A matter of fact? Adolescents' assumptions about crime, laws, and authority and their domain-specific beliefs about punishment

Abstract

This study examined adolescents' beliefs about the amount of punishment individuals should receive for violating different laws and whether these beliefs are connected with their informational assumptions (i.e., perceived facts) about crime, laws, and authority. American adolescents (N = 340; M_age = 16.64, 58.2% female) reported their judgments concerning the appropriate punishment for violating laws regulating domain-specific behaviors and their informational assumptions regarding the prevalence and causes of crime, beliefs that authority is knowledgeable, and the purpose of punishment. Greater internal attributions for crime was associated with stronger punishment judgments for violating laws that regulate moral and conventional issues. Greater beliefs that punishment teaches right from wrong was associated with stronger punishment judgments for violating laws that regulate drug-related prudential issues, and lower punishment judgments for violating laws that regulate personal issues. Greater beliefs that authorities are more knowledgeable than others was associated with stronger punishment judgments for violating laws that regulate personal issues.

Keywords: Beliefs about punishment; Informational assumptions; Right-wing authoritarianism; Social domain theory; Social dominance orientation.