“i'd exercise caution, but be discreet about it”: Comparing undergraduates’ stigma toward peers with criminal records and mental health disorders

“i'd exercise caution, but be discreet about it”: Comparing undergraduates’ stigma toward peers with criminal records and mental health disorders | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article “i'd exercise caution, but be discreet about it”: Comparing undergraduates’ stigma toward peers with criminal records and mental health disorders Kieran J. Schendel, Erik M Benau This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7510179/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 02 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Psychology → Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Stigma remains a significant barrier to educational attainment for individuals with criminal records or mental illness, yet little is known about how college students perceive peers with these stigmatized backgrounds. Methods Undergraduates ( N = 419) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions to assess attitudes: (a) no disclosed background (control), (b) a mental health diagnosis, or (c) a criminal record. They completed a version of the Situational Attitudes Scale (SAS), wherein they read a series of short vignettes and rated their emotional reactions (e.g., anger, fear) to each scenario. Participants also responded to open-ended questions about societal and personal attitudes toward individuals in their assigned condition. Results SAS scores were statistically similar between the control and mental illness conditions, whereas the criminal background condition scored significantly lower than both. Sentiment analysis of open-ended responses revealed a more graded pattern: responses to the criminal background condition were rated significantly less positive than the other two, whereas the mental illness condition was also rated lower than the control. Importantly, these patterns emerged while adjusting for key demographic and psychosocial covariates, including social desirability, prior justice system involvement, and trait-based measures (e.g., dark tetrad, light triad). Conclusion Stigma toward individuals with criminal backgrounds may differ in both form and intensity than toward other groups. These results underscore the value of combining direct and indirect measures of stigma to capture subtle but meaningful variations in how bias is expressed. Given the critical role of educational attainment as both a social determinant of health and a protective factor against recidivism, addressing campus climate is essential—not only to support students with stigmatized backgrounds, but also to advance equity and well-being within academic institutions and the communities they serve. Stigma Situational Attribution Sentiment Analysis Higher Education Peer attitudes Figures Figure 1 Introduction It is estimated that 45% of the U.S. population has a criminal record, ranging from arrest to incarceration (1). As of 2018—the most recent report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics—recidivism rates have shown modest improvement but remain a serious concern (2). Within three years of release, 68% are rearrested; this rises to 83% within nine years. With each subsequent arrest, individuals face progressively negative consequences, including being classified as “high risk,” receiving increasingly severe sentences (3), and worsening psychosocial and physical health (4). These patterns reverberate through families and communities and strain public resources and perpetuating cycles of disadvantage (5). Recidivism costs U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars annually through policing, court proceedings, re-incarceration, and lost productivity (6,7). Recidivism, then, represents not just an individual concern, but a systemic, public health burden with far-reaching, long-term effects (8). Reducing recidivism requires dismantling barriers that undermine reintegration: higher education is one promising avenue for doing so (9). Educational attainment is a well-established social determinant of health, largely due to the economic mobility and privilege that it affords (10). Educational attainment likely makes this possible due to the acquisition and promotion of soft skills (e.g., critical thinking), technical training, social bonds and networking, and long-term planning (10,11). These benefits may surpass other social determinants—including race and baseline socioeconomic status—in predicting psychosocial and health outcomes (12,13). It is not surprising, then, that educational attainment—especially higher educational attainment—is also a negative predictor of criminality (14). For those who do commit crimes, greater educational attainment is associated with a lower likelihood of engaging in violent offenses—more often involving nonviolent and/or so-called “white collar” crimes—and predicts reduced likelihood of conviction, less severe sentencing, and lower rates of recidivism (14–18). Notably, those who attain higher education after conviction show similar benefits, (9,19,20). Clearly, higher education can be a critical contributor to reduced criminality and recidivism, and by extension, public safety and economic burden (9,21). There are increasing opportunities for access to higher education for those with criminal histories. As of 2021, there were 396 higher education programs operating within U.S. prisons, supported by 572 academic institutions, offering 104 associate’s and 38 bachelor’s degree pathways (22). It is estimated that, to date, tens of thousands of incarcerated individuals have completed such a program (23). These programs are set to grow with the overturning of a ban on Pell grants that the U.S. Congress approved in 2021 (24). The benefits of these programs provide both intrapersonal and social empowerment (25). Outside of prisons themselves, however, access to higher education for those with criminal histories remains difficult to attain. There are numerous structural and personal barriers for individuals with criminal histories to complete undergraduate education once released. Structurally, as of 2019, almost 81% of private institutions and 55% of public institutions collected criminal background information with little or no guidance to prevent the use of that information from rejection: less than half have policies about how criminal backgrounds should inform admissions decisions (26). Indeed, interviews with admissions officers suggest that criminal backgrounds are handled subjectively and often arbitrarily (27). Experimental research with samples of admissions officers suggests that a criminal record reduces likelihood of admissions, which is compounded by implications of minoritized race (28). These decisions are made at the administrative level, yet they may reflect or be shaped by broader campus sentiment. Students generally express openness to admitting individuals with criminal histories to their institutions, though this openness decreases when a criminal background intersects with other marginalized identities, such as minoritized race (29,30). Notably, there is little or no evidence that broad exclusion of individuals with criminal records improves campus safety (31). In addition to these structural barriers to entry, personal barriers such as stigma —a negative attitude toward a devalued group that becomes the basis for labeling, stereotyping, separation, and discrimination (32)—are major obstacles to retention (33). Unlike many forms of bias, stigma toward the formerly incarcerated is often presumed rather than debated. These beliefs and attitudes frame such individuals as incompetent, untrustworthy, morally deficient, and dangerous (34–36). Consistent with these perceptions, students with criminal backgrounds report perceived stigma, social isolation, and discrimination within academic and professional settings, all of which hinder retention and academic success (34,37,38). In other words, campus and social environment can influence outcomes for individuals with criminal backgrounds and, by extension, successful reintegration and flourishing. Surprisingly little is known about what views undergraduates and other campus stakeholders hold about current students or classmates with criminal histories. Qualitative data suggest that students would be appreciative of the opportunity to learn from students with experiences of incarceration (39). Quantitatively, however, attitudes toward students with such histories have been rated significantly—and substantially—lower than those without by students (40,41), faculty (42), and administrators (36). Though these studies lay important groundwork, they rarely account for individual differences that may shape stigma expression. No prior study has integrated theoretically relevant covariates that may influence attitudes toward stigmatized groups or how those attitudes are reported, such as political ideology (43), social desirability (44), or personality traits (45). Better understanding of these influences is essential to design effective interventions and guide future research. Additionally, it remains unclear whether stigma toward formerly incarcerated individuals is unique to that population or reflects broader patterns of bias toward outgroup members more generally. To this end, the current study included a comparison group depicting individuals with mental illness. Despite some belief that views toward mental illness have become less negative over time, stigma remains prevalent and, in some cases, has intensified (46). People with mental illness experience stigma in ways that often parallel those with criminal records: both groups are stereotyped as dangerous, unstable, and/or incompetent (47). These perceptions have been linked to increased social distance, reduced help-seeking, and higher dropout risk among students (48,49). Together, these groups seem intuitive to compare in order to determine whether stigma toward those with criminal backgrounds is unique or a result of general outgroup biases. Crucially, our intent is not to establish a hierarchy of oppression, as doing so can reinforce the very systems of exclusion we seek to challenge (50). Instead, we believe that better understanding these differences can inform more precise and equitable strategies for inclusion. In particular, mental illness stigma has (rightly) received significant attention in higher education, with well-established intervention frameworks (51). If stigma toward justice-involved students operates in