# data[].attributes.body
Something for y'all as a reference:

https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1195329

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Stigmatisation is a frequently listed as a concern by offenders and has been identified as a major barrier to reintegration. The present study explored factors contributing to stigmatising attitudes towards various sub-types of offenders in Singapore. Six hundred and twenty-eight undergraduate students read a vignette illustrating a sexual, a white-collar, or a violent crime before answering various questionnaires in an online survey. Previous contact with offenders was not related to desire for social distance from them. However, respondents who perceived offenders as incapable of changing, as well as those who felt more morally outraged by the crimes they had committed, indicated a greater desire for social distance from offenders. Respondents also had a tendency to desire distance from sexual and violent offenders more than they did from white-collar offenders. The findings extend the understanding of pathways leading towards stigmatisation of offenders and have implications for policy-making and reintegration efforts.

Introduction

In spite of efforts to facilitate offender reintegration into mainstream society, practitioners and policy-makers still face obstacles with regard to successful reintegration. The most cited concern is the public's rejection of and social distancing from offenders (Berry & Eigenber, 2003; Petersilia, 2003; Taxman, 2004). Termed stigma - 'the negative social attitude attached to a characteristic of an individual that may be regarded as a mental, physical, or social deficiency' (Vandenbos, 2007, p. 894) - this phenomenon can have a range of pernicious psychosocial consequences on offenders (Levenson, Brannon, Fortney, & Baker, 2007; Mercado, Alvarez, & Levenson, 2008). These repercussions include difficulties in securing public housing and jobs (Levenson et al., 2007; Zevitz & Farkas, 2000), becoming victims of vigilantism (Mercado et al., 2008), and social isolation due to shame (Austin, 2004; Braithwaite, 1989). It is likely that stigma processes have a destabilising impact on offenders (Levenson & Cotter, 2005; Levenson & Hern, 2007; Tewksbury, 2005) and that these processes play a role in maintaining criminogenic characteristics such as antisocial attitudes and antisocial associates (Pritikin, 2008). As a result, stigma - although sometimes conceptualised as a deterrent and a mechanism of social control - might have a rebound effect on society by causing a rise rather than drop in recidivism rates (Braithwaite, 1989; Hanson & Harris, 2001; Meredith, Speir, Johnson, & Hull, 2003; Murphy & Harris, 2007; Schulenberg, 2007, Tewksbury, 2005).

Given the highly undesirable ramifications of stigma, on the other hand, reducing it is an issue of prime importance. An appropriate starting point to address this issue would be to study the factors contributing to stigmatisation of offenders. Uncovering the underlying reasons behind the public's negative attitudes will allow stakeholders to design evidence-based interventions to reduce stigma and ameliorate its negative consequences.

Factors Contributing towards Stigma

Level of contact

Past literature suggests that an important contributor to stigmatisation is lack of contact with the target population - in this case, offenders. A meta-analysis of 515 studies established a negative relationship between contact and prejudices of many types (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Exposure to offenders appears to broaden understanding and facilitate learning about this stigmatised group, reducing the need to rely on conventional and stereotypical beliefs about offenders (Ferguson & Ireland, 2006; Mancini, Reckdenwald, & Beauregard, 2012). This notion is in accordance with Intergroup Contact Theory (Allport, 1979), which posits that, under the right conditions, contact between members of different groups leads to more positive intergroup relations. In the forensic context, research has demonstrated that correctional officers and professionals who are in regular contact with offenders report more positive attitudes towards them than do students and community members (Hogue, 1993; Melvin, Gramling, & Gardner, 1985). Furthermore, a large study conducted in the United States found that previous exposure to ex-offenders among members of the community was a strong predictor of more positive attitudes (Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010). However, remaining cognisant that the process by which contact reduces prejudice depends on the unique characteristic of the context, groups, and individuals involved (Stephan, 1987), there is a need to establish the presence and strength of this effect in Singapore.

