 Racial and ethnic perceptions of injustice: Testing the core hypotheses of comparative conflict theoryKevin Buckler and James D. Unnever Journal of Criminal Justice, 2008, vol. 36, issue 3, 270-278 Abstract: Comparative conflict theory is a theoretical statement proposed by Hagan, Shedd, and Payne (2005) to explain racial and ethnic variation in perceptions of injustice. Their theory asserted that White respondents perceive considerably less injustice than both African Americans and Hispanics (the racial-ethnic divide hypothesis) and that African Americans perceive less injustice than Hispanics (the racial gradient hypothesis). They also proposed that prior criminal justice experiences serve as a "tipping point" for Hispanics in that Hispanics with prior negative criminal justice contacts will perceive more injustice than African Americans with similar prior negative experiences. This study tested these three hypotheses, finding support for the racial-ethnic divide and racial-gradient hypotheses, but not the differential sensitivity hypothesis. In addition, this study explored the racial and ethnic identity of Hispanics (i.e., "White Hispanic" and "Black Hispanic") and found that Hispanics, who were younger, less educated, and perceived some forms of injustice were more likely to identify themselves as being both Hispanic and Black. Date: 2008 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jcjust:v:36:y:2008:i:3:p:270-278 Access Statistics for this article Journal of Criminal Justice is currently edited by Matthew DeLisi More articles in Journal of Criminal Justice from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.