similar ways, this comparison may help guide adaptation and tailoring of those efforts; if it operates differently, it may indicate the need for novel, targeted interventions. Further, we recognize that experiences of criminalization and mental illness often intersect, particularly in marginalized and minoritized communities (52,53). This study offers an initial lens into how these stigmas may operate in parallel or diverge, and how that knowledge can inform inclusive policy and intervention. Present Study The present study had three aims. First, we sought to replicate and extend prior findings on personal stigma—negative attitudes—held by students toward peers with criminal histories. The second aim was to compare these attitudes to those directed at another stigmatized group: students with mental illness. Third, we wanted to determine whether self-reported attitudes were consistent with what the language they use to describe their attitudes toward these groups (i.e., natural language sentiment). To address these goals, we recruited a crowdsourced sample of current undergraduates who were randomly assigned to evaluate hypothetical students described as having a criminal background, mental illness, or no stated history of either. Participants completed both quantitative ratings and open-ended written responses. Sentiment analysis was applied to the writing samples to assess implicit attitudes. We hypothesized that students with criminal backgrounds would be evaluated most negatively, followed by those with mental illness, and that this pattern would be similar in both self-report and sentiment analysis. Method Participants. Participants were recruited in June 2024 from Prolific, a crowdsourcing platform that specializes in academic research. Only participants whose screening measures indicated they were current undergraduates were able to access the study. A total of 350 participants selected the study and consented to begin. Forty-three (12%) participants were omitted from analyses if they did not confirm they were undergraduate students, had incomplete data, or missing more than one of four attention checks, leaving a total of 307 included participants. A priori power analysis suggested that about 90 participants per cell were required to power the one-way ANCOVA described below at 1- β = .80. The actual achieved power in this sample was 1-β = .84. Participant demographics are presented in Table 1 and experiential characteristics are presented in Table 2 . Table 1 Demographic and student status information for the sample. Variable Control 88 (29%) Mental Illness 113 (37%) Criminal 106 (35%) Total 307 Demographic Information Age [Mean (SD)] 28.0 (9.8) 26.3 (8.3) 25.8 (7.6) 26.6 (8.6) Gender Man a 35 (39.8) 37 (32.7) 36 (34.0) 108 (35.2) Woman b 47 (53.4) 65 (57.5) 64 (60.4) 176 (57.3) Non-binary 3 (3.4) 9 (8.0) 5 (4.7) 17 (5.5) Other/Missing 3 (3.4) 2 (1.8) 1 (0.9) 6 (2.0) Race White 43 (48.9) 56 (49.6) 52 (49.1) 151 (49.2) Asian 7 (8.0) 19 (16.8) 19 (17.9) 45 (14.7) Black 15 (17.0) 18 (15.9) 15 (14.2) 48 (15.6) Hispanic 10 (11.4) 6 (5.3) 7 (6.6) 23 (7.5) Middle Eastern 0 (0.0) 1 (0.9) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.3) AI/AN 1 (1.1) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (0.3) Multi Racial 11 (12.5) 13 (11.5) 11 (10.4) 35 (11.4) Refuse/Missing 1 (1.1) 0 (0.0) 2 (1.9) 3 (1.0) Student Status and School Information Full Time 64 (72.7) 81 (71.7) 88 (83.0) 233 (75.9) Public or Private Public 66 (75.0) 86 (76.1) 77 (72.6) 229 (74.6) Private 20 (22.7) 26 (23.0) 28 (26.4) 74 (24.1) Unsure 2 (2.3) 1 (0.9) 1 (0.9) 4 (1.3) Type of Institution Two Year 20 (22.7) 21 (18.6) 21 (19.8) 62 (20.2) Small Four Year 4 (4.5) 5 (4.4) 4 (3.8) 13 (4.2) Medium Four Year 26 (29.5) 33 (29.2) 25 (23.6) 84 (27.4) Major University 38 (43.2) 52 (46.0) 54 (50.9) 144 (46.9) Professional/Trade 0 (0.0) 2 (1.8) 2 (1.9) 4 (1.3) Year c First 7 (8.0) 16 (14.2) 7 (6.6) 30 (9.8) Second 16 (18.2) 30 (26.5) 11 (10.4) 57 (18.6) Third 23 (26.1) 17 (15.0) 27 (25.5) 67 (21.8) Fourth 38 (43.2) 46 (40.7) 60 (56.6) 144 (46.9) Other/Unsure 4 (4.5) 4 (3.6) 1 (0.9) 9 (3.0) Notes : Values are N (%) unless noted; percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding; AI/AN = American Indian/Alaska Native; a Includes seven transgender men; b Includes three transgender women; c Significant discrepancy ( p = .008), see text; Table 2 Experiential and Psychosocial Covariates. Variable Range Control N = 88 (29%) Mental Illness N = 113 (37%) Criminal N = 106 (35%) Total N = 307 Experiential Covariate [Mdn (IQR) or N (%)] Psych. Dx. (N [%] Yes) 34 (39.1) 36 (32.1) 43 (41.0) 113 (37.2) Personal incarcerated (N [%] Yes) 4 (4.5) 10 (8.8) 2 (1.9) 16 (5.2) Known Incarcerated 1–5 a 1.0 (1.0 to 2.0) 1.0 (1.0 to 2.0) 1.0 (1.0 to 2.0) 1.0 (1.0 to 2.0) Neighborhood Crime 1–5 b 3.0 (2.0 to 4.0) 3.0 (2.0 to 3.0) 3.0 (2.0 to 3.0) 3.0 (2.0 to 3.0) Victimization 1–4 c 2.0 (0.0 to 3.0) 2.0 (0.0 to 3.0) 1.0 (0.0 to 2.0) 1.0 (0.0 to 3.0) Psychosocial Covariates [M (SD)] PQ+ 4–12 11.6 (1.6) 11.4 (1.8) 11.2 (2.1) 11.4 (1.8) NQ– 4–12 6.5 (2.4) 6.9 (2.5) 6.5 (2.4) 6.7 (2.4) Light Triad 11–55 35.4 (4.4) 35.0 (4.6) 35.4 (4.3) 35.3 (4.5) SD4 28–140 70.1 (16.1) 71.9 (14.3) 67.5 (13.3) 69.9 (14.6) VSRWA 5–45 24.3 (9.4) 23.0 (9.6) 23.8 (9.3) 23.7 (9.4) SINS 1–7 5.9 (1.5) 6.1 (1.0) 5.9 (1.2) 6.0 (1.2) SITES 1–5 4.3 (0.8) 4.2 (0.7) 4.3 (0.7) 4.3 (0.7) SISES 1–7 4.0 (1.8) 3.8 (1.7) 3.8 (1.7) 3.9 (1.7) SRMH 1–5 3.5 (1.2) 3.6 (1.2) 3.4 (1.1) 3.5 (1.2) Notes : Psych. Dx = Percentage reporting a psychiatric diagnosis; Been incarcerated = specified as having been in jail or prison for more than one month; Known incarcerated = How many close known others who were incarcerated; Victimization = Self or close other being victims of violent or non-violent crimes; PQ+/NQ– = Positive Quality enhancement and Negative Quality minimization scales (respectively) of the KSE-G (see text); SD4 = Short Dark Tetrad; VSRWA = Very Short Right Wing Authoritarianism; SINS = Single Item Narcissism Scale; SITES = Single Item Trait Empathy Scale; SISES = Single Item Self-Esteem Scale; SRMH = Single-item Self-Reported Mental Health; Each variable was statistically comparable across groups; percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding; a 1 ( none ) to 5 ( more than five ) b 1 ( rarely ) to 5 ( all the time ) c Tally of “yes” to four items asking about self or close others being the victim of violent or non-violent crime Measures. Stigma . We included a modified version of the Situational Attitude Scale (SAS). The SAS was originally developed by Sedlacek and Brooks Jr. ( 54 ), and later modified by McTier and colleagues to measure stigma pertaining to students with criminal backgrounds ( 36 , 42 ). The SAS is based on attribution theory, which posits that people explain others’ behaviors by attributing them to underlying causes—often relying on limited or irrelevant contextual information ( 55 ). Our version maintained the structure of the SAS—eight brief vignettes describing scenarios involving a fellow student—while manipulating the background of the student across three between-subjects conditions: control (no stated background), criminal (specified felony conviction), or mental illness (specified, highly stigmatized diagnosis). For the control and criminal history conditions, our modifications were identical to prior work ( 36 , 42 ). For the mental health conditions, we replaced criminal histories with specific diagnoses that were selected based on high stigma ratings ( 56 ). For example: “[ Control : A classmate; Criminal : A classmate who had previously notified you about an assault conviction; Mental Illness : A classmate who had previously notified you about having antisocial personality disorder] emails you to request a meeting outside of the university.” In this example, the bracketed information preceded the situation, and in the brackets, the prime differed based on assigned condition; participants assigned to the control condition only saw the control prompts, etc. Participants were instructed to “Please indicate how you would feel if you experienced the following scenarios” by rating five emotional dimensions using a five-point semantic differential scale: Anger : Very Angry ( 1 ) to Very Calm ( 5 ); Surprise : Very Unsurprised ( 1 ) to Very Surprised ( 5 ); Safety : Very Safe ( 1 ) to Very Unsafe ( 5 ); Disappointment : Very Disappointed ( 1 ) to Very Pleased ( 5 ); Fear : Very Afraid ( 1 ) to Not at All Afraid ( 5 ). To ensure that higher scores consistently reflected more positive emotional responses, items anchored by unsurprised and safe , were reverse scored. Full vignette text, item content, and scoring details for the adapted SAS are presented in Table 3. Table 3: Each vignette and the scores attained per group on the SAS. Vignette Control (N = 88) Mental Illness (N = 113) Criminal (N = 106) Total (N = 307) Mentoring Your university announces a new program [ for students ; for students who have been convicted of crimes; for students who have a major mental illness ]. The funding for this program will come from existing programs. M (SD) 15.0 (2.2) 15.3 (2.5) 14.3 (2.3) 14.9 (2.4) Range 9.0–20.0 9.0–20.0 9.0–20.0 9.0–20.0 Car You see [ a classmate ; a classmate who has been convicted of drug possession; a classmate who told you about having schizophrenia ] driving a luxury car. M (SD) 13.2 (2.1) 12.0 (2.4) 11.6 (2.3) 12.2 (2.4) Range 7.0–20.0 6.0–19.0 5.0–19.0 5.0–20.0 Earns A [ A classmate; A classmate who had previously informed you about a conviction for menacing (threats) and intimidation; A classmate who had previously informed you about having Delusional Disorder ] earns an A in your class. M (SD) 13.9 (1.9) 14.8 (2.2) 11.4 (2.1) 13.4 (2.6) Range 10.0–18.0 10.0–20.0 7.0–19.0 7.0–20.0 Test Scores [ A classmate; A classmate who told you about a prior conviction for forgery; A classmate who told you about having bipolar disorder ] was admitted with entrance test scores much lower than those of the general student population. M (SD) 12.8 (2.3) 12.5 (2.1) 11.1 (1.9) 12.1 (2.2) Range 8.0–20.0 9.0–20.0 5.0–16.0 5.0–20.0 Sexual Assault a [ A classmate; classmate who had previously disclosed to you a rape conviction; who had previously discussed having dissociative identity disorder ] has recently been arrested for sexual assault. M (SD) 10.2 (2.4) 9.7 (2.6) 13.1 (3.6) 11.0 (3.3) Range 6.0–19.0 6.0–17.0 5.0–19.0 5.0–19.0 Cheating a [A classmate; A classmate who had previously informed you of a burglary conviction; A classmate who had previously informed you of having Gambling Disorder ] cheating on an exam. M (SD) 11.1 (1.6) 10.9 (1.7) 10.6 (1.8) 10.8 (1.7) Range 7.0–15.0 6.0–16.0 5.0–14.0 5.0–16.0 Meeting [ A classmate ; A classmate who had previously notified you about an assault conviction; A classmate who had previously notified you about having antisocial personality disorder ] emails you to request a meeting outside of the university. M (SD) 14.3 (2.2) 14.4 (2.1) 12.9 (2.7) 13.8 (2.4) Range 10.0–20.0 10.0–19.0 8.0–19.0 8.0–20.0 Newspaper The academic accomplishments of [ a classmate; a classmate who had previously disclosed to you a conviction for murder; a classmate who had previously told you about having post-traumatic stress disorder ] in one of your classes are featured in the campus newspaper. M (SD) 14.2 (2.3) 13.7 (2.5) 10.1 (2.3) 12.6 (3.0) Range 6.0–20.0 7.0–19.0 6.0–16.0 6.0–20.0 Scholarship [ A classmate; A classmate who had previously told you about a conviction for manslaughter; A classmate who had previously told you about having a borderline personality disorder ] and is majoring in your field has received a full scholarship to attend your university. M (SD) 13.2 (2.1) 13.5 (2.6) 10.6 (1.7) 12.4 (2.5) Range 10.0–20.0 7.0–20.0 7.0–16.0 7.0–20.0 Notes : Possible score ranges were 4 to 20 where higher scores indicated more positive reactions; Each vignette version is shown with Control, Criminal, and Mental Illness primes in that order; participants only saw one version of each; a Item removed from final analyses. Open Ended Questions. To attain sentiment analysis, participants were asked three questions developed by the authors. Questions were modified in a parallel manner depending on the condition: (a) How do you view society’s treatment of [college students; college students with a criminal record; college students who have a mental illness]? Please elaborate on any personal experiences or observations that have influenced your perspective.; (b) What are your thoughts and feelings about [your classmates; classmates if you learned they had been incarcerated (for more than a month); classmates if you learned they had a major mental illness]?; (c) How do, or how would, you treat [your classmates; classmates if you learned they had been incarcerated (for more than a month); a classmate if you learned they have a major mental illness]? Covariates. Demographic, Student/School Status, and Criminal Background . Demographic and experiential covariates were developed by the authors and included: (a) age; (b) year in school; (c) full- versus part-time student status; (d) size of institution (two-year college; four-year college with no graduate programs; four-year college with some graduate programs; four-year college with extensive graduate or health science programs; professional/trade school); (e) public versus private institution; (f) personal history of incarceration, defined as “the experience of going to jail or prison for more than a month” (yes/no); (g) number of known individuals with an incarceration history (none, one, two or three, four or five, more than five, prefer not to respond); (h) perceived neighborhood crime exposure on a scale from 1 ( never or almost never ) to 5 ( all the time ); (i) a count of all “yes” responses across four yes/no items assessing personal and known other experiences of violent and non-violent crime; and (j) self-reported presence of a serious mental illness diagnosis (ten major diagnoses were presented as a checklist; any reported diagnoses were recoded as “yes” and all omissions were coded as “no”). Psychosocial Attitudes and Well-being . To account for individual differences that may influence sentiment expression, a range of self-report covariates were included in all ANCOVA models. These included: (a) the six-item English-language version of the Social Desirability—Gamma Short Short Scale (KSE-G; 57), which yields two subscales—Positive Quality Enhancement (PQ+; ω = .58) and Negative Quality Minimization (NQ−; ω = .56)—each with three items; (b) the 28-item Short Dark Tetrad (SD4; ω = .89; ( 58 )[1] ); (c) the 12-item Light Triad Scale ( ω = .77; ( 59 )[2] ); (d) the six-item Very Short Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (VSRWA; ω = .78; ( 60 ); (e) the Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS; 61); (f) the Single Item Self-Esteem Scale (SISE; 62); (g) the Single Item Trait Empathy Scale (SITES; 63); (h) a single item measure of self-rated mental health (SRMH; 64); (i) political philosophy (developed for this study) on a sliding scale from 0 (very conservative) to 100 (very liberal). Academic major and political affiliation were collected for descriptive purposes but not included as covariates: 32 majors were selected, reducing model stability and power; party affiliation was omitted in favor of the continuous conservative–liberal variable (swapping the variables did not change results). Procedure After selecting the study and completing informed consent, participants answered the experiential items described above. They then completed the self-report measures (order of presentation was randomized for each participant). Next, participants were randomly assigned to complete the control ( n = 87), mental illness ( n = 113), or criminal background ( n = 106) version of the SAS and the corresponding open-ended questions. Binomial tests confirmed comparable group sizes ( ps > .10). Finally, they completed the demographic questions described above and three quality control items (not presented). Upon completion, participants were debriefed and compensated in accordance with Prolific’s reimbursement policies, up to $ 3 USD; reimbursement data are not released to researchers. Median completion time was 14.3 minutes ( M = 17.6, SD = 10.4). All procedures were approved by our Institutional Review Board. Data Analysis SAS Data Reduction. Data reduction for the SAS was conducted in several stages. First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed in which responses to all 40 items (five affective ratings across eight vignettes) were modeled onto an eight-factor structure—one factor per vignette—to evaluate whether each vignette functioned as a distinct unit and to assess overall model fit prior to data reduction. Initial model fit was mixed and marginal: χ²(909) = 2714.97, p < .001, CFI = 0.792, TLI = 0.773, SRMR = 0.071, RMSEA = 0.081 (90% CI = [0.077, 0.084]). Inspection of modification indices suggested that the safety item exhibited poor fit across multiple vignettes, with consistently high residual covariances and cross-loadings. As a result, the safety item was removed from all eight vignettes. A revised CFA excluding safety yielded improved model fit: χ²(558) = 1385.39, p < .001, CFI = 0.862, TLI = 0.844, RMSEA = 0.070 [90% CI: 0.065, 0.074], SRMR = 0.071. A unitary model did not approach good fit, so we summed the scores of each vignette (without the safety scale) to provide a score of 4–16 per vignette. Then, we entered each vignette’s score into a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) using parallel analysis, revealing a single-component solution. The vignette pertaining to cheating on an exam did not load adequately (< .40) and was therefore removed. All vignettes loaded positively except the one pertaining to sexual assault, which loaded negatively. Given its negative direction and conceptual divergence from the remaining vignettes, we also removed this item. The component scores then served as the dependent variable in the analyses below. Higher scores indicated more positive attitudes. More information about this PCA is available in Appendix A in the supplement. Open Ended Questions Sentiment Analysis. Text responses were analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count 22.0 (LIWC; Pennebaker Conglomerates, Austin, TX). For parsimony, all three responses were entered and measured. We included three scales from the LIWC output that reflect participants’ sentiment toward their target group: ( Emotional ) Tone , Affect , and Social . The Tone score reflects the relative balance of positive to negative emotion words, with higher values indicating a more positive overall emotional tone. The Affect score captures the overall frequency of emotion-related words—both positive and negative—serving as a general index of emotional expression. The Social score indexes language related to interpersonal processes and relationships, including references to social interaction, connection, or group affiliation (e.g., “we,” “help,” “friend”). These three scores were entered into a PCA, which yielded a single component interpreted as reflecting warmth and approach (versus negativity and avoidance), hereafter referred to as Sentiment . We saved the component scores, which then served as the dependent variable in subsequent analyses; higher scores reflect greater positive regard for the group. See Boyd et al. ( 65 ) for more information about LIWC and its dictionaries. Information on the PCA is available in the Appendix B in the supplement. Data analysis plan. The main analyses were conducted with two one-way ANCOVA with condition entered as the independent variable, SAS component and then Sentiment component entered as the dependent variable. All self-report and demographic items mentioned above were entered as covariates. Tukey-corrected post-hoc t -tests were conducted. A Pearson correlation was also calculated between the SAS and Sentiment components. A correlation matrix with all self-report variables is available in Appendix C of the supplement, and Appendix D presents the full ANCOVA model with covariates. Results As shown in Table 1 , the sample was mostly White, women, full time students, who were seniors and attending a major public university. Top three majors were: computer science (12%), business and management (11%), and psychology (11%). A plurality identified as Democrats (48%) or Independent (33%). The three groups were statistically comparable on most demographic and self-report measures ( p s > .06), with the exception of year in school, χ ²( 10 ) = 23.67, p = .008, V = .20. This difference was likely due to a slight overrepresentation of second-year students in the mental illness condition and third- and fourth-year students in the criminal background condition. Given the small effect size and that year in school was included as a covariate in the central analyses, the potential impact of this imbalance was likely minimal and statistically controlled. In terms of SAS scores, results of the ANCOVA showed a significant main effect of Condition, F (2,271) = 91.68, p < .001, with a very large effect