Perception of offenders' capacity to change

Despite the well-established beneficial effects of contact (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), contact in and of itself may sometimes be an insufficient ingredient in anti-stigma interventions, particularly if people's underlying belief systems predispose them to stigmatise offenders (cf. Asbrock, Christ, Duckitt, & Sibley, 2012). The second possible predictor of stigmatising attitudes explored in this study was the public's perception of offenders' capacity to change. Based on Dweck and colleagues' work documenting the many important ways in which beliefs about the fixedness or malleability of human attributes and behaviours matter (e.g., Dweck, 2012; Dweck, Hong, & Chiu, 1993; Levy & Dweck, 1999), we reasoned that people who view offenders as capable of changing and their criminal act as a discrete, one-off event that is 'not a measure of the person in the past, present, and future' (Dweck et al., 1993, p. 651) would be more likely to hold less stigmatising attitudes, as they believe that offenders have a lower risk of re-offending. Conversely, we reasoned that people who perceive offenders as incapable of changing from their old ways would view them as more likely to re-offend if given the chance, thereby engendering more stigmatising attitudes.

A series of studies investigating implicit theories provided some initial support for these conjectures. A study done by Dweck, Chiu, and Hong ( 1995) found that when asked if they felt that a young boy with misconduct records on the first day in school would be a troublemaker in future, participants who were entity theorists tended to respond 'yes, for sure', while participants who were incremental theorists tended to respond 'no, not really'. Incremental theorists also gave more attention to the specific circumstances that the boy was facing (e.g., the boy was hungry), and they did not see his deviant behaviour as a definite predictor of future conduct (Dweck et al., 1995). In a related vein, Maruna and King ( 2009) found that those who did not believe in the ability of deviants to change their ways were more likely to have punitive attitudes towards offenders - a theory they named 'belief in malleability' (Maruna & King, 2009, p. 7). The present study builds on these studies by examining how beliefs about malleability of traits could also possibly contribute to social distancing of offenders.

Moral outrage

Over and beyond beliefs about offenders, emotional reactions to the crime they have committed may contribute to stigma. Thus, the third factor investigated in this study was moral outrage. Although anger may be the primary emotional response to crime (Ditton, Bannister, Gilchrist, & Farrall, 1999), criminal behaviour can also evoke feelings of disgust and contempt (Bastian, Denson, & Haslam, 2013). Together, anger, disgust, and contempt constitute moral outrage (Bastian et al., 2013), and such feelings may motivate reactions to criminal behaviour that include desire for punishment and social distancing. Supporting this line of reasoning, research has found that moral outrage predicted support for more severe punishment (Carlsmith & Darley, 2008; Darley & Pittman, 2003) and less positive views about the potential for offender rehabilitation (Bastian et al., 2013). Research has also shown that individuals who are high in disgust-sensitivity have a predisposition to minimise chances of exposure to offenders by opting for longer periods of incarceration for offenders - a syndrome termed 'moral hypervigilance' (Jones & Fitness, 2008, p. 623). However, as moral judgements, intuitions, and feelings depend in complex ways on the social-relational contexts in which they occur (Rai & Fiske, 2011), there is a need to investigate whether moral outrage underpins stigmatisation of offenders in Singapore.

Offence-specific Beliefs

Based on the notion that people respond differently to offenders depending on the nature of the crime they have committed (e.g., Gilliam, Valentino, & Beckman, 2002; Manza, Brooks, & Uggen, 2004; Maruna & King, 2004), this study also sought to investigate the differences in reactions to various sub-types of offenders (i.e., those who have committed sexual, white-collar, or violent crimes). Based on suggestions that sexual offenders are the most detested and feared (Levenson et al., 2007; Tewksbury, 2005) and have been mistaken to have the highest recidivism rates (Levenson et al., 2007), we expected to find that participants desired the most social distance from sexual offenders. In contrast, research has documented that white-collar crimes are perceived as relatively harmless compared to violent crimes (Holtfreter, Van Slyke, Bratton, & Gertz, 2008), and we therefore expected to find the least desire for social distance from white-collar offenders. Beyond mean differences in desire for distance from offenders of various kinds, it is also possible that the factors contributing to stigma will relate differently to desire for social distance depending on the nature of the crime committed. Thus, the present study also tested whether the effects of the three proposed contributors of stigmatising attitudes (level of contact, perception of capacity to change, and moral outrage) differed across the three sub-types of offending behaviour. This would allow us potentially too elucidate which of the proposed factors would be most central in contributing towards stigmatisation of various offender sub-types.

