. 12(1) 92 –112
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1477370814535376
euc.sagepub.com
Punitive attitudes: Towards
an operationalization to
measure individual punitivity
in a multidimensional way
An Adriaenssen and Ivo Aertsen
KU Leuven, Belgium
Abstract
Although several empirical studies on punitivity have appeared in the last few decades, this body
of research stays under-theorized and rather vague because of the lack of a clear definition of the
concept of punitivity and the different methodologies used to measure it. Focusing on individual
punitivity (punitive attitudes), this literature review article presents some important substantive
and methodological achievements of and challenges to this body of research. Despite existing
knowledge and the already extensive literature on the topic, this article aims to add an innovative
element by (a) providing a clear, thorough and multidimensional operationalization of the concept
of punitive attitudes that can be used in future research, by (b) not only reviewing the existing
literature, but also being critical of and nuancing some of the main research findings, and by (c)
making concrete suggestions to advance research in this area.
Keywords
Literature review, operationalization, punitive attitudes, punitivity
Introduction
The words ‘punitive populism’, ‘punitive turn’, ‘punitive segregation’ and ‘new puni-
tiveness’ appear frequently in the recent literature on crime and punishment (Daems,
2010), and several empirical studies on punitivity have appeared in the last few decades.
However, there is no clear definition of what exactly punitivity means. ‘Punitivity is a
broadly used and vague concept’ (Kury and Obergfell-Fuchs, 2008a: 109). The concept
of punitivity stays rather undertheorized (Mathews, 2005), and different researchers give
Corresponding author:
An Adriaenssen, Leuven Institute of Criminology (LINC), KU Leuven, Herbert Hooverplein 10, B-3000
Leuven, Belgium.
Email: an.adriaenssen@law.kuleuven.be
535376EUC0010.1177/1477370814535376European Journal of CriminologyAdriaenssen and Aertsen
research-article2014
Article
Adriaenssen and Aertsen 93
different meanings to the term. The concept of punitivity only ‘snuck’ officially into the
criminological literature in the 2005 Sage Dictionary of Criminology, but even here a
clear definition failed to appear (Daems, 2010). Strictly, the term punitiveness describes
‘attitudes towards punishment’ (Kury et al., 2004: 52), but even this definition remains
rather vague.
Researchers of the German Max Planck Gesellschaft took the first step in conceptual-
izing punitivity by developing the ‘onion model’ (Kury et al., 2004). The onion consists
of three skins, each of which represents a different level of punitivity: a macro level, a
meso level and a micro level. The macro level of punitivity refers to the social debate, the
media messages and/or the political discourse on punishment, and at the meso level we
find judicial punitivity, which contains the concrete actions of judicial actors, and thus
represents the sentencing mentality of the judicial system.1 The micro level of punitivity
stands for an individual person in a particular society’s need for punishment, personal
beliefs, perceptions, values, emotions, etc. about punishment. This is what we call ‘puni-
tive attitudes’ and what will be the centre of attention in this article.2
Research on punitive attitudes can be situated in opinion research in general,3 since an
opinion is a verbal expression of an (aspect of an) attitude (Billiet, 2003; Thurstone,
1928).4 In criminological research, public opinions about crime and punishment consti-
tute an important area of investigation. The way people perceive crime and punishment
is a central aspect of normative culture in general and of formal social control in particu-
lar (Stylianou, 2003). As Flanagan (1996: 5) noted, public opinion polls on crime and
justice can act as a ‘social barometer to measure satisfaction with important government
services’ and they reflect ‘the public’s mood and priorities for criminal justice reform’.
Moreover, in most Western countries, influential politicians (for example, Tony Blair)
hold the view that penal policies and practices should be adjusted in accordance with
public views on sentencing. Sentencing criminals in a way that does not reflect public
opinion would surely have undesirable consequences (for example, decreasing confi-
dence in the courts). This, however, does not mean that sentencing policies should be
determined exclusively on the basis of public opinion. Solely following the public’s view
when sentencing criminals would entail obvious risks as well (for example, dispropor-
tional sentencing practices, resulting in high financial costs as well) (Ryberg, 2010). This
whole debate is a matter of finding the right balance between public opinion and sentenc-
ing policies.
The first empirical study that explored public attitudes towards punishment was con-
ducted in 1909 in the USA (Sharp and Otto, 1909). Since then, numerous criminological
studies have examined individuals’ attitudes towards different aspects of punishment.
But, as with the concept of punitivity, one of the problems in research on punitive atti-
tudes is the lack of conceptual definitions. Previous studies examining punitive attitudes
have operationalized this construct in a number of ways. In addition, the research meth-
ods used to measure punitive attitudes have varied considerably. This review presents
some important substantive and methodological achievements of and challenges to this
body of research. Despite existing knowledge and the already extensive literature on the
topic, this literature review article aims to add an innovative element by (a) providing a
clear, thorough and multidimensional operationalization of the concept of punitive atti-
tudes that can be used in future research, by (b) not only reviewing the existing literature,
To continue reading
Request your trial