Prior Crime Exposure and Social Distance: The Case of Victimization Emily R. Edwards, B.S. Introduction Results Discussion Intergroup contact theory: exposure to a stigmatized group decreases prejudice and/or discrimination (Pettigrew, 1998) Normalization thesis: exposure to a stigmatized behavior normalizes the behavior and thereby decreases prejudice and/or discrimination (Measham, Newcombe, & Parker, 1994) The nature of exposure may play a part in determining the effect on subsequent social distance (e.g. law enforcement officers; Johnson, Hughes, & Ireland, 2007). Research on attitudes toward sex offenders found victimization to be associated with less negative attitudes (Ferguson & Ireland, 2006). Both reported history of victimization and having a close interpersonal relationship were associated with lower social distance. Results support intergroup contact theory and normalization thesis. Results regarding victimization mirror findings observed in sex offender literature. Although the present study has significant results, directionality is still unclear – does lower social distance put one at risk for victimization or does victimization lower subsequent social distance? Future studies may examine potentially mediating variables, such as perception of offender dangerousness or perceived locus of control of crime. Having a history of victimization was associated with significantly lower social distance Wilks’ Λ = .89, F(5, 131) = 3.26, p = .008. Having a close friend or family member previously charged with a crime was associated with significantly lower social distance Wilks’ Λ = .91, F(5, 131) = 2.62, p = .027. References Method 150 young adult participants recruited from a Southeastern university undergraduate population Modified Bogardus Social Distance Scale Assessed using 4 point Likert scale Randomized to complete measure in regard to someone “previously convicted of a violent crime” or “previously convicted of a nonviolent crime” Prior Crime Exposure Having a close friend or family member previously charged with a crime History of victimization History of criminal charges Demographics Boag, E. M. & Wilson, D. (2014). Inside experience: Engagement, empathy, and prejudice towards prisoners. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 4(1), 33-43. Ferguson, K., & Ireland, C. A. (2006). Attitudes towards sex offenders and the influence of offence type: A comparison of staff working in a forensic setting and students. The British Journal of Forensic Practice, 8(2), 10-19. Johnson, H., Hughes, J. G., & Ireland, J. L. (2007). Attitudes towards sex offenders and the role of empathy, locus of control and training: A comparison between a probationer police and general public sample. The Police Journal, 80(1), 28-54. Measham, F., & Shiner, M. (2009). The legacy of ‘normalisation’: The role of classical and contemporary criminological theory in understanding young people's drug use. International Journal of Drug Policy, 20(6), 502-508. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65-85. Low sample sizes prevent use of inferential statistics to examine differences between individuals with and without prior reported charges; descriptive statistics suggest those with such histories tended to have lower social distance Contact Information Emily R. Edwards, B.S. eedwards@jjay.cuny.edu