Despite the pivotal role of community attitudes towards offenders in the process of reintegrating them back into society (Mackey, Courtright, & Packard, 2006), 'the paucity of research on (public) attitudes towards ex-offenders is surprising given the intensified policy interest in this population' (Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010, p. 29; Holtfreter, Van Slyke, Bratton, & Gertz, 2008). Past research has focused mainly on public attitudes towards prisoners in general (Chui & Cheng, 2015; Homant & Kennedy, 1982) or towards suitable pre-release penal responses (Courtright & Mackey, 2004). Only a handful of studies have touched on post-release issues such as attitudes towards offender reintegration (Austin, 2004; Demski & McGlynn, 1999; Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010). Furthermore, most studies done on public attitudes towards offenders involve participants in a Western context. To our knowledge, no study has attempted to elucidate the factors contributing to offender stigmatisation in an Asian context.

The Present Study

The current study investigated potential factors contributing to stigmatising attitudes towards various sub-types of offenders in Singapore. We hypothesised that the more contact people have had with offenders, the less they would desire social distance from them (Hypothesis 1). In addition, we hypothesised that people who perceive offenders as incapable of changing would desire social distance from them more than would people who perceive offenders as capable of changing (Hypothesis 2). We also hypothesised that people who feel more moral outrage towards offenders would desire social distance from them more than would people who feel less moral outrage (Hypothesis 3). Furthermore, the study examined whether the public's reactions to offenders depended on the type of crime they had committed. Specifically, we hypothesised that the public would desire social distance from sexual offenders more, followed by violent and by white-collar offenders, respectively (Hypothesis 4). Finally, we hypothesised that the effects of level of contact, perception of capacity to change, and moral outrage on desire for social distance from offenders would depend on the type of crime committed (Hypothesis 5).

Methods

Participants and Design

The Singaporean undergraduate population was chosen as the target population to be studied, in part because they form a sizeable portion of future employers of offenders and prospective policy-makers (Mackey et al., 2006). A total of 628 Singaporean undergraduates from 10 universities were recruited for the present study. Inclusion criteria were: being a Singaporean citizen or Permanent Resident, being at least 18 years of age, and being an undergraduate currently in a tertiary institution. No monetary reimbursement was provided for any of the participants.

The average age of participants was 20.6 years ( SD = 1.9), and 68% were female. The majority of the participants were Chinese (91%), with the remainder indicating they were Indian (4%), Malay (2%), or from other ethnic backgrounds (3%).

The study was approved by the Department Ethics Review Committee of the Psychology Department at the National University of Singapore. Participants took part in the study by completing an online survey. A participant information sheet describing the nature of the study was provided electronically, and informed consent was sought before participants could proceed on with the study. Participants were randomly assigned to read a sexual crime ( N = 197), white-collar crime ( N = 207), or violent crime ( N = 224) vignette. Participants were told that the study involved perceptions of criminals in Singapore.

Materials and Procedure

Crime vignettes

After completing a section asking about demographic details, participants read one of the three crime vignettes (see the Appendix). The vignettes had been adapted from recent (within 2 years) news stories found online, with some of the names and identification details changed. All vignettes had approximately equal amounts of detail, including information about the offender's age, the crime, and the number of words in the vignette. Information such as the number of charges and court comments were deliberately left out so as to minimise any possible confounding influences. A manipulation check component was included, asking participants to select the type of crime they had just read.

Social distance

Participants completed various questionnaires after completing the manipulation check. The first questionnaire was the Social Distance Scale developed by Link, Cullen, Frank, and Wozniak ( 1987). Participants were asked to consider the criminal in the vignette, and they rated their agreement with 7 statements on a scale from 1 ( definitely willing) to 4 ( definitely unwilling). Scores on the items were averaged to obtain a final score, with higher scores representing a greater desire to distance oneself from offenders. An example of an item is: 'How would you feel about having someone like Anthony Tan as a neighbour?' The scale was internally reliable (Cronbach's α = .85).

