Vol. 16 (2018)

Artículos

Percepciones y sentimientos hacia las víctimas: Resultados de un experimento split-ballot

  • Carmen María León | Centro de Investigación en Criminología, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha
  • Eva Aizpurúa | Center for Social and Behavioral Research, University of Northern Iowa

Publicado

20-06-2018

Resumen

El diseño del cuestionario es una parte esencial de la investigación cuantitativa. En este trabajo se exponen los resultados de un estudio sobre actitudes hacia las víctimas en el que se incluyó un experimento. Su primer objetivo consistió en analizar las tipologías de víctimas en las que piensan los encuestados cuando son preguntados, de forma abstracta, por víctimas de delitos. En segundo lugar, el propósito del experimento fue comprobar cómo afecta el orden de presentación de las respuestas en una pregunta sobre los sentimientos que suscitan las víctimas. Al tratarse de un cuestionario auto-administrado, hipotetizamos que los participantes (N=100) tenderían a elegir las primeras opciones de respuesta (efecto primacía). Para comprobarlo se recurrió a un diseño split-ballot. Los resultados muestran que los encuestados piensan en las víctimas de aquellos delitos que (1) se producen con mayor frecuencia y (2) son más graves. En cambio, no permiten confirmar el efecto primacía en este experimento.

Palabras clave:

Metodología de encuestas, Diseño experimental, Efectos del orden de las respuestas, Actitudes hacia las víctimas

Citas

Anuario Estadístico del Ministerio del Interior de España (2015). Disponible en: http://www.interior.gob.es/documents/642317/1204854/Anuario-Estadistico-2015.pdf/03be89e1-dd38-47a2-9ce8-ccdd74659741

Applegate, B., Cullen, F., Link, B., Richards, R., & Lanza-Kaduce, L. (1996). Determinants of public punitiveness toward drunk driving: A factorial survey approach. Justice Quarterly, 13, 57-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829600092821

Ayidiya, S. A. & McClendon, M. J. (1990). Response effects in mail surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54, 229-247. https://doi.org/10.1086/269200

Baz, O., Aizpurúa, E. & Fernández, E. (2015). Factores explicativos de las actitudes hacia el castigo juvenil. Evidencias de un diseño factorial. Política y Sociedad, 52, 869-895. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_POSO.2015.v52.n3.48400

Bishop, G. F., Hipplet, H. J., Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1988). A comparison of response effects in self-administered and telephone surveys. En R. Gorves, J. T. Lars Lyberg, W. L. Nichols, & J. Waksberg (Eds.), Telephone Survey Methodology (pp.321-340). New York: Wiley.

Brocke, M., Goldenitz, C., Holling, H., & Bilsky, W. (2004). Attitudes towards severity of punishment: A conjoint analytic approach. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2, 205-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160310001614793

Cameron, C. A. & Stritzke, W. G. (2003). Alcohol and acquaintance rape in Australia: Testing the presupposition model of attributions about responsibility and blame. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 983-1008. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01935.x

Chang, L. & Krosnick, J. A. (2009). National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing vs. the Internet: Comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly 73, 641-678. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp075

Christian, L. M., & Dillman, D. A. (2004). The influence of graphical and symbolic language manipulations on responses to self-administered questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 58-81. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfh004

Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B. S., & Applegate, B. K. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice, 27, 1-79. https://doi.org/10.1086/652198

DeSantis, A. & Kayson, W. A. (1997). Defendants' characteristics of attractiveness, race, and sex and sentencing decisions. Psychological Reports, 81, 679-683. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1997.81.2.679

Díez-Ripollés, J. L. & García, E. (2009). Encuesta a víctimas en España. Málaga: Instituto Andaluz Interuniversitario de Criminología.

Fernández, C. & Revilla, J. C. (2016). Seres “humanos” o seres “lejanos”: Imágenes de violencia real e implicación/distanciamiento con las víctimas. Comunication & Society, 29, 103-118.

Fisher, B. S. & Sloan, J. J. (2006). Campus crime: Legal, social & policy perspectives. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Fox, K. A., Nobles, M. R., & Piquero, A. R. (2009). Gender, crime victimization and fear of crime. Security Journal, 22, 24-39. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2008.13

Galesic, M., Tourangeau, R., Couper, M. P., & Conrad, F. G. (2008). Eye-tracking data. New insights on response order effects and other cognitive shortcuts in survey responding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 5, 892-913. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn059

Hills, A. M. & Thomson, D. M. (1999). Should victim impact influence sentences? Understanding the community's justice reasoning. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 5, 661-671. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(199923)17:5<661::AID-BSL369>3.0.CO;2-N

Holbrook, A. L., Krosnick, J. A., Moore, D. & Tourangeau, R. (2007). Response order effects in dichotomous categorical questions presented orally. The impact of question and respondent attributes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 325-348. http://dx.doi.org/nfm024

Hough, M. & Roberts, J. V. (2002). Public knowledge and public opinion of sentencing. In: Tata, C. & Hutton, N. (Eds.): Sentencing and society: international perspectives. (pp. 272). New York: Ashgate.

