Conceptualizing and Measuring Public Stigma Toward People With Prison Records

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221108932
• Published date: 01 November 2022
• Date: 01 November 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 11, November 2022, 1676 –1698.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221108932

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2022 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1676

CONCEPTUALIZING AND MEASURING PUBLIC

STIGMA TOWARD PEOPLE WITH PRISON

RECORDS

LUZI SHI

Bridgewater State University

JASON R. SILVER

Rutgers University–Newark

AUDREY HICKERT

Southern Illinois University

Public stigma toward people with prison records hinders re-entry initiatives. Although it is widely discussed in corrections,

its measurement has been study specific. Based on existing literature, we develop and test a multidimensional public stigma

scale. We examine the factor structure and dimensionality of the scale using a Qualtrics Panel sample of U.S. adults

(N = 1,216) and exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, which show that 17 of the 20 proposed scale items produce

a four-factor structure, including danger/distrust, dehumanization, dispositional crime attributions, and social/emotional

distance. We assess construct validity by testing the relationship between public stigma and theoretical antecedents and

expected support for policy outcomes. Results show that public stigma is positively related to belief in evil and racial resent-

ment and negatively related to personal and vicarious arrest experiences. It is also positively related to support for disenfran-

chisement and punitive policies and negatively related to support for rehabilitative policies.

Keywords: public stigma; scale validation; factor analysis; construct validity; people with criminal records

INTRODUCTION

In his seminal 1963 book, Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Goffman

described stigma as a discrediting trait that makes one a reduced, tainted, and discounted

individual without full social acceptance. In the context of criminal justice, a key concept is

the public’s stigmatizing attitude toward currently or formerly incarcerated people, also

known as public stigma (Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010). Public stigma often results in indi-

viduals returning from prison bearing “sticky” labels as immoral and criminally deviant

(Becker, 1963) and has important implications for postincarceration life. For example, the

public’s stigmatizing beliefs may undergird exclusionary social policies limiting housing,

education, employment, and other social benefits for people with prison records (The

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The current study is funded using internal funds from the Bridgewater State University

and Rutgers University—Newark. The funding process was noncompetitive. Correspondence concerning this

article should be addressed to Luzi Shi, Department of Criminal Justice, Bridgewater State University, Maxwell

Library 311D, 10 Shaw Road, Bridgewater, MA 02325; e-mail: lshi@bridgew.edu.

1108932CJBXXX10.1177/00938548221108932Criminal Justice and BehaviorShi et al. / Measuring Public Stigma of Prison Records

research-article2022

Shi et al. / MEASURING PUBLIC STIGMA OF PRISON RECORDS 1677

Council of State Governments, 2017). Stigma also has implications for understanding the

public’s support for felon disenfranchisement and punitive or rehabilitative criminal justice

policies (e.g., Burton, Cullen, Burton, et al., 2020).

Several theoretical perspectives may explain the formation of public stigma. Psychologists

hypothesize that belief in evil may lead people to perceive people who have been incarcer-

ated as unreformable evildoers who deserve harsh treatment (Campbell & Vollhardt, 2014;

Webster & Saucier, 2013). Criminological and sociological research demonstrates that that

racial resentment motivates public stigma (Jackl, 2021; Lehmann et al., 2020), as does

political conservatism (Dum et al., 2022; Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010). Conversely, per-

sonal or vicarious experiences with the justice system may lead to less stigmatization of

individuals with prison experience (Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010; Jackl, 2021).

Despite the practical and theoretical importance of public stigma, existing studies rarely

share a common approach to measuring stigma. However, there are at least three benefits to

having a general and unified measure of public stigma. First, measuring stigma consistently

across different studies can help clarify which predictors are most relevant to shaping public

stigma (Denver et al., 2017). Second, by understanding the underlying predictors of public

stigma, policymakers can craft targeted policies to improve the reintegration of formerly

incarcerated people. Third, a validated survey measure can tie public stigma to a broader

literature, including studies that utilize parallel concepts but do not use the term “stigma.”

In this study, we construct a multidimensional scale to measure public stigma. We concep-

tualize stigma based on a review of existing measures of stigma toward currently or formerly

incarcerated people and identify five key dimensions: danger and distrust, social distance,

dehumanization, dispositional crime attributions, and negative emotion. We develop a

20-item scale, use data from a Qualtrics Panel (QP) sample to investigate the discriminant

and convergent validity of the scale using factor analyses, and assess the construct validity of

the scale by examining its relationships to theoretical antecedents and policy support out-

comes. The result is a 17-item scale measuring public stigma.

PUBLIC STIGMA IN EXISTING CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH

To develop a unified public stigma scale, we reviewed literature in a few different lines

of research, including attribution style, employers’ decision-making, punitiveness, attitudes

toward people who are convicted of sex crimes, and vignette survey research testing public

support for specific re-entry policies, as well as research in two papers summarizing prior

measures of stigma in criminal justice research (Martin et al., 2020; Rade et al., 2016). To

our knowledge, the only study that has explicitly examined public stigma using an index

was by Hirschfield and Piquero (2010). They developed their measure based on a 32-item

Attitudes Toward Prisoners (ATP) scale created by Melvin et al. (1985) and identified per-

ceived dangerousness, perceived dishonesty, and attitudinal social distance as the main

components of public stigma. Accordingly, they used four items to measure public stigma:

(1) Most people who have been incarcerated are dangerous, (2) Most people who have been

incarcerated are dishonest, (3) I would avoid associating with anyone who has recently been

incarcerated, and (4) It would be a big deal if one of my neighbors was incarcerated

(Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010, pp. 38–39).1 The scale has also been used in more recent

studies (e.g., Dum et al., 2022; Overton et al., 2021).

Based on the Hirschfield and Piquero (2010) dimensions and a thorough review of

stigma-related criminological literature, we identified five related dimensions that may