OBJECTIVE Legal socialization research highlights that youth compliance is shaped by institutional legitimacy and legitimacy of the law, often fostered by fair treatment from authorities. However, less evidence exists concerning the influence of nonlegal actors and indirect experiences with the police. We expand on these gaps by testing the procedural justice model of legal socialization across Portuguese adolescents, examining (a) how perceptions of procedural justice from police, parents, and teachers and negative vicarious experiences with police shape police legitimacy and (b) how legitimacy and procedural justice relate to delinquent behavior. HYPOTHESES We expected higher procedural justice across all authorities and fewer negative vicarious experiences with the police to predict higher perceptions of police legitimacy, and both police legitimacy and procedural justice to negatively impact delinquency. METHOD Self-report surveys were administered to 340 adolescents (age range = 15-21 years old; 34% male; 25.3% immigrants) attending four high schools in northern Portugal. RESULTS Police legitimacy was primarily predicted by procedural justice judgments of police (β = .280, p < .001) and parents (β = .154, p = .006) and by immigrant status (β = -.170, p = .002). Normative legitimacy did not significantly explain delinquency (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.709, p = .144), which was predicted by deviant group behavior (IRR = 3.034, p = .002), male gender (IRR = 2.431, p < .001), variety of police contacts (IRR = 1.235, p = .003), and parental procedural justice (IRR = 0.727, p = .049). CONCLUSIONS Findings provide partial support for the procedural justice model of legal socialization in Portugal and highlight the role of fair treatment by parents in shaping legal attitudes. Effects of legal attitudes on behavior may be contingent on specific social contexts and developmental factors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVES:Emerging theory suggests that prosocial identity motivation (PIM)-youth's drive to disassociate from antisocial lifestyles and forge conventional identities aligned with prosocial values-may be crucial for promoting desistance among justice-involved adolescents. Yet, standardized tools to assess this construct are lacking, as is evidence of its protective value against continued antisocial behavior. We derived a measure of PIM from the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument and tested whether it protects detained youth from serious and violent institutional infractions-behaviors that increase recidivism risk and deepen system penetration. We also examined whether the youth's overall risk level moderates this relationship. HYPOTHESES:We hypothesized that PIM would inversely predict both infraction types, offer predictive value beyond composite strength and risk scores, and demonstrate stronger protective effects for low- and moderate-risk youth compared to higher risk counterparts. METHOD:Using data on 846 male detained youth (Mage 17) assessed by reliable staff, we integrated Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument scores with official infraction records over an average 6-month period and applied Cox proportional hazard survival analyses to examine the protective effect of PIM. RESULTS:PIM significantly protected against serious, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.44, 0.60] and violent (HR = 0.53, 95% CI [0.45, 0.63]) infractions and provided incremental predictive utility beyond composite risk or strengths scores. Youth's risk level moderated the protective effect for serious infractions, with benefits observed for low- and moderate-risk youth but not their higher risk counterparts. CONCLUSION:Youth's PIM protects against institutional infractions-an important first step toward desistance. These findings suggest that juvenile justice systems should move beyond solely addressing criminogenic needs among incarcerated youth to recognize identity transformation as a developmentally relevant pathway to behavior change. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE:Witnesses can confidently identify a defendant in court despite having rejected the defendant in a photo lineup during the initial police investigation. Even when informed of the witness's prior inconsistent statement, jurors often disregard it and convict based on the confident courtroom identification. We investigated this phenomenon and a strategy for minimizing it. HYPOTHESES:We predicted that laypeople hold the false belief that heightened emotional arousal can temporally block face-recognition memory, leading them to vote guilty despite the witness's initial lineup rejection. We also expected that a revised version of the recently introduced reflector variable instructions would help jurors understand an initial lineup rejection and reduce wrongful convictions. METHOD:Using mock-trial transcripts, Study 1 (N = 45, Prolific) asked mock jurors how they would explain the witness's inconsistent statements. Study 2 (N = 289, Prolific) manipulated the witness's initial identification outcome (immediate