CriminalismNCT05007314
Biocriminology and the Adjudication of Criminal Responsibility: Is There a Consensus Among Scientists' Verdicts?
A study testing Biocriminological Evidence in people with Criminalism, run by Leiden University Medical Center at 1 site in Netherlands.
Trial summary
Because of the evolving nature of psychology research, non-scientists are more likely to struggle or misinterpret evidence regarding a person's psychological state. Misconceptions may thus be highly prevalent within the justice system, leading to negative consequences for people with psychological or neurobiological… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Criminalism
- What is being tested?
- Biocriminological Evidence
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 160 participants
- Where
- 1 siteNetherlands
- Study dates
- 1 Jul 2021to 1 Jul 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Aged between 18 and 65
- Holding a university diploma or equivalent
Who cannot join
- Participants who did not complete the survey (appropriately) will be excluded
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Because of the evolving nature of psychology research, non-scientists are more likely to struggle or misinterpret evidence regarding a person's psychological state. Misconceptions may thus be highly prevalent within the justice system, leading to negative consequences for people with psychological or neurobiological disorders. At the same time, no research has been conducted to compare the punishment perspectives of non-scientists, that typically make sentencing decisions, to scientists who possess a more advanced understanding of human biology and behavior.
Read the detailed description
In this study, closely inspired by the paradigms of Berryessa, Coppola, and Salvato, perspectives on punishment based on psychobiological explanations of behaviour are assessed, aiming to understand how scientists with knowledge of human psychobiology versus lay people (of similar educational level) interpret offending behaviour. Human-science is contrasted to natural-science/arts graduates because the former have been exposed to and may possess scientific knowledge that shapes their understanding of behaviour, their views, and potential (essentialist) biases. In contrast, non-scientists have been found to possess scientific misconceptions that can impact their sentencing decisions. This leads to the question whether scientists may draw different judgements based on their professional knowledge and experience with psychological phenomena. If indeed scientists with greater insight on human behaviour are found to hold less punitive views on punishment and rehabilitation, that has important implications for criminal justice systems that rely on lay peoples' understanding of science.
One hundred sixty participants who completed all study procedures (2 main groups of 80 participants) will be surveyed. A sample size calculation was performed using G*Power version 3.1.9.4, based on Berryessa and colleagues who conducted a similar survey study in 2021 with comparable outcome measures and analyses. The required effect size is based upon approximately 3-4 outcome measures. The primary research question is between-groups, while secondary ones include within groups measures. Based on the power analysis, a sample of 160 participants will be targeted, which is enough for sufficient power for f = 0.25, power = 0.80, df = 4, for 2 different groups.
- Conditions
- Criminalism
- Being tested
- Biocriminological Evidence
- Keywords
- Punishment, Responsibility, Attitudes
- Medical subject headings
- Behavior
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Biocriminological EvidenceBehavioural
Participants in each of the two main groups see a case with and a case without a neurobiological explanation for criminal offending.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Human Science | Experimental | Arm 1 will include university graduates that hold at least a science undergraduate degree (or equivalent) in human science, including psychology, neuroscience, human biology, or medicine. Receives: Behavioral: Biocriminological Evidence |
| Natural or non-science | Active comparator | Arm 2 will include university graduates from non-human or non-scientific fields such as engineering, history, language studies, or law. Receives: Behavioral: Biocriminological Evidence |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Sentencing severity on 5-point questionnaire
This is the primary outcome measure of attitudes towards sentencing, measured via a questionnaire on a visual analogue scale from 1 (only treatment) to 5 (more than 5 years in prison)
Measured: Immediately after case presentation, an average of 1 minute.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Aug 2021
- Study start1 Jul 2021
- Primary completion1 Jul 2022
- Study completion1 Jul 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for CriminalismStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Leiden University Medical CenterThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 160 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Leiden University Medical Center
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Mia Athina Thomaidou, Leiden University Medical Center
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05007314
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2021-07-16-D.S.V.-V2-3332
- Status last verified
- Aug 2022
- First submitted
- 2 Aug 2021
- Last updated
- 16 Aug 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Raw anonymised data, processing and analysis steps, and all code, will be provided via an online repository or as required by a scientific journal.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 16 Aug 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Biocriminology and the Adjudication of Criminal Responsibility: Is There a Consensus Among Scientists' Verdicts?