size, η p 2 = .404. Tukey-corrected post hoc t -tests indicated that scores were significantly lower for the Criminal condition ( M = − 0.69, SE = 0.14) than both the Control ( M = 0.63, SE = 0.14), p < .001, d = 1.76, and Mental Illness conditions ( M = 0.57, SE = 0.13), p < .001, d = 1.69. There was no significant difference between the Control and Mental Illness conditions, p = .879, d = 0.07.These findings suggest that participants in the Criminal condition expressed markedly more negative emotional reactions toward the individuals in their vignettes than did participants in the other two conditions; the other two conditions held similar reactions to each other. Figure 1 (left) presents these data as a graph. For the Sentiment component, there was also a significant main effect of condition, F (2,271) = 45.54, p < .001, with a very large effect size η p 2 = .252. Tukey-corrected post hoc t -tests indicated that Sentiment scores were significantly lower for the Criminal condition ( M = − 0.58, SE = 0.16) than both the Control ( M = 0.63, SE = 0.16), p < .001, d = 1.44, and Mental Illness conditions ( M = 0.05, SE = 0.14), p < .001, d = 0.75. The mental illness condition was also significantly lower than the control condition, p < .001, d = 0.69. In short: sentiment scores reflected an emotional gradient: participants in the control condition expressed overall positive sentiment, those in the mental illness condition expressed sentiment that averaged to be nearly neutral (i.e., close to zero), and those in the criminal background condition expressed markedly negative sentiment in response to their prompts. Figure 1 (right) presents these data as a graph. Examples of high and low sentiment statements per condition are shown in Table 4 . Table 4: Sample statements from high and low sentiment ratings (positive vs. negative) in each condition. Group Rating Society Treatment Personal Thoughts Personal Treatment Control High i feel like we are mostly treated good My classmates are kind and empathic individuals. I'd treat them with care and respect. Low theyre not horrible towards them but also expect a lot they come from all walks of life and diverse. I treat them as my equals. Mental Illness High They tend to dismiss it. They also treat it like it’s a phase. I am always pleased to hear anyone has achieved success especially with a mental illness. I'd show compassion and support. I'd listen and be there for them. Treat them with kindness and respect. Encourage open conversations. Promote a stigma free environment. Low I don’t feel that society addresses the mental health of students as a priority. I would view them the same way as I viewed them before. Having a major mental illness does not change my opinion. No different than I would treat anyone else. Criminal High I think it is fair. I don't think certain criminal records should be allowed on campus. I feel like everyone makes mistakes and hopefully a lesson was learned. I would treat them the same as any other classmate. Low I believe they are treated poorly by the general population. I really don’t care as long as I don’t feel like I am being targeted. i'd exercise caution, but be discreet about it Notes : These statements are presented in full and are verbatim; each was in the five highest or lowest rated statements; each statement is from a different respondent. Finally, there was a moderate, positive correlation between SAS and Sentiment, r (305) = .311, p < .001. Discussion The central finding of the present study is that current undergraduates reported and expressed negative attitudes toward formerly incarcerated classmates compared to those with no stated history and those with reported psychiatric diagnoses. These attitudes were attained through both self-report and sentiment analysis of responses to open-ended questions, all while controlling for key psychosocial covariates and political beliefs. Our hypotheses had mixed support but nonetheless provide important insight into the landscape of stigma on campus. More specifically, we hypothesized that the control group would be evaluated with the highest regard, followed by students with mental illness, and then those with criminal backgrounds. SAS scores indicated similarly high regard for the control and mental illness groups, somewhat counter to expectations. However, sentiment analyses followed the hypothesized pattern: participants used more positive, affiliative, and emotionally warm language when describing the control group, followed by the mental illness group, and then the criminal background group. We explore possible explanations and implications of these findings below. The present results complement and extend previous findings that faculty ( 42 ), administrators ( 36 ), and fellow undergraduates ( 30 , 40 , 41 ) harbor more negative views toward students' criminal histories compared to those with no stated history. However, this is just the second study—following Overton and colleagues ( 41 )—that focused on asking students about hypothetical current classmates. Notably, when comparing Control and Criminal conditions, the present Cohen’s d s exceeded 1.4 in both Sentiment and SAS comparisons, even while controlling for covariates. By contrast, Overton and colleagues ( 41 ) reported an unadjusted social distance score with an effect size of d ≈ .8 (based on descriptive statistics), and regression coefficients that were meaningful but modest by most conventions ( β ≈ –.17 to –.20). Their outcome—self-reported trustworthiness in a student government context—is arguably more neutral and less personally salient than the emotionally charged vignettes used in the SAS. Further, the use of free responses in the present study allowed participants to express spontaneous, less filtered reactions in their own words. This approach likely tapped into comparatively stronger underlying biases. Together with Overton et al. ( 41 ), these results suggest that negative attitudes toward students with criminal histories are robust across distinct modes of evaluation and emerge in both emotionally charged and relatively neutral contexts. This consistency is striking, particularly when criminal histories are evaluated in socially relevant or evocative contexts. Consistent with prior characterizations of individuals with criminal histories as incompetent, untrustworthy, or dangerous ( 34 , 35 ), participants’ responses reflected entrenched negative associations both emotionally (via SAS) and linguistically (via sentiment analysis). The convergence across distinct assessment strategies, despite differences in psychological accessibility, suggests that these attitudes are not only widespread but deeply ingrained ( 66 ). Moreover, the magnitude of these effects—even when controlling for social desirability, political ideology, and relevant personality traits—implies that stigma toward this group may operate relatively automatically or resist normative pressure more than other forms of bias. Further research is needed to disentangle the mechanisms and boundary conditions of this stigma. This study is also the first to address a key gap in the literature: Are individuals with criminal histories viewed with unique form and intensity of stigma compared to other groups? In this case, the answer appears to be “yes.” Ranking stigma risks reinforcing social hierarchies and essentialism ( 50 )—particularly when mental illness is involved ( 67 )—yet cautiously measuring attitudes toward these groups is essential to understand campus climate and inform appropriate policies and other interventions. To that end, the mixed-methods design of this study offered unique insight into stigma toward students with mental illness compared to criminal histories. The SAS and sentiment scores were moderately correlated, r = .311, or a little less than 10% shared variance. The formats seemingly elicited comparable negative responses, but not necessarily from the same individuals. This divergence was especially apparent in the Mental Illness condition: compared to the Control group, reactions to the mental illness group were rated comparably on the SAS, yet written responses regarding students with mental illness were significantly more emotionally distant, critical, or indifferent. These findings complement recent evidence that mental illness stigma persists even as public discourse suggests it is waning ( 46 ). It is not clear why the divergence with the Mental Illness condition emerged. Views about mental illness could be subject to the false uniqueness effect , or the tendency to believe one’s own attitudes or behaviors are more favorable than those of others ( 68 ). If this explained the muted sentiment regarding this population, we would expect to see lower scores on “Society” prompt than the others; yet exploratory analyses indicated that sentiment ratings were generally consistent across prompts ( p s > .98, d s < .14; see supplement).[3] Thus, the effect is unlikely to account for the observed results. Notably, we also controlled for socially desirable responding, so that is also unlikely to explain these findings. One possibility is that mental illness elicits a more ambivalent or emotionally distant stance when participants are asked to describe others in open-ended terms. Though participants may rate a student with mental illness neutrally or even positively in structured response formats, their free-response language may reflect discomfort or disengagement. These results suggest that individuals with mental illness may be viewed negatively, but the nature and strength of these views depend on how attitudes are measured. Conversely, stigma toward individuals with criminal histories appears robust across methods. The present findings have important implications for how colleges design interventions to improve campus climate. Efforts to support students with mental illness remain vital ( 48 ). Moreover, many students with criminal histories also report mental health challenges ( 69 , 70 ): addressing one without the other risks offering incomplete or ineffective support. That said, there are many well-established and effective interventions for reducing stigma around mental health for undergraduates ( 51 ). Much less discussed are interventions and programs to reduce stigma for formerly incarcerated students; we focus on these interventions for this manuscript. Beyond structural and peer-level stigma, successful interventions must also address practical and institutional barriers in a holistic way. Formerly incarcerated students benefit from wraparound programs