high-confidence identification vs. lineup rejection) and the type of jury instruction (reflector variable vs. control) to examine whether reflector variable instructions help mock jurors better discriminate between evidence of guilt and evidence of innocence. RESULTS:In Study 1, participants tended to attribute testimonial inconsistencies to stress, suggesting that laypeople are generally unaware that memory contamination may cause these inconsistencies. In Study 2, the interaction between instruction type and initial identification outcome was significant (OR = 3.73, 95% CI [1.29, 10.78]). Under reflector variable instructions, mock jurors were more likely to render a guilty verdict following an immediate high-confidence identification than after a lineup rejection (OR = 3.89, p < .001), whereas no such difference emerged under control instructions (OR = 1.04, p = .91). CONCLUSIONS:Witnesses cannot correctly explain their inconsistent memory decisions, and jurors cannot correctly interpret them. The new instructions emphasizing the importance of the initial memory test may be a useful starting point. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE:Prenuptial marriage contracts can make the divorce process easier for separating couples and their children, yet few people enter them. To better understand public perceptions of these contracts, this research sought to identify predictors of attitudes and intentions toward prenuptial agreements and determine whether these outcomes can be manipulated. HYPOTHESES:Study 1 had no directional hypotheses. Study 2 replicated and extended Study 1. Consistent with Study 1 results, we hypothesized that beliefs about contracts (e.g., they are unromantic) would be stronger predictors of positive attitudes and intentions than other variables (e.g., age, education). We also predicted that participants who learned about prenuptial agreements would report more positive attitudes and intentions toward them than those who did not learn about them. METHOD:In Study 1, romantically attached participants (60.26% women, 65.89% White, Mage = 30.36) from an online sample reported on themselves, their relationships, and their attitudes, intentions, and beliefs regarding prenuptial agreements. Using an online sample, Study 2 (50.47% women, 68.14% White, Mage = 43.92) collected similar information. We also conducted an experiment in which we randomly assigned participants to read a news article about prenuptial agreements or an unrelated topic. RESULTS:In Studies 1 and 2, demographic (age, education), individual (religiosity, attachment style), and relationship (satisfaction, length) characteristics were generally weak predictors of prenuptial agreement attitudes and intentions. In contrast, beliefs about the contracts accounted for considerably more variance, suggesting that attitudes and intentions toward these agreements are more strongly associated with perceptions of how they work, rather than with personal or relationship traits. Study 2 also demonstrated that a simple informational intervention was sufficient to shift views on prenuptial agreements. CONCLUSIONS:Findings have implications for policymakers seeking to increase the use of prenuptial contracting to reduce the negative consequences of divorce and divorce litigation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE:Determine if repeated or slow-motion viewing of body-worn camera videos of police use-of-force incidents influences viewers' assessments. HYPOTHESES:Participants are more likely to agree that officers' beliefs about danger in a situation were reasonable after repeated viewings and when a viewing is in slow motion. METHOD:In two preregistered experiments (N = 304 and 299), participants, recruited using the online survey recruitment platform Prolific, viewed body-worn camera video footage of four actual police use-of-force incidents in which the suspect was either armed or unarmed. Each incident was viewed three times. The first and third viewings were at regular speed. The second viewing of each incident was either in slow motion or at regular speed. After each viewing, participants rated their agreement with the statement that the officer had reason to believe there was an immediate danger to themselves or others when they shot the suspect. RESULTS:After multiple viewings, participants were more likely to agree that an officer's beliefs about danger in a situation were reasonable when the suspect was armed but not when they were unarmed (ηp² = .67 and .71). Viewing these videos in slow motion amplified the increase in agreement that there was danger in the situation when the video showed an armed suspect, but this effect was inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS:Viewing body-worn camera footage multiple times changed viewers' agreement that the officer's beliefs about danger were reasonable. These findings have implications for how unbiased assessments of police use-of-force incidents should be conducted, with a focus on whether these assessments adhere to the U.S. standard set out in Graham v. Connor. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