Level of contact

The Level of Contact Report developed by Holmes, Corrigan, Williams, Canar, and Kubiak ( 1999) was used to assess participants' level of contact with offenders. The Level of Contact Report lists 12 situations of varying degrees of intimacy that one has experienced with members of the target population. The situations range from low intimacy ('I have never observed a person that I am aware is an offender like Anthony Tan') to medium intimacy ('I have observed offenders like Anthony Tan on a frequent basis') to high intimacy ('I live with an offender like Anthony Tan'). The developers of the scale had three experts rate the degree of intimacy that each of the 12 situations entailed. The authors found that the mean of rank-order correlations was .83, demonstrating good inter-rater reliability. Participants were asked to read all 12 statements and select those that they have experienced in their lifetime. The index of familiarity was the rank score of the most intimate situation the participant had selected. For example, a participant who checked two situations - 'I have observed offenders like Anthony Tan on a frequent basis' (rank score 5), and 'I live with an offender like Anthony Tan' (rank score 11) - would obtain a score of 11 because 'I live with an offender like Anthony Tan' is the most intimate of the selected situations. The number of participants across each level of contact can be found in Figure 1.

Incapacity to change

Participants' perception of an offender's lack of capacity to change was assessed by using an adapted version of the Theories of Prejudice Scale (Carr, Dweck, & Pauker, 2012). The original scale was developed to assess one's views about the malleability and fixedness of prejudice (Carr et al., 2012), and it was adapted to fit the present study (terms relating to 'prejudice' were changed to 'risk of re-offending'). Participants were asked to rate their agreement with six statements on a 6-point scale (from very strongly disagree to very strongly agree). Four of the statements expressed a fixed view of risk of re-offending (e.g., 'People have a certain risk of re-offending and they can't really change that'), while the remaining two statements expressed a malleable view of risk of re-offending (e.g., 'People can change their risk of re-offending a great deal') and were subsequently reverse-coded. Scores on the items were averaged to obtain a final score, with higher scores representing endorsement of the perception that offenders cannot really change their risk of re-offending. The scale was internally reliable (Cronbach's α = .82).

Moral outrage

Moral outrage was measured by getting participants to consider the crime they had just read about and rate 10 emotion descriptors on a scale from 1 ( clearly does not describe my feelings) to 5 ( clearly describes my feelings). The 10 emotion words were subdivided into three different subscales measuring disgust, anger, and contempt, and the relevant items were averaged to obtain a score for each subscale. This classification was adapted from prior research (Bastian et al., 2013, Haidt, 2003). A final moral outrage score was derived by averaging scores on the three subscales. The scale was internally reliable (Cronbach's α = .90).

Data Analysis

Three of the participants failed the manipulation check measure and were excluded from any analysis. Data analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 20. The analyses were conducted in five stages. First, descriptive statistics were obtained to characterise the sample. Second, reliability was assessed for all the scales except for the Level of Contact Report (its reliability was assessed through rank-order correlation by the developers of the scale). Third, a multiple regression was carried out to test whether level of contact, perception of incapacity to change, and moral outrage predicted social distance (Hypotheses 1 to 3). Fourth, the proposition that people would desire social distance from offenders more or less depending on the type of crime they had committed (Hypothesis 4) was tested using a one-way between-subjects ANOVA with social distance as the dependent variable and type of crime as the independent variable. Finally, to test whether the effects of the predictor variables (level of contact, perception of incapacity to change, and moral outrage) on social distance depended on crime type (Hypothesis 5), three 2 × 3 between-subjects ANOVAs were carried out. In these, social distance was entered as the dependent variable, crime type as an independent variable, and one of the three predictor variables as the remaining independent variable. These analyses allowed us to identify possible interactions between crime type and the predictor variables. Median splits were conducted in order to turn the continuous predictor variables into dichotomous variables for these ANOVAs. Participants were grouped into a 'high' group or a 'low' group (e.g., participants with scores <4.1 were classified into the 'low level of contact' group, whereas participants with scores ≥4.1 were classified into the 'high level of contact' group).

Results

Do Level of Contact, Perception of Incapacity to Change, and Moral Outrage Predict Social Distance?

A multiple linear regression revealed that level of contact did not significantly predict social distance independently of the other variables studied (β = -.04), t(624) = -1.11, p = .267. However, both perception of offenders' incapacity to change (β = .10), t(624) = 2.75, p < .001, and moral outrage (β = .38), t(624) = 10.31, p < .001, emerged as significant independent predictors of desire for social distance from offenders. Together, these three predictors accounted for 17% of the variance in social distance ( R ² = .17), F(3, 624) = 41.27, p < .001.