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05007314
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2021-07-16-D.S.V.-V2-3332
- Conditions
- Criminalism
- Keywords
- Punishment, Responsibility, Attitudes
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 160 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Leiden University Medical CenterUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jul 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Jul 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Jul 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 16 Aug 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Because of the evolving nature of psychology research, non-scientists are more likely to struggle or misinterpret evidence regarding a person's psychological state. Misconceptions may thus be highly prevalent within the justice system, leading to negative consequences for people with psychological or neurobiological disorders. At the same time, no research has been conducted to compare the punishment perspectives of non-scientists, that typically make sentencing decisions, to scientists who possess a more advanced understanding of human biology and behavior.
Detailed description
In this study, closely inspired by the paradigms of Berryessa, Coppola, and Salvato, perspectives on punishment based on psychobiological explanations of behaviour are assessed, aiming to understand how scientists with knowledge of human psychobiology versus lay people (of similar educational level) interpret offending behaviour. Human-science is contrasted to natural-science/arts graduates because the former have been exposed to and may possess scientific knowledge that shapes their understanding of behaviour, their views, and potential (essentialist) biases. In contrast, non-scientists have been found to possess scientific misconceptions that can impact their sentencing decisions. This leads to the question whether scientists may draw different judgements based on their professional knowledge and experience with psychological phenomena. If indeed scientists with greater insight on human behaviour are found to hold less punitive views on punishment and rehabilitation, that has important implications for criminal justice systems that rely on lay peoples' understanding of science.
One hundred sixty participants who completed all study procedures (2 main groups of 80 participants) will be surveyed. A sample size calculation was performed using G*Power version 3.1.9.4, based on Berryessa and colleagues who conducted a similar survey study in 2021 with comparable outcome measures and analyses. The required effect size is based upon approximately 3-4 outcome measures. The primary research question is between-groups, while secondary ones include within groups measures. Based on the power analysis, a sample of 160 participants will be targeted, which is enough for sufficient power for f = 0.25, power = 0.80, df = 4, for 2 different groups.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Human Science | Experimental | Behavioral: Biocriminological EvidenceArm 1 will include university graduates that hold at least a science undergraduate degree (or equivalent) in human science, including psychology, neuroscience, human biology, or medicine. |
| Natural or non-science | Active comparator | Behavioral: Biocriminological EvidenceArm 2 will include university graduates from non-human or non-scientific fields such as engineering, history, language studies, or law. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Aged between 18 and 65
- Holding a university diploma or equivalent
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Participants who did not complete the survey (appropriately) will be excluded
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Biocriminological EvidenceParticipants in each of the two main groups see a case with and a case without a neurobiological explanation for criminal offending. | Behavioural | Human Science, Natural or non-science |
Primary outcome
Sentencing severity on 5-point questionnaire
Time frame: Immediately after case presentation, an average of 1 minute.
This is the primary outcome measure of attitudes towards sentencing, measured via a questionnaire on a visual analogue scale from 1 (only treatment) to 5 (more than 5 years in prison)
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 16 Aug 2022.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Raw anonymised data, processing and analysis steps, and all code, will be provided via an online repository or as required by a scientific journal.
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Biocriminological Evidence in people with Criminalism, run by Leiden University Medical Center at 1 site in Netherlands.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 16 Aug 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Netherlands. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Sentencing severity on 5-point questionnaire (time frame: Immediately after case presentation, an average of 1 minute.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 16 Aug 2022.