abstract: Blalock’s (1967) minority threat perspective is one of the most empirically investigated theories of crime control in criminological literature. A large body of research has tested this perspective and established a link between minority context and increased criminal justice controls. The perceived threat mechanisms hypothesized to facilitate this link, however, have received relatively scant attention. In addition, no multidimensional scale of perceived minority threat has been developed. These oversights have significantly impeded the advancement of research testing the empirical validity and generalizability of Blalock’s premises across racial and ethnic groups. Against this backdrop, this dissertation extends prior work by conducting three separate but interrelated studies. The first study focuses on the development and validation of a multidimensional Perceived Latino Threat Scale (PLTS). The second study investigates how the PLTS can inform the relationship between Latino context and punitive border control sentiment. The third and final study assesses the psychometrics of another multidimensional scale of perceived threat—the Perceived Black Threat Scale (PBTS), and examines the structural invariance and distinctness of the PBTS and PLTS. Using data collected from two college samples, I relied on a variety of different methods across the three empirical studies, including confirmatory factor analyses, bivariate and partial correlation analyses, and ordinary least squares regression. Overall, the findings suggest that both the PLTS and PBTS are multidimensional constructs that are structurally invariant and empirically distinct. In addition, perceived Latino threat significantly influenced punitive border control sentiment, but did not surface as a mediating mechanism linking ethnic context to immigration attitudes. Furthermore, whereas objective Latino population context did not demonstrate significant effects on either perceived Latino threat or punitive border control sentiment, the results emphasized perceived Latino context as a key moderator in the relationship between perceived Latino threat and punitive border control sentiment. Thus, the findings support the multidimensionality of perceived threat, as well as the hypothesized link between perceived threat and punitive controls, but raises key concerns about the generalizability of Blalock’s perspective to explain the threat-control process of Latinos. Implications for theory and research are discussed. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Criminology and Criminal Justice 2020

No description available.

No description available.

The competing values of national security and civil liberties have been contested as conflicting ideas during times of national emergencies and war, in which the canonical knowledge asserts that the temporary secession of civil liberties is sometimes necessary to protect national security. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack there has been increased pressure on the U.S. government to provide safety and security, which has required Americans to accept certain restrictions on their freedoms, leading to debates about whether liberty or security should be prioritized. The increasing popularization of securitization in post 9/11 discourse justified by a perpetual state of emergency via the War on Terror, has reinforced the racialization of reified "others," specifically Muslims or people who are perceived to be descendent from the Middle East. The conceptualization of Middle Easterners as 'terrorists' and 'threats' to be securitized has been constructed by political elites and media narratives to garner support for security measures leading to the diminished civil liberties of those stereotyped as "terrorists." Using the theoretical approach of racialized "othering" and the minority threat perception, this research seeks to analyze public opinion on counterterrorism policies when the race/ethnicity and ideological motivations of perpetrators in a hypothetical terrorist attack scenario are manipulated. To investigate this premise, an online survey experiment distributed through Amazon MTurk was conducted to gather public opinion data on counterterrorism policies. Regression analyses were conducted from the 314 respondents to evaluate support amongst various social groups for the counterterrorism policies and whether or not this support was affected by the presence of either American-born, White, men motivated by the teachings of far-right extremism or American-born, men of Middle Eastern descent motivated by the teachings of Islamic extremism. Respondents were asked to evaluate two counterterrorism policies, one that required ceding the civil liberties of the public at large, and the other required ceding the civil liberties of suspected terrorists specifically – which is also referred to as the 'punitive' policy throughout the research. Overall, respondents were more likely to support the policy requiring ceding civil liberties in general, than the punitive policy that would take away the civil liberties of suspected terrorist. When factoring in survey type, respondents in general were more likely to support the punitive policy when taking the White/Far-right extremism survey and were also the most likely to support the policy requiring the public to cede their civil liberties when taking the Middle Eastern/Islamic extremism survey. The willingness to cede civil liberties increased for Black and Asian respondents with the presence of the White/Far-right extremism survey, while willingness to cede civil liberties decreased for White respondents taking the same survey. In general, conservatives were more likely to cede their civil liberties than liberals, and liberals were more likely to view counterterrorism policies as ineffective. When accounting for the effects of survey type on ideology, the results show that conservatives were the least likely to cede their civil liberties when taking the White/Far-right extremism survey, while liberals were the most likely to cede their civil liberties when taking the Middle Eastern/Islamic extremism survey. / Master of Arts / This thesis explores the role of issue framing, and threat perception on terrorism and its effects on public perception of the liberty vs. security paradigm by way of support for counterterrorism policies. Specifically, this research aims to assess whether support for counterterrorism policies by social group (focusing on race and ideology) varies when the race/ethnicity and ideological motivations of the perpetrators are manipulated in a hypothetical terrorist attack scenario. In order to test this effect, a survey experiment was conducted to gather public opinion data on counterterrorism policies which emulated the liberty/security trade-offs within the Patriot Act. The survey was distributed through the online platform Amazon MTurk which garnered 314 responses. Regression analyses were conducted to evaluate support amongst various social groups for the counterterrorism policies and whether or not this support was affected by the presence of either American-born, White, men motivated by the teachings of far-right extremism or American-born, men of Middle Eastern descent motivated by the teachings of Islamic extremism. Using the theoretical approach of "othering" and the minority threat perception that contributes to desires for increased social controls and levels of punitiveness among the public, this research evaluates respondents' willingness to cede their own civil liberties as well as their support for punitive policies that take away the civil liberties of the perpetrators based on the survey/stimuli respondents received. Overall, respondents were more likely to support the policy requiring ceding civil liberties, than support the punitive policy that would take away the civil liberties of the perpetrators. When factoring in survey type, respondents in general were more likely to support the punitive policy when taking the White/Far-right extremism survey and were also the most likely to support the policy requiring the public to cede their civil liberties when taking the Middle Eastern/Islamic extremism survey. The willingness to cede civil liberties increased for Black and Asian respondents with the presence of the White/Far-right extremism survey, while the willingness to cede civil liberties decreased for White respondents with the presence of the White/Far-right extremism survey. In general, conservatives were more likely to cede their civil liberties than liberals, and liberals were more likely to view counterterrorism policies as ineffective. When accounting for the effects of survey type on ideology, the results show that conservatives were the least likely to cede their civil liberties when taking the White/Far-right extremism survey, while liberals were the most likely to cede their civil liberties when taking the Middle Eastern/Islamic extremism survey.