1. Introduction and Overview. 2. Detecting Influential Observations and Outliers. 3. Detecting and Assessing Collinearity. 4. Applications and Remedies. 5. Research Issues and Directions for Extensions. Bibliography. Author Index. Subject Index.

Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity

EDITORIAL BOARD Robert Davison Aviles, Bradley University Harley E. Baker, California State University–Channel Islands Jean-Guy Blais, Universite de Montreal, Canada Catherine Y. Chang, Georgia State University Robert C. Chope, San Francisco State University Kevin O. Cokley, University of Missouri, Columbia Patricia B. Elmore, Southern Illinois University Shawn Fitzgerald, Kent State University John J. Fremer, Educational Testing Service Vicente Ponsoda Gil, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain Jo-Ida C. Hansen, University of Minnesota Charles C. Healy, University of California at Los Angeles Robin K. Henson, University of North Texas Flaviu Adrian Hodis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Janet K. Holt, Northern Illinois University David A. Jepsen, The University of Iowa Gregory Arief D. Liem, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University Wei-Cheng J. Mau, Wichita State University Larry Maucieri, Governors State College Patricia Jo McDivitt, Data Recognition Corporation Peter F. Merenda, University of Rhode Island Matthew J. Miller, University of Maryland Ralph O. Mueller, University of Hartford Jane E. Myers, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Philip D. Parker, University of Western Sydney Ralph L. Piedmont, Loyola College in Maryland Alex L. Pieterse, University at Albany, SUNY Nicholas J. Ruiz, Winona State University James P. Sampson, Jr., Florida State University William D. Schafer, University of Maryland, College Park William E. Sedlacek, University of Maryland, College Park Marie F. Shoffner, University of Virginia Len Sperry, Florida Atlantic University Kevin Stoltz, University of Mississippi Jody L. Swartz-Kulstad, Seton Hall University Bruce Thompson, Texas A&M University Timothy R. Vansickle, Minnesota Department of Education Steve Vensel, Palm Beach Atlantic University Dan Williamson, Lindsey Wilson College F. Robert Wilson, University of Cincinnati

measurement and evaluation in counseling and Development

The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, Practice

This article considers the impact of public opinion on public policy, asking: (1) how much impact it has; (2) how much the impact increases as the salience of issues increases; (3) to what extent t...

/pdf/the-impact-of-public-opinion-on-public-policy-a-review-and-1yzb70a2is.pdf

The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda:

Men are overrepresented in socially problematic behaviors, such as aggression and criminal behavior, which have been linked to impulsivity. Our review of impulsivity is organized around the tripartite theoretical distinction between reward hypersensitivity, punishment hyposensitivity, and inadequate effortful control. Drawing on evolutionary, criminological, developmental, and personality theories, we predicted that sex differences would be most pronounced in risky activities with men demonstrating greater sensation seeking, greater reward sensitivity, and lower punishment sensitivity. We predicted a small female advantage in effortful control. We analyzed 741 effect sizes from 277 studies, including psychometric and behavioral measures. Women were consistently more punishment sensitive (d = -0.33), but men did not show greater reward sensitivity (d = 0.01). Men showed significantly higher sensation seeking on questionnaire measures (d = 0.41) and on a behavioral risk-taking task (d = 0.36). Questionnaire measures of deficits in effortful control showed a very modest effect size in the male direction (d = 0.08). Sex differences were not found on delay discounting or executive function tasks. The results indicate a stronger sex difference in motivational rather than effortful or executive forms of behavior control. Specifically, they support evolutionary and biological theories of risk taking predicated on sex differences in punishment sensitivity. A clearer understanding of sex differences in impulsivity depends upon recognizing important distinctions between sensation seeking and impulsivity, between executive and effortful forms of control, and between impulsivity as a deficit and as a trait.