that include mentorship, housing support, legal aid, and academic counseling, as seen in initiatives like Project Rebound and Berkeley Underground Scholars ( 38 ). Reducing stigma requires not just services but also a shift in campus culture—through faculty education and admissions policy reform ( 27 , 34 , 37 ). Mentorship and academic support to help navigate the unspoken norms and expectations of college life (i.e., the “invisible curriculum”) may be particularly important for this population ( 71 ). Peer support programs can also mitigate the effects of negative student sentiment, and expanding access to such networks could further enhance belonging and success ( 72 ), in turn reducing the likelihood of recidivism ( 19 , 20 ). In addition to individual growth and success, these programs can reverberate not just for individual, but for campus and the communities they serve ( 6 , 9 ). Limitations and Future Directions. This study provides some important insights into degree of interpersonal stigma toward formerly incarcerated individuals and those with mental health diagnoses, but it is not without limitations. Although the SAS and Sentiment data capture implicit aspects of stigma, and measures like VSRWA and dark/light traits reflect broader ideological tendencies, we did not include direct self-report measures of stigma toward formerly incarcerated individuals or those with mental illness. Further, sentiment analysis tools can struggle with sarcasm, ambiguity, brevity, and other contextual nuance; interpretation of these scores requires caution as a result. It was beyond the scope of this paper to conduct deeper thematic analyses of the open-ended responses, which may have helped identify common themes or stereotypes underlying the sentiment scores. It was also beyond the scope of the present manuscript to evaluate key intersectional demographic (e.g., race, socioeconomic status) and psychosocial variables (e.g., psychiatric diagnosis) of the respondent or target, a necessary next step to avoid characterizing the formerly incarcerated population as a homogenous group. We also encountered several measurement challenges that may inform future use of the SAS or similar instruments. For instance, one item— safety —did not load in the CFA with the other items, likely because it reflects a more cognitive than emotional reaction. Two vignettes were excluded: one involving cheating on an exam—also flagged in prior work ( 42 )—that was removed for poor component loading in the PCA and one involving sexual assault that loaded negatively and was conceptually distinct from the remaining items. Cheating is rated as morally ambiguous, even on exams, which may lead to diverse appraisals of the behavior ( 73 ). The vignette featuring sexual assault was the only one to describe a crime—a violent one at that—which may have elicited distinct evaluative processes. Future researchers should be mindful of item content when adapting tools to study stigma. Conclusion As more individuals come into contact with the justice system—and as access to higher education expands in response—addressing the attitudinal and structural barriers that shape this population’s academic trajectory can prevent rearrest and other severe downstream risks. This study, together with a growing body of work, suggests that undergraduate attitudes toward stigmatized populations likely remain a key obstacle. Reducing stigma on campus is not just a moral imperative—it is a necessary step toward broader social change. Beyond improving individual outcomes, fostering more supportive campus climates may also support broader efforts to interrupt cycles of marginalization and repeated incarceration. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at SUNY Old Westbury (IRB# 2023-017) and was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee, and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All participants provided informed consent prior to participation. Consent for publication Not applicable. Availability of data and materials The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to concerns regarding participant confidentiality but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This study was supported by an internal grant awarded to the first author from the Panther Center for Undergraduate Research Experiences (CURE) at SUNY Old Westbury. Authors' contributions LS and EB conceptualized and designed the study. LS managed conducted preliminary analyses and drafted the original versions of this manuscript. EB conducted the primary analyses and led manuscript preparation. Both authors contributed to the interpretation of findings and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements The authors thank Dr. Svetlana Jović for input on the development of the project and Colette Vaughan for editorial assistance. We are also grateful to Drs. Molly Ott and Terrence McTier, Jr. for providing the Situational Attitude Scale used in this study, as well as for their input into the study design. References Sawyer W, Wagner P. Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2025 [Internet]. Prison Policy Initiative; 2025 [cited 2025 July 20]. Available from: https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/criminal-records-and-reentry-toolkit Alper M, Durose MR, Markman J. 2018 Update on Prisoner Recidivism: A 9-Year Follow-up Period (2005-2014) [Internet]. Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2018. Report No.: 250975. Available from: https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014 Stevenson MT. Assessing Risk Assessment in Action. Minnesota Law Review. 2018;103:303–84. Link NW, Ward JT, Stansfield R. Consequences of mental and physical health for reentry and recidivism: Toward a health‐based model of desistance. Criminology. 2019 Aug;57(3):544–73. Harper A, Ginapp C, Bardelli T, Grimshaw A, Justen M, Mohamedali A, et al. Debt, Incarceration, and Re-entry: a Scoping Review. Am J Crim Just. 2021 Apr;46(2):250–78. Eren O, Owens E. Economic Booms and Recidivism. J Quant Criminol. 2024 June;40(2):343–72. Zane SN, Pupo JA, Welsh BC. Correctional treatment as an economically sound approach to reducing the high costs of recidivism: A review of the research. Criminal Behav Ment Health. 2023 Apr;33(2):125–38. Cloud DH, Garcia-Grossman IR, Armstrong A, Williams B. Public Health and Prisons: Priorities in the Age of Mass Incarceration. Annu Rev Public Health. 2023 Apr 3;44(1):407–28. Stickle B, Schuster SS. Are Schools in Prison Worth It? The Effects and Economic Returns of Prison Education. Am J Crim Just. 2023 Dec;48(6):1263–94. Suiter SV, Meadows ML. Educational Attainment and Educational Contexts as Social Determinants of Health. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice. 2023 Dec 1;50(4):579–89. Braveman P, Gottlieb L. The Social Determinants of Health: It’s Time to Consider the Causes of the Causes. Public Health Rep. 2014 Jan;129(1_suppl2):19–31. Atherwood S, Sánchez-Soto G. Does Social Class Matter Equally for the Timely Transition Into and Out of College? Evidence from the NLSY97. Res High Educ. 2023 Feb;64(1):95–128. Case A, Deaton A. Life expectancy in adulthood is falling for those without a BA degree, but as educational gaps have widened, racial gaps have narrowed. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA [Internet]. 2021 Mar 16 [cited 2025 July 26];118(11). Available from: https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2024777118 Kennedy-Turner K, Serbin LA, Stack DM, Ledingham JE, Schwartzman AE. Beyond educational attainment: The role of achievement and school absence in the development of criminal justice involvement. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement. 2021 Oct;53(4):412–22. Duke B. A Meta-Analysis Comparing Educational Attainment Prior to Incarceration and Recidivism Rates in Relation to Correctional Education. 2018; Franklin TW. Sentencing Outcomes in U.S. District Courts: Can Offenders’ Educational Attainment Guard Against Prevalent Criminal Stereotypes? Crime & Delinquency. 2017 Feb;63(2):137–65. Swisher RR, Dennison CR. Educational Pathways and Change in Crime Between Adolescence and Early Adulthood. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 2016 Nov;53(6):840–71. Veselak KM. The Relationship between Educational Attainment and the Type of Crime Committed by Incarcerated Offenders. Journal of Correctional Education. 2015;66(2):30–56. Conway PF. Beyond Recidivism: Exploring Formerly Incarcerated Student Perspectives on the Value of Higher Education in Prison. rhe. 2023 June;46(4):453–83. Pelletier E, Evans D. Beyond Recidivism. The Journal of Correctional Education. 2019;70(2):49–68. Esperian JH. The Effect of Prison Education Programs on Recidivism. Journal of Correctional Education. 2010;61(4):316–34. Gaskill S, Gould MR, Price V, Castro EL, Lerman AE. The landscape of higher education in prisons, Academic Years: 2018-2021 [Internet]. Alliance for Higher Education in Prison; 2023. Available from: http://higheredinprison.org Dholakia N. How college in prison is changing lives. 2023 [cited 2025 July 26]. How College in Prison is Changing Lives. Available from: https://www.vera.org/news/how-college-in-prison-changes-lives Finkel E. Once the norm, collegiate prison programs grow again - Community College Daily [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2025 July 26]. Available from: https://www.ccdaily.com/2024/03/once-the-norm-collegiate-prison-programs-grow-again/ McCorkel J, DeFina R. Identifying the Liberatory Possibilities of Prison Higher Education. Critical Education. 2019;10(7):1–19. Bellinger P, Melvin L, Woods M, Quinet B, Gualtieri K, Hunt L, et al. Criminal and disciplinary history in college admissions. Washington, DC: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers; 2019. Mayer J, Smith J. College Admissions and Criminal Records: The Social Construction of Risk in the University Setting. Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 2024;1–19. Stewart R, Uggen C. Criminal records and college admissions: A modified experimental audit. Criminology. 2020 Feb;58(1):156–88. Anderson K, Varghese FP, Trower E, Sandlin L, Norwood N. Perceptions of African American College Applicants: The Roles of Race, Criminal History, and Qualifications. Race Soc Probl. 2013 Sept;5(3):157–72. Burton AL, Puddy HN, Hong S, Burton Jr VS, Miller WT. College Students’ Attitudes Toward Denying Admission to Prospective Students with Criminal Records. Journal of School Violence. 2024 Jan 2;23(1):71–81. Custer BD. College Admission Policies for Ex-Offender Students. Journal of Correctional Education. 