Israel, G. D. & Taylor, C. L. (1990). Can response order bias evaluations? Evaluation and Program Planning, 13, 365-371.https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(90)90021-N

Jerre, K. (2014). More sanctions-less prison? A research note on the severity of sanctions proposed by survey participants and how it is affected by the option to combine a prison term with other sanctions. European Journal on criminal Policy & Research, 20, 121-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-013-9215-5

Knaüper, B. (1999). The impact of age and education on response order effects in attitude measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 347-370. https://doi.org/10.1086/297724

Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 213-236. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350050305

Krosnick, J. A. & Alwin, D. F. (1987). An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 2, 201-219. https://doi.org/10.1086/269029

Kury, H. & Ferdinand, T. N. (1999). Miedo al delito, tamaño de la población, salidas a la calle y actitudes hacia la policía. Resultados alemanes. Revista de Derecho Penal y Criminología, 3, 209-292.

Maloshonok, N. & Terentev, E. (2016). The impact of visual design and response formats on data quality in a web survey of MOOC students. Computers in Human Behaviour, 62, 506-515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.025

Mazzela, R. & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 1315-1338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01552.x

Myers, B. & Greene, E. (2004). The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements: Implications for capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 492-515. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.492

Niemi, L. & Young, L. (2014). Blaming the victim in the case of rape. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 230-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.901127

Niemi, L. & Young, L. (2016). Justice and the moral lexicon. Psychological Inquiry, 27, 50- 54.https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2016.1111122

Picket, J. T., Mancini, C., & Mears, D. P. (2013). Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: Explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology, 51, 729-759. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12018

Quinn, S. B. & Belson, W. A. (1969). The effects of reversing the order of presentation of verbal rating scales in survey interviews. London: Survey Research Centre.

Richards, L. (2009). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: SAGE.

Rini, R. (2015). Microaggression, macro harm. Los Angeles Times.

Roberts, J. V., Stalans, L. J., Indemaur, D., & Hough, M. (2003). Penal populism and public opinion. Lessons from five countries. New York: Oxford University Press.

Schwarz, N. & Bless, H. (1992). Assimilation and contrast in attitude measurement: An inclusion/exclusion model. En J. F. Sherry & B. Stemthal (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp.72-77). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data. London: SAGE.

Simonson, J. (2011). Problems in measuring punitiveness – Results from a German study. In:Kury, H., &Shea, E. (Eds). Punitivity international developments. Vol. 1: punitiveness – A global phenomenon? (pp.277-302). Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer.

Maloshonok, N. & Terentev, E. (2016). The impact of visual design and response formats on data quality in a web survey of MOOC students. Computers in Human Behaviour, 62, 506-515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.04.025

Mazzela, R. & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 1315-1338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01552.x

Myers, B. & Greene, E. (2004). The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements: Implications for capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 492-515. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.492

Niemi, L. & Young, L. (2014). Blaming the victim in the case of rape. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 230-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.901127

Niemi, L. & Young, L. (2016). Justice and the moral lexicon. Psychological Inquiry, 27, 50- 54. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2016.1111122

Picket, J. T., Mancini, C., & Mears, D. P. (2013). Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: Explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology, 51, 729-759. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12018

Quinn, S. B. & Belson, W. A. (1969). The effects of reversing the order of presentation of verbal rating scales in survey interviews. London: Survey Research Centre.

Richards, L. (2009). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: SAGE.

Rini, R. (2015). Microaggression, macro harm. Los Angeles Times.

Roberts, J. V., Stalans, L. J., Indemaur, D., & Hough, M. (2003). Penal populism and public opinion. Lessons from five countries. New York: Oxford University Press.

Schwarz, N. & Bless, H. (1992). Assimilation and contrast in attitude measurement: An inclusion/exclusion model. En J. F. Sherry & B. Stemthal (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp.72-77). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data. London: SAGE.

Sjöberg, M. & Sarwar, F. (2017). Who gets blamed for rapes: Immigration status on the attribution of blame toward victims and perpetrators. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517703371

Soto, S. (2005). La influencia de los medios en la percepción social de la delincuencia. Revista Electrónica de Ciencia Penal y Criminología, 9.

Steinberg, L. & Piquero, A. R. (2010). Manipulating public opinion about trying juveniles as adults: An experimental study. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 487-506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128708330179

Stern, M. J., Dillman, D. A., & Smyth, J. D. (2007). Visual design, order effects, and respondent characteristics in a self-administered survey. Survey Research Methods, 1, 121-138. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2007.v1i3.600

Tourangeau, R. (1984). Cognitive science and survey methods. In: Thomas, B. J., Miro, L. S., Tanur, J. M., Tourangeau, R. (Eds.): Cognitive aspects of survey design: Building a bridge between disciplines. (pp.73-100). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Varona, D. (2011). Medios de comunicación y punitivismo. InDret: Revista para el análisis del Derecho, 1, 1-35.

Cómo citar

León, C. M., & Aizpurúa, E. (2018). Percepciones y sentimientos hacia las víctimas: Resultados de un experimento split-ballot. Revista Española De Investigación Criminológica, 16, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.46381/reic.v16i0.158

Agencias de apoyo

Esta investigación no contó con financiación

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.