Do People Desire Social Distance from Offenders More or Less Depending on the Type of Crime They Have Committed?

A one-way between-subjects ANOVA revealed a significant effect of crime type on social distance, F (2, 625) = 36.87, p < .001. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey's HSD test revealed that both sexual ( M = 3.57, SD = .43) and violent ( M = 3.61, SD = .44) crimes elicited desire for social distance more than did white-collar ( M = 3.27, SD = .46) crimes (both ps < .001). However, the difference in desire for social distance elicited by sexual and violent crimes was non-significant ( p = .606).

Do the Effects on Social Distance of Level of Contact, Perception of Incapacity to Change, and Moral Outrage Depend on Crime Type?

The 2 (high vs. low level of predictors) × 3 (sexual vs. white-collar vs. violent crime type) between-subjects ANOVAs revealed no interaction effect for type of crime and level of contact, F(2, 622) = .50, p = .610, or for type of crime and perception of incapacity to change, F(2, 622) = 1.15, p = .318. Thus, level of contact had no effect on social distance, irrespective of type of crime. The effect on social distance of perceiving offenders as incapable of changing was likewise not influenced by type of crime. An interaction effect was found, on the other hand, for type of crime and moral outrage, F(2, 622) = 4.53, p = .011, suggesting that the effect of moral outrage on social distance depended on the nature of the offence committed. Simple main effects tests showed that respondents who read about white-collar and violent crimes desired social distance from the offender more if they felt higher levels of moral outrage than if they felt lower levels of moral outrage [ F(1, 622) = 8.47, p < .01; F(1, 622) = 39.36, p < .001, respectively] (see Figure 2). However, respondents who read about sexual crimes appeared to desire social distance from the offender in equal measure regardless whether they felt higher or lower levels of moral outrage, F(1, 622) = 3.27, p = .071.

Factors Contributing towards Stigmatisation of Offenders in Singapore

Discussion

The present study aimed to provide insight into the factors that contribute to stigmatisation of offenders in Singapore. Several findings merit discussion. First, our results suggest that both the public's perceptions of offenders' capacity to change, as well as the moral outrage they feel in response to criminal behaviours, play a significant role in determining their desire for social distance from offenders. These findings highlight that individual differences in perception or emotional response impact not only upon the public's views about punishment of offenders and their suitability for rehabilitation, as previous research has documented (e.g., Bastian et al., 2013; Maruna & King, 2009), but also on their inclination to distance themselves socially from offenders - a key dimension of stigma and an important barrier to reintegration.

Second, somewhat surprisingly, the present study found no association between the level of contact the public has had with offenders and the amount of social distance they desired from offenders. This result is in contrast with a large body of literature documenting that contact is routinely associated with less prejudice and stigma (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Pettigrew, Tropp, Wagner, & Christ, 2011). Nonetheless, the present finding is consistent with a growing body of work showing mixed support for Intergroup Contact Theory (Forbes, 2004). Opponents of the theory have emphasised that although intergroup contact has the potential to reduce prejudice, the complexity involved in achieving this link should not be overlooked (Stephan, 1987). For instance, prior attitudes and experiences of individuals involved in the contact process play an important part as to whether contact has an effect or not (Pettigrew, 1998). It is possible that attitudes and experiences prevalent among Singaporean undergraduates prevent contact from having any salutary effects on stigma in this population, and future studies are needed to assess this possibility. However, it is also possible that the high frequency of low-level contact experiences contributed to the null finding in the present study. As can be seen in Figure 1, only around 20% of respondents reported having had personal contact with offenders. In contrast, around 60% of the participants reported contact with offenders in the form of movies or television shows or documentaries. It is possible that this low-level form of contact is insufficient to reduce stigmatising attitudes towards offenders, masking any effects of closer and more intimate forms of contact. This perspective might explain why our results, albeit non-significant, were in the expected direction. Future studies should take the low frequency of personal contact with offenders into account and employ alternative means of investigating the effect of contact on stigma, for example by experimentally inducing contact or imagined contact (see Crisp & Turner, 2009).