2016;67(2):35–43. Pescosolido BA, Martin JK. The Stigma Complex. Annu Rev Sociol. 2015 Aug 14;41(1):87–116. Bowles TV, Brindle KA. Identifying facilitating factors and barriers to improving student retention rates in tertiary teaching courses: a systematic review. Higher Education Research & Development. 2017 July 29;36(5):903–19. Ahmed R, Johnson M, Caudill C, Diedrich N, Mains D, Key A. Cons and pros: prison education through the eyes of the prison educated. Review of Communication. 2019 Jan 2;19(1):69–76. LeBel TP. Invisible Stripes? Formerly Incarcerated Persons’ Perceptions of Stigma. Deviant Behavior. 2012 Feb;33(2):89–107. McTier Jr. TS, Briscoe KL, Davis TJ. College Administrators’ Beliefs and Perceptions of College Students with Criminal Records. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice. 2020 May 26;57(3):296–308. Copenhaver A, Edwards-Willey TL, Byers BD. Journeys in Social Stigma: The Lives of Formerly Incarcerated Felons in Higher Education. Journal of Correctional Education. 2007;58(3):268–83. Quach K, Cerda-Jara M, Deverux R, Smith J. Prison, College, and the Labor Market: A Critical Analysis by Formerly Incarcerated and Justice-Impacted Students. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2022 May;701(1):78–97. Halkovic A, Greene AC. Bearing Stigma, Carrying Gifts: What Colleges Can Learn from Students with Incarceration Experience. Urban Rev. 2015 Nov;47(4):759–82. Binnall JM, Scott-Hayward CS, Petersen N, Gonzalez RM. Taking Roll: College Students’ Views of Their Formerly Incarcerated Classmates. Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 2022 July 3;33(3):347–67. Overton J, Fretwell MD, Dum CP. Who do you trust? College students’ attribution of stigma to peers with incarceration histories. J Exp Criminol. 2022 Dec;18(4):847–70. Ott M, McTier Jr. TS. Faculty attitudes toward college students with criminal records. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. 2020 Dec;13(4):297–308. Van Hiel A, Onraet E, Bostyn DH, Stadeus J, Haesevoets T, Van Assche J, et al. A meta-analytic integration of research on the relationship between right-wing ideological attitudes and aggressive tendencies. European Review of Social Psychology. 2020 Jan 1;31(1):183–221. Perinelli E, Gremigni P. Use of Social Desirability Scales in Clinical Psychology: A Systematic Review: Social Desirability Scales in Clinical Psychology. J Clin Psychol. 2016 June;72(6):534–51. Hampejs V, Zwickl AA, Tran US, Voracek M. The Dark Triad of personality and criminal and delinquent behavior: Preregistered systematic review and three-level meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences. 2025 Nov;246:113308. Schomerus G, Schindler S, Sander C, Baumann E, Angermeyer MC. Changes in mental illness stigma over 30 years – Improvement, persistence, or deterioration? European Psychiatry. 2022 Jan;65(1):e78. Corrigan PW, Kleinlein P. The Impact of Mental Illness Stigma. In: Corrigan PW, editor. On the stigma of mental illness: Practical strategies for research and social change [Internet]. Washington: American Psychological Association; 2005 [cited 2025 July 27]. p. 11–44. Available from: https://content.apa.org/books/10887-001 Eisenberg D, Downs MF, Golberstein E, Zivin K. Stigma and Help Seeking for Mental Health Among College Students. Med Care Res Rev. 2009 Oct;66(5):522–41. Guarneri JA, Oberleitner DE, Connolly S. Perceived Stigma and Self-Stigma in College Students: A Literature Review and Implications for Practice and Research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 2019 Jan 2;41(1):48–62. Hatzenbuehler ML, Phelan JC, Link BG. Stigma as a Fundamental Cause of Population Health Inequalities. Am J Public Health. 2013 May;103(5):813–21. Waqas A, Malik S, Fida A, Abbas N, Mian N, Miryala S, et al. Interventions to Reduce Stigma Related to Mental Illnesses in Educational Institutes: a Systematic Review. Psychiatr Q. 2020 Sept;91(3):887–903. Baloch NA, Jennings WG. A Preliminary Investigation of the Intersection of Race and Disabilities among Inmates in the U.S. State Prison System. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2019 Mar;63(4):597–609. Prins SJ. Prevalence of Mental Illnesses in U.S. State Prisons: A Systematic Review. PS. 2014 July;65(7):862–72. Sedlacek WE, BrooksJr. GC. Measuring Racial Attitudes in a Situational Context. Psychol Rep. 1970 Dec 1;27(3):971–80. Kelley HH, Michela JL. Attribution Theory and Research. Annu Rev Psychol. 1980;31(1):457–501. Hazell CM, Berry C, Bogen-Johnston L, Banerjee M. Creating a hierarchy of mental health stigma: testing the effect of psychiatric diagnosis on stigma. BJPsych open. 2022 Sept;8(5):e174. Nießen D, Partsch MV, Kemper CJ, Rammstedt B. An English-Language Adaptation of the Social Desirability–Gamma Short Scale (KSE-G). Meas Instrum Soc Sci. 2019 Dec;1(1):2. Paulhus DL, Buckels EE, Trapnell PD, Jones DN. Screening for Dark Personalities: The Short Dark Tetrad (SD4). European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2021 May;37(3):208–22. Kaufman SB, Yaden DB, Hyde E, Tsukayama E. The Light vs. Dark Triad of Personality: Contrasting Two Very Different Profiles of Human Nature. Front Psychol. 2019 Mar 12;10:467. Bizumic B, Duckitt J. Investigating right wing authoritarianism with a very short authoritarianism scale. J Soc Polit Psych. 2018 Apr 25;6(1):129–50. Konrath S, Meier BP, Bushman BJ. Development and Validation of the Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS). Wicherts JM, editor. PLoS ONE. 2014 Aug 5;9(8):e103469. Robins RW, Hendin HM, Trzesniewski KH. Measuring Global Self-Esteem: Construct Validation of a Single-Item Measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2001 Feb;27(2):151–61. Konrath S, Meier BP, Bushman BJ. Development and validation of the single item trait empathy scale (SITES). Journal of Research in Personality. 2018 Apr;73:111–22. Ahmad F, Jhajj AK, Stewart DE, Burghardt M, Bierman AS. Single item measures of self-rated mental health: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Dec;14(1):398. Boyd RL, Ashokkuma A, Seraj S, Pennebaker JW. The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC-22 [Internet]. University of Texas at Austin; 2022. Available from: www.liwc.app Boyd RL, Pennebaker JW. Language-based personality: a new approach to personality in a digital world. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2017 Dec;18:63–8. Mula M. Is there a hierarchy in mental health stigma? BJPsych open. 2023 Jan;9(1):e4. Sigelman CK. Social Distance from Stigmatized Groups: False Consensus and False Uniqueness Effects on Responding. Rehabilitation Psychology. 1991;36(3):139–51. Nishar S, Brumfield E, Mandal S, Vanjani R, Soske J. “It’s a revolving door”: understanding the social determinants of mental health as experienced by formerly incarcerated people. Health Justice. 2023 June 10;11(1):26. Schnittker J, Massoglia M, Uggen C. Out and Down: Incarceration and Psychiatric Disorders. J Health Soc Behav. 2012 Dec;53(4):448–64. Tietjen G, Burnett J, Jessie BO. Onward and Upward: the Significance of Mentorship for Formerly Incarcerated Students and Academics. Crit Crim. 2021 Sept;29(3):633–47. Boles W, Tatum T, Wall J, Nguyen L, Van Dall A, Mulhollem C, et al. Us helping us: The evolution of a peer support group for formerly incarcerated people. Front Psychiatry. 2022 Aug 2;13:920640. Yu H, Glanzer PL, Johnson BR. Examining the relationship between student attitude and academic cheating. Ethics & Behavior. 2021 Oct 3;31(7):475–87. Footnotes Although the SD4 was developed to yield four distinct, 7-item subscales (Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism), we used the total score in the present analyses to reflect global “dark” personality traits. This decision was made for parsimony as the variable served as a covariate rather than a focal construct. The Light Triad is comprised of three, 4-item subscales (Kantianism, humanism, and faith in humanity) as a foil to the Dark Triad; we included a sum score of the instrument as the original publication allows for either use of subscales or a single-scale measure. Note that, to do this analysis, the responses had to be disaggregated by prompt within LIWC, which changes the sentiment ratings and therefore these are not entirely analogous to the ones in the main text. Further, one could be similarly concerned for the Criminal condition, but these were similarly null, p s > .93, d s < .18. There was, however, evidence of the false uniqueness effect in the control condition as participants in that group expressed markedly higher sentiment for their own treatment than that of society’s, p < .001, d = .92. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementalMaterial.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 02 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Psychology → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 27 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 23 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 02 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 25 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Sep, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 14 Sep, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 14 Sep, 2025 Editor invited by journal 04 Sep, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 03 Sep, 2025 First submitted to journal 03 Sep, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7510179","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":518368681,"identity":"687845fc-1b56-4e10-a3f1-9f20ac3e84ac","order_by":0,"name":"Kieran J. Schendel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SUNY Old Westbury","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kieran","middleName":"J.","lastName":"Schendel","suffix":""},{"id":518368682,"identity":"55e253ae-032f-4172-a5b6-ceaed05b76a8","order_by":1,"name":"Erik M Benau","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"SUNY Old Westbury","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Erik","middleName":"M","lastName":"Benau","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-01 15:53:25","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7510179/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7510179/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04243-9","type":"published","date":"2026-03-02T15:58:44+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":91961361,"identity":"6b8aeebe-b31b-4b9c-8593-a009cc1b2754","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 07:53:19","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":468522,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SchendelandBenauManuscriptvancouver.