Appropriately Upset? Emotion Norms and Perceptions of Crime Victims

Victims who express less emotion in response to a crime are perceived as less deserving, less sympathetic, and they have less punishment assigned to the offender who committed the crime. This study considers the extent to which emotion norms underlie perceptions of victims who testify. Two studies investigate the circumstances in which emotional reactions to a crime are seen as "unusual" and whether a more general emotion norm underlies responses to victim testimony. We test a "victim-role" norm against a "proportionality" norm by crossing the severity of victim's emotional response (severe or mild) with the seriousness of a crime (serious or less serious). Results across two studies lend greater support to the notion that people expect victims to match the intensity of their emotional response to the seriousness of the event (i.e., a proportionality rule), although we also find instances in which expectations of the victim are not strong. Gender of the victim exhibited small and contingent effects. We discuss the relevance of emotion norms to legal settings.     

Intoxicated eyewitnesses: Better than their reputation?

According to law enforcement, many witnesses are intoxicated either at the time of the crime, the interview, or both (Evans et al., Public Policy Law 15(3):194-221, 2009). However, no study to date has examined whether intoxicated witnesses' recall is different from sober witnesses' and whether they are more vulnerable to misinformation using an ecologically valid experimental design. Intoxicated, placebo, and sober witnesses observed a live, staged theft, overheard subsequent misinformation about the theft, and took part in an investigative interview. Participants generally believed they witnessed a real crime and experienced a real interview. Intoxicated witnesses were not different from placebo or sober witnesses in the number of accurate details, inaccurate details, or "don't know" answers reported. All the participants demonstrated a misinformation effect, but there were no differences between intoxication levels: Intoxicated participants were not more susceptible to misinformation than sober or placebo participants. Results are discussed in the light of their theoretical and applied relevance.     

Racially Restrictive Covenants—Were They Dignity Takings?

Racially restrictive covenants—subdivision rules or neighborhood agreements that “run with the land” to bar sales of rentals by minority members—were common and legally enforceable in the United States in the first half of the twentieth century. In spite of their demeaning character, these racial covenants took away opportunities from excluded minorities, rather than things, and thus they amounted to something less than the dramatic “dignity takings” that Bernadette Atuahene (2014) describes in her new book on dignity takings in South Africa. In this article, I explore some significant ways in which racially restrictive covenants differed from dignity takings as Atuahene defines them, as well as the shadowy similarities between racial covenants and Atuahene's dignity takings; I focus here on the dimensions of dehumanization, state involvement, and property takings. I conclude with a discussion of remedies, particularly considering measures that restore dignity through both public policies and private actions.     

Short-Term Forces and Partisanship

One of the most intriguing aspects of the debate regarding the persistence of party identification is that proponents of different schools of thought have each managed to use the same quasi-experimental data and similar state of the art techniques to defend their point of view. In this article we argue that this debate cannot be resolved with quasi-experimental data alone and propose another method that we believe can help us triangulate in on the correct answer: experimentation. Two experiments are performed and analyzed. The first tests the hypothesis that party identification is updated in response to the vote choice; the second tests the hypothesis that candidate evaluations influence party choices. The results of our experiments provide some additional support for the traditional conception of partisanship as the unmoved mover of American politics.     

The relationship between corporate governance characteristics and credit risk exposure in banks: implications for financial regulation

This article analyses board structures in listed Danish banks in the years prior to the financial crisis by exploring the relationship between corporate governance characteristics and credit risk exposure. The article presents a novel approach as it relies on a newly developed risk metric entitled the “Supervision Diamond” introduced by the Danish FSA, which “external” board directors must address. It contains five thresholds for measuring a bank’s exposure to credit risks i.e. the proportion of large customers, lending growth, the ratio of lending/deposits, liquidity buffer and the proportion of real estate loans. By employing quantitative governance variables the article finds that increased executive director remuneration is associated with increased credit risk posed by the bank’s borrowers. On the other hand, increasing the number of executive/“inside” directors is associated with a lower credit risk exposure. It is argued that more “inside” directors on the executive board constitutes a stronger “checks and balance” system. The article also documents that the probability of obtaining state capital from the Danish credit bailout package is negatively related to larger boards as well as higher executive director remuneration. The policy implication is that financial authorities should be increasingly aware of insufficient corporate governance characteristics in order to prevent excessive credit risk exposure. Moreover, the article provides important insights on which corporate governance variables have a significant impact on a bank’s credit risk exposure. This knowledge is valuable for financial authorities/policy makers considering future regulatory initiatives and how they should administer bank monitoring.