Third, we obtained support for the notion that desire for social distance from offenders depends on the type of crime they have committed. In particular, we found that participants desired social distance from sexual and violent offenders more than from white-collar offenders. This finding dovetails with previous research in this area, demonstrating that the public is far less welcoming of sexual and violent offenders into their communities because sexual and violent offenders are assumed to be more dangerous (Immerwahr & Johnson, 2002; Maruna & King, 2004). However, the finding that sexual offenders did not elicit more desire for social distance than did violent offenders is not in line with past research, which has indicated that sexual offenders are the most detested group of offenders (Tewksbury, 2005). This tension can be resolved by examining the mean social distance scores in the sexual and violent crime conditions. The mean social distance scores for participants in the sexual and violent conditions were both very high (>3.5 out of a maximum of 4), indicating the possible presence of a ceiling effect. Hence, future studies may consider increasing the range of the social distance measure to aid comparison of desire for social distance from offenders who have committed sexual versus violent crimes.

Fourth, we found that the effects on social distance of level of contact and perception of offenders' capacity to change did not depend on crime type. However, the effect of moral outrage on social distance depended on crime type: in the contexts of white-collar and violent crimes, participants who felt high levels of moral outrage towards perpetrators desired social distance from them more than did participants who felt low moral outrage. For sexual crimes, however, high and low levels of moral outrage appeared to elicit the same amount of desire for social distance. This suggests that there might be factors other than moral outrage that are driving the high level of desire for social distance from sexual offenders. The literature suggests that a plausible factor might be the fear of victimisation. A study done by Salerno et al. ( 2010) found that when both perceived threat and moral outrage were entered as possible predictors of support for sex offender registry laws, moral outrage no longer predicted support for laws. Ferraro ( 1996) also found that the public's fear of sexual assault is particularly salient as compared to their fear of other crime types such as robbery, suggesting that it might be fear that is driving the public's desire for social distance from sexual offenders.

Implications

The findings of the present study have important implications for offender reintegration efforts. Research conducted in Western countries has suggested that increasing levels of contact between offenders and the public is a plausible pathway to improving relations and reducing stigma (Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010). In contrast, although our findings are preliminary and in need of careful replication with experimental methods, they suggest that anti-stigma interventions that focus purely on increasing contact with offenders may not be effective in Singapore. Instead, our findings suggest that interventions targeting perceptions of offenders' capacity to change and the moral outrage people feel towards criminal behaviour constitute promising avenues for reducing stigmatisation of offenders in the local cultural context.

Past studies have hinted at possible interventions to alter the public's beliefs about offenders' inability to change, including presenting scientific evidence over several sessions highlighting offenders' capacity to change (cf. Carr et al., 2012) as well as disseminating success stories of offenders who have successfully desisted from further crime (Maruna & King, 2009). With regard to moral outrage, diversionary restorative justice conferences, which enlist widespread community participation in a dialogue about an offender's crime, might be a useful way to cool down the negative emotions evoked by crimes and strengthen the moral bonds between the offender and the community (Sherman & Strang, 1997). Furthermore, future research could investigate whether different ways of framing criminal behaviour in the media might have an impact on the moral outrage evoked, and whether such effects could be capitalised on to bring down the levels of moral outrage in the community.

Lastly, our findings suggest that policy-makers are likely to encounter more resistance from the public when implementing reintegration programmes for sexual and violent offenders due to the higher levels of stigmatising attitudes towards these groups. This should be taken into account when funding and developing these programmes.

Strengths and Limitations

The present study identified a new, previously unexplored variable - perceptions about offenders' capacity to change - that shapes the public's stigmatising attitudes towards ex-offenders. Previous studies on beliefs about the malleability of attributes and behaviour have touched on topics like intelligence (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002; Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007), performance (Kray & Haselhuhn, 2007), and prejudice (Carr et al., 2012). Thus, the present study can be seen as a valuable add-on to the body of research demonstrating the various ways in which beliefs about the malleability of human behaviours and attributes matter. Further, most of the studies in the literature on predictors of public attitudes towards offenders have focused on views about suitable pre-release penal responses (Courtright & Mackey, 2004). The current study is one of the few that have investigated public attitudes towards post-release issues such as social rejection of offenders in the community (e.g., Austin, 2004; Demski & McGlynn, 1999; Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010), and the only one of its kind conducted in an Asian cultural setting.