/pdf/sex-differences-in-impulsivity-a-meta-analysis-3r17h2gu44.pdf

Sex differences in impulsivity: A meta-analysis

Objective. Many studies find that females benefit from their gender in sentencing decisions. Few researchers, however, address whether the gender-sentencing association might be stronger for some crimes, such as minor nonviolent offending, and weaker for other offenses, such as serious violent crime. Method. Using a large random sample of convicted offenders in Texas drawn from a statewide project on sentencing practices mandated by the 73rd Texas Legislature, logistic regression and OLS regression analyses of likelihood of imprisonment and prison length illustrate the importance of looking at sentencing outcomes not only in terms of gender but also in terms of crime type. Results. Specifically, we find that the effect of gender on sentencing does vary by crime type, but not in a consistent or predicted fashion. For both property and drug offending, females are less likely to be sentenced to prison and also receive shorter sentences if they are sentenced to prison. For violent offending, however, females are no less likely than males to receive prison time, but for those who do, females receive substantially shorter sentences than males. Conclusions. We conclude that such variation in the gender-sentencing association across crime type is largely due to features of Texas’ legal code that channel the level of discretion available to judges depending on crime type and whether incarceration likelihood or sentence length is examined. The sentencing of criminals has been the subject of repeated exploratory inquiry by social scientists, particularly sociologists. Since the work of Nagel and Weitzman (1971) and Pope (1975), who found that women appear to receive preferential treatment in sentencing over males, efforts to explain this disparity have centered around two theories: chivalry and the more recent focal concerns. As our literature review highlights, efforts to decipher how the sentencing process may benefit females are, at times, inconsistent. We view our study as additional fuel to the sentencing dialogue and, in par

Gender Differences in Criminal Sentencing: Do Effects Vary Across Violent, Property, and Drug Offenses?*

The homogenization and differentiation of hate crime law in the United States, 1978 to 1995

We view criminalization as a process of institutionalization that involves the diffusion of legal forms and practices. Conventional approaches to criminalization have been dominated by historical case studies that illuminate the collective action and social structural bases of shifts in crime policy by focusing on the dynamics internal to particular polities. Our event history analysis of U.S. states' adoption of hate crime laws indicates that criminalization is affected by a state's internal political culture and traditions as well as by its location within the larger interstate system. Thus, the diffusion of hate crime policies resembles the diffusion pattern of many other policy reforms. However, detailed analyses of the content of hate crime laws reveal that as they diffused the variety of methods of altering the criminal code diminished while the domain and complexity of the laws increased. These findings suggest that criminalization, and by extension institutionalization, is characterized by countervailing forces: the simultaneous homogenization and differentiation of cultural forms. We discuss how consideration of these processes-especially differentiation-advances research on diffusion, institutionalization, and criminalization. n the late 1970s, lawmakers throughout the United States began responding to a perceived escalation of racial, ethnic, religious, and other forms of intergroup conflict with a novel legal strategy: the criminalization of hate-motivated intimidation and violence. As a result, throughout the late 1980s and into the 1990s most state legisla

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2657328.pdf

The homogenization and differentiation of hate crime law in the united states, 1978 to 1995: innovation and diffusion in the criminalization of bigotry *

Theoretical and empirical research pertaining to the influence of gender on sentencing outcomes has focused almost exclusively on the gender of offenders. What this literature has not fully considered is how the gender of crime victims might affect sentencing outcomes. Using data for offenders convicted of three violent crimes in the seven largest metro counties in Texas in 1991, the authors find evidence that offenders who victimized females received substantially longer sentences than offenders who victimized males. Results also show that victim gender effects on sentence length are conditioned by offender gender, such that male offenders who victimize females received the longest sentence of any other victim gender/offender gender combination. However, whereas these effects are observed for sentence length, no victim gender effects are observed on whether offenders received an incarcerative or nonincarcerative sentence. The authors address the implications of their findings for theory and subsequent re...

Does Victim Gender Increase Sentence Severity? Further Explorations of Gender Dynamics and Sentencing Outcomes

This research addresses the relationship between conservative Protestantism and the perceived wrongfulness of crimes. In a recent study, Warr (1989) identified “nondiscriminators”—people who perceived a wide range of crimes to be equally morally wrong. Although lacking measures of religion, Warr hypothesized, based on their written comments, that the respondents used religious beliefs to assess wrongfulness. Since Protestant theology tends to view morality categorically, with no gradations between the extremes, those individuals who most strongly adhere to this doctrine may be the nondiscriminators. This study tests and finds strong support for this hypothesis, which has important implications for the recent shift toward increased punitiveness in sentencing, research concerning public perceptions of crime, and studies of religion.

Theodore R. Curry

Papers

Gender Differences in Criminal Sentencing: Do Effects Vary Across Violent, Property, and Drug Offenses?*

The homogenization and differentiation of hate crime law in the United States, 1978 to 1995

The homogenization and differentiation of hate crime law in the united states, 1978 to 1995: innovation and diffusion in the criminalization of bigotry *

Does Victim Gender Increase Sentence Severity? Further Explorations of Gender Dynamics and Sentencing Outcomes

Conservative protestantism and the perceived wrongfulness of crimes: a research note*