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7510179/v1/bb24dd58d76fc2b04bac9fe6.docx"},{"id":91960138,"identity":"066d8b85-3f37-4e42-a40e-c50be99b9637","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 07:45:19","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5379,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"bb910698d4b44241b9a64b04b9b20e33.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7510179/v1/a72c98fa88b31e9058a84361.json"},{"id":91963993,"identity":"a0ba0818-8538-45f1-9813-12549d5c3c92","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 08:11:27","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":78728,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementalMaterial.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7510179/v1/eecbfa94ee8d1a04f1d8c86a.docx"},{"id":91960145,"identity":"9ecdb095-d224-4bf4-8357-9270af7147ad","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 07:45:19","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":183545,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"bb910698d4b44241b9a64b04b9b20e331enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7510179/v1/2b1b15568d1d4f7cb656e60a.xml"},{"id":91963211,"identity":"868968ee-c30e-4f17-9d10-084d402c8a4c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 08:01:19","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":379124,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7510179/v1/601020e5d62af04dbdb31cf3.jpeg"},{"id":91961357,"identity":"ce13f9cd-10a4-42f6-9403-8e850cbb0921","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 07:53:19","extension":"jpeg","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1074,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7510179/v1/10bcf6b48a323d8248010f29.jpeg"},{"id":91960142,"identity":"f18a4067-1e98-4e85-aa6b-81158918df6e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 07:45:19","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":86627,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7510179/v1/01d12cdf2469a66e9da93681.png"},{"id":91960143,"identity":"b7424146-7ebb-482a-9ce6-e2f2b7b8a8ae","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 07:45:19","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":935,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7510179/v1/de03cce4d391993f01a57686.png"},{"id":91961364,"identity":"001edfe2-f71b-4a12-b474-2c324ced67a2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 07:53:19","extension":"xml","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":180181,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"bb910698d4b44241b9a64b04b9b20e331structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7510179/v1/8f1863c5542aa3cf410a3de8.xml"},{"id":91960146,"identity":"08060a82-5461-487f-ad50-edfc53115f4f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 07:45:19","extension":"html","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":196033,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7510179/v1/ccbb698b8a2715b31542ae6b.html"},{"id":91963209,"identity":"3b965c71-2da2-4ee1-9b1e-967baa02f814","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 08:01:19","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":294774,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSee image above for figure legend\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7510179/v1/2fb9be3a8cc768566eb03e00.png"},{"id":104251275,"identity":"28c1965c-2b29-4238-9776-5c6cb4d696d6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-09 16:12:37","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2097465,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7510179/v1/5f1748af-c044-48db-b340-00f56e748a30.pdf"},{"id":91960135,"identity":"ba323729-704c-40db-89b8-336501da8bc7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-23 07:45:19","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":78728,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementalMaterial.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7510179/v1/e6724135451f0915393c6117.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"“i'd exercise caution, but be discreet about it”: Comparing undergraduates’ stigma toward peers with criminal records and mental health disorders","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIt is estimated that 45% of the U.S. population has a criminal record, ranging from arrest to incarceration (1). As of 2018\u0026mdash;the most recent report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics\u0026mdash;recidivism rates have shown modest improvement but remain a serious concern (2). Within three years of release, 68% are rearrested; this rises to 83% within nine years. With each subsequent arrest, individuals face progressively negative consequences, including being classified as \u0026ldquo;high risk,\u0026rdquo; receiving increasingly severe sentences (3), and worsening psychosocial and physical health (4). These patterns reverberate through families and communities and strain public resources and perpetuating cycles of disadvantage (5). Recidivism costs U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars annually through policing, court proceedings, re-incarceration, and lost productivity (6,7). Recidivism, then, represents not just an individual concern, but a systemic, public health burden with far-reaching, long-term effects (8).\u0026nbsp;Reducing recidivism requires dismantling barriers that undermine reintegration: higher education is one promising avenue for doing so (9).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEducational attainment is a well-established social determinant of health, largely due to the economic mobility and privilege that it affords (10). Educational attainment likely makes this possible due to the acquisition and promotion of soft skills (e.g., critical thinking), technical training, social bonds and networking, and long-term planning (10,11). These benefits may surpass other social determinants\u0026mdash;including race and baseline socioeconomic status\u0026mdash;in predicting psychosocial and health outcomes (12,13). It is not surprising, then, that educational attainment\u0026mdash;especially higher educational attainment\u0026mdash;is also a negative predictor of criminality (14). For those who do commit crimes, greater educational attainment is associated with a lower likelihood of engaging in violent offenses\u0026mdash;more often involving nonviolent and/or so-called \u0026ldquo;white collar\u0026rdquo; crimes\u0026mdash;and predicts reduced likelihood of conviction, less severe sentencing, and lower rates of recidivism (14\u0026ndash;18). Notably, those who attain higher education \u003cem\u003eafter\u003c/em\u003e conviction show similar benefits, (9,19,20). Clearly, higher education can be a critical contributor to reduced criminality and recidivism, and by extension, public safety and economic burden (9,21).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere are increasing opportunities for access to higher education for those with criminal histories. As of 2021, there were 396 higher education programs operating within U.S. prisons, supported by 572 academic institutions, offering 104 associate\u0026rsquo;s and 38 bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree pathways (22). It is estimated that, to date, tens of thousands of incarcerated individuals have completed such a program (23). These programs are set to grow with the overturning of a ban on Pell grants that the U.S. Congress approved in 2021 (24). The benefits of these programs provide both intrapersonal and social empowerment (25). Outside of prisons themselves, however, access to higher education for those with criminal histories remains difficult to attain.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere are numerous structural and personal barriers for individuals with criminal histories to complete undergraduate education once released. Structurally, as of 2019, almost 81% of private institutions and 55% of public institutions collected criminal background information with little or no guidance to prevent the use of that information from rejection: less than half have policies about how criminal backgrounds should inform admissions decisions (26). Indeed, interviews with admissions officers suggest that criminal backgrounds are handled subjectively and often arbitrarily (27). Experimental research with samples of admissions officers suggests that a criminal record reduces likelihood of admissions, which is compounded by implications of minoritized race (28). These decisions are made at the administrative level, yet they may reflect or be shaped by broader campus sentiment. Students generally express openness to admitting individuals with criminal histories to their institutions, though this openness decreases when a criminal background intersects with other marginalized identities, such as minoritized race (29,30). Notably, there is little or no evidence that broad exclusion of individuals with criminal records improves campus safety (31).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to these structural barriers to entry, personal barriers such as \u003cem\u003estigma\u003c/em\u003e\u0026mdash;a negative attitude toward a devalued group that becomes the basis for labeling, stereotyping, separation, and discrimination (32)\u0026mdash;are major obstacles to retention (33). Unlike many forms of bias, stigma toward the formerly incarcerated is often presumed rather than debated. These beliefs and attitudes frame such individuals as incompetent, untrustworthy, morally deficient, and dangerous (34\u0026ndash;36). Consistent with these perceptions, students with criminal backgrounds report perceived stigma, social isolation, and discrimination within academic and professional settings, all of which hinder retention and academic success (34,37,38). In other words, campus and social environment can influence outcomes for individuals with criminal backgrounds and, by extension, successful reintegration and flourishing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSurprisingly little is known about what views undergraduates and other campus stakeholders hold about current students or classmates with criminal histories. Qualitative data suggest that students would be appreciative of the opportunity to learn from students with experiences of incarceration (39). Quantitatively, however, attitudes toward students with such histories have been rated significantly\u0026mdash;and substantially\u0026mdash;lower than those without by students (40,41), faculty (42), and administrators (36). Though these studies lay important groundwork, they rarely account for individual differences that may shape stigma expression. No prior study has integrated theoretically relevant covariates that may influence attitudes toward stigmatized groups or how those attitudes are reported, such as political ideology (43), social desirability (44), or personality traits (45). Better understanding of these influences is essential to design effective interventions and guide future research. Additionally, it remains unclear whether stigma toward formerly incarcerated individuals is unique to that population or reflects broader patterns of bias toward outgroup members more generally.