Nonetheless, this study is not without limitations. First, as this study manipulated only crime type, no causal links between the three contributing factors and social distance can be established. Second, as the study was conducted with undergraduates as participants, the results may not be generalisable to the wider Singaporean community. Finally, the amount of variance explained by the factors we studied was modest, suggesting that other pathways leading to social rejection of offenders remain to be discovered.

Conclusion

Ultimately, investigating the factors contributing to stigmatisation of offenders is not merely a scientific endeavour: it can have important implications for offenders and society as well. This study explored and identified some of the factors contributing to negative attitudes towards offenders in the Singaporean undergraduate population. Our findings suggest that level of contact with offenders is, surprisingly, not associated with stigmatising attitudes in Singapore. Although preliminary in nature, this finding identifies a possible disparity in the factors that contribute to stigma in different societies and highlights the importance of taking into account cross-cultural differences when designing policies to reduce stigma. The findings from the present study emphasise the need to address the public's perception of offenders' capacity to change and the moral outrage they feel towards offenders - key elements that contribute to the stigmatisation of and social distancing from offenders. Policy-makers looking towards implementing effective anti-stigma interventions may consider including public education that focuses on emphasising the malleability of offenders' behaviour and reducing the negative emotions aroused in members of the community.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Erlend Kvaale and Dongdong Li for their valuable suggestions and feedback.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no funding support for this research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Forbes, H. D. (2004). Ethnic conflict and the contact hypothesis. In Y. T. Lee, C. McCauley, F. Moghaddam, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The psychology of ethnic and cultural conflict (pp. 69-88). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hogue, T. E. (1993). Attitudes towards prisoners and sexual offenders. In N. K. Clark & G. M. Stephenson (Eds.), Sexual offenders: Context, assessment and treatment (pp.27-32). Leicester: BPS.

Holmes, E. P. , Corrigan, P. W. , Williams, P. , Canar, J. , & Kubiak, M. A. (1999). Changing attitudes about schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 25(3), 447-456.

Immerwahr, J. , & Johnson, J. (2002). The revolving door: Exploring public attitudes toward prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Maruna, S. , & King, A. (2004). Public opinion and community penalties. In A. Bottoms, S. Rex, & G. Robinson (Eds.), Alternatives to prison: Options for an insecure society (pp. 83-112). Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

Meredith, T. , Speir, J. , Johnson, S. , & Hull, H. (2003). Enhancing parole decision-making through the automation of risk assessment. Atlanta, GA: Applied Research Services.

Salerno, J. M. , Najdowski, C. J. , Stevenson, M. C. , Wiley, T. R. , Bottoms, B. L. , Vaca, R. , & Pimentel, P. S. (2010). Psychological mechanisms underlying support for juvenile sex offender registry laws: Prototypes, moral outrage, and perceived threat. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 28(1), 58-83.

Sherman, L. W. , & Strang, H. (1997). The right kind of shame for crime prevention (RISE Working Paper No. 1). Canberra: Australian National University, Research School of Social Sciences, Law Program.

Stephan, W. G. (1987). The contact hypothesis in intergroup relations. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group processes and intergroup relations (pp. 13-40). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Appendix

Crime Vignettes

Sexual Crime
Presented below is an article published in The Straits Times in 2014. Please read through carefully before proceeding on.
28 May 2014

A 44-year-old serial rapist who spiked his victims' drinks with sleeping pills has been charged with rape, sexual assault, and outrage of modesty. From 2008 to 2009, Anthony Tan Kim Hock committed various sexual offences against 22 women he met through a dating app. During initial conversations, Tan would lie about his educational qualifications and occupation in order to lure his victims out. Once they agreed, he would meet them at a nightspot, drug them, bring them to a hotel room, and then sexually assault, rape, or molest them before sending them home. On several occasions, he also filmed himself sexually assaulting the women on his two cellphones. The victims would have no recollection of the sexual assault after they woke up. If they called him, he would tell them they had drunk too much and passed out. The court also found out that Tan lied to doctors in order to obtain the sleeping pills.

White-collar Crime
Presented below is an article published in The Straits Times in 2014. Please read through carefully before proceeding on.
23 May 2014

Former Maris Stella High Principal Anthony Tan Kim Hock, 67, has been charged with misappropriation of school funds amounting to S$67,000. Tan abused his authority as principal and misused money that was meant for the school and students. On several occasions, Tan brought along his friend Mr Peter Lim, who is unrelated to the school, on business trips to London and Hong Kong. Tan directed the school to pay for Mr Lim's overseas expenses - including airfare and accommodation - out of the school's funds, which comes from donations and fund-raising activities. Tan also instructed the school to pay for Mr Lim's tennis coaching accreditation programme and an advanced open diving course on Pulau Tioman. In addition, Tan also deposited donations made by parents to the school into his own bank account. The misappropriations occurred over a period of more than five years and had gone undetected as the school staff had trusted Tan.

Violent Crime
Presented below is an article published in The Straits Times in 2013. Please read through carefully before proceeding on.
7 Aug 2013

A 32-year-old Singaporean man has been charged for maid abuse that took place in his flat in Buangkok Link. In mid-December 2010, Anthony Tan Kim Hock punched the 25-year-old helper, Ms Juwarti, in the eye when she felt sleepy while taking care of Tan's two young children. Twelve days later, the helper said Tan attacked her again for not monitoring his son's temperature, pushing her head against the edge of a toilet doorway and kicking her private parts. On December 31, Tan lashed out again when he found his son's blanket on the floor in the children's room, kicking Ms Juwarti repeatedly in the body, causing her to bleed. When he saw her blood-soaked bermuda shorts, he ordered her to change, clean her leg and go to sleep. Tan also threatened to torture the helper the next day if she did not walk upright. The helper fled from the house that day, fearing more torment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Factors Contributing towards Stigmatisation of Offenders in Singapore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract Stigmatisation is a frequently listed as a concern by offenders and has been identified as a major barrier to reintegration. The present study explored factors contributing to stigmatising attitudes towards various sub-types of offenders in Singapore. Six hundred and twenty-eight undergraduate students read a vignette illustrating a sexual, a white-collar, or a violent crime before answering various questionnaires in an online survey.

# data[].attributes.body
Why are crimes stigmatised?

Based on the article provided, criminal behaviour can also evoke feelings of disgust and contempt. Contempt constitute moral outrage. Havings such feelings may motivate reactions to criminal behaviour that include desire for social distancing and punishment. Thus, these emotional reactions to the crime offenders committed may contribute to stigma.
How are crimes stigmatised?
Based on article research, it has documented that white-collar crimes are perceived as relatively harmless as compared to violent crimes.  The article further suggest that, depending on the nature of the crime committed, it is possible that the factors contributing to stigma will relate differently to desire for social distance.

# data[].attributes.body
Crime is stigmatized in Singapore because due to moral outrage. It is also because serious crimes in Singapore are relatively low and once such crimes have committed the offender will be breaking the norms that ethical culture. At the same time probably in Singapore there isn't much public education/awareness to in de-stigmatised this kind of offenders

# data[].attributes.body
A vast majority of population still believes (knowingly or unknowingly) in the theory of Cesare Lombrosso - “Criminal Man”. This belief is further strengthened by culture and religion, where there is clear distinction between good and evil, and not many cases of evil turning to good.

# data[].attributes.body
- immoral
- not according to norms
- or not according to set standardisations/expectations of society

How?
- media (movies, news, posters)
- social media
- culture
- institutions

# data[].attributes.body
Why?
There is a long-standing debate in the social sciences as to why certain crimes are stigmatised more than others. One of the most common explanations is that stigmatising crimes communicate to society that these behaviours are unworthy or inappropriate and therefore those who commit such crimes are undeserving of sympathy or rehabilitation.

However, an alternative explanation suggests that the stigmatisation of certain crimes is actually used to reinforce these behaviours by portraying them as extreme and therefore unacceptable. This is the theory behind labelling theory, which suggests that individuals will engage in deviant behaviour only when they perceive such behaviour as socially acceptable. As according to theory, individuals who commit crimes are viewed as deviants when society labels them as such. On the other hand, crimes that are perceived as normative are not usually labelled and are therefore not considered as deviants.

How?
Stigma is a term that has been used to refer to the various ways in which crimes are labelled and judged by the public. Crimes can be stigmatised in a number of ways, including by their severity, the type of person who has committed the crime and the way in which the crime is perceived by the public.

Crimes are stigmatised by the severity of the crime that they have committed, as well as the impact that the crime has had on the victim. For example, crimes committed by children may be stigmatised more than crimes committed by adults.