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo this end, the current study included a comparison group depicting individuals with mental illness. Despite some belief that views toward mental illness have become less negative over time, stigma remains prevalent and, in some cases, has intensified (46). People with mental illness experience stigma in ways that often parallel those with criminal records: both groups are stereotyped as dangerous, unstable, and/or incompetent (47). These perceptions have been linked to increased social distance, reduced help-seeking, and higher dropout risk among students (48,49). Together, these groups seem intuitive to compare in order to determine whether stigma toward those with criminal backgrounds is unique or a result of general outgroup biases. Crucially, our intent is not to establish a hierarchy of oppression, as doing so can reinforce the very systems of exclusion we seek to challenge (50). Instead, we believe that better understanding these differences can inform more precise and equitable strategies for inclusion. In particular, mental illness stigma has (rightly) received significant attention in higher education, with well-established intervention frameworks (51). If stigma toward justice-involved students operates in similar ways, this comparison may help guide adaptation and tailoring of those efforts; if it operates differently, it may indicate the need for novel, targeted interventions. Further, we recognize that experiences of criminalization and mental illness often intersect, particularly in marginalized and minoritized communities (52,53). This study offers an initial lens into how these stigmas may operate in parallel or diverge, and how that knowledge can inform inclusive policy and intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePresent Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present study had three aims. First, we sought to replicate and extend prior findings on personal stigma\u0026mdash;negative attitudes\u0026mdash;held by students toward peers with criminal histories. The second aim was to compare these attitudes to those directed at another stigmatized group: students with mental illness. Third, we wanted to determine whether self-reported attitudes were consistent with what the language they use to describe their attitudes toward these groups (i.e., natural language sentiment). To address these goals, we recruited a crowdsourced sample of current undergraduates who were randomly assigned to evaluate hypothetical students described as having a criminal background, mental illness, or no stated history of either. Participants completed both quantitative ratings and open-ended written responses. Sentiment analysis was applied to the writing samples to assess implicit attitudes. We hypothesized that students with criminal backgrounds would be evaluated most negatively, followed by those with mental illness, and that this pattern would be similar in both self-report and sentiment analysis.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipants.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Participants were recruited in June 2024 from Prolific, a crowdsourcing platform that specializes in academic research. Only participants whose screening measures indicated they were current undergraduates were able to access the study. A total of 350 participants selected the study and consented to begin. Forty-three (12%) participants were omitted from analyses if they did not confirm they were undergraduate students, had incomplete data, or missing more than one of four attention checks, leaving a total of 307 included participants. A priori power analysis suggested that about 90 participants per cell were required to power the one-way ANCOVA described below at 1-\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.80. The actual achieved power in this sample was 1-β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.84. Participant demographics are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and experiential characteristics are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDemographic and student status information for the sample.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eControl\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e88 (29%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eMental Illness\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e113 (37%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eCriminal\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e106 (35%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eTotal\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e307\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"BoldUnderline\" class=\"BoldUnderline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eDemographic Information\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAge [Mean (SD)]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28.0 (9.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.3 (8.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25.8 (7.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.6 (8.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMan\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35 (39.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e37 (32.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36 (34.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e108 (35.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWoman\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e47 (53.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e65 (57.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e64 (60.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e176 (57.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNon-binary\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3 (3.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9 (8.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5 (4.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17 (5.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther/Missing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3 (3.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2 (1.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1 (0.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6 (2.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRace\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhite\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e43 (48.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e56 (49.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e52 (49.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e151 (49.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAsian\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7 (8.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19 (16.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19 (17.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e45 (14.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBlack\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15 (17.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e18 (15.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15 (14.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48 (15.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHispanic\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10 (11.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6 (5.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7 (6.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23 (7.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMiddle Eastern\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0 (0.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1 (0.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0 (0.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1 (0.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAI/AN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1 (1.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0 (0.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0 (0.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1 (0.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMulti Racial\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11 (12.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13 (11.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11 (10.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35 (11.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRefuse/Missing\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1 (1.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0 (0.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2 (1.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3 (1.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"BoldUnderline\" class=\"BoldUnderline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eStudent Status and School Information\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFull Time\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e64 (72.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e81 (71.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e88 (83.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e233 (75.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePublic or Private\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePublic\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e66 (75.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e86 (76.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e77 (72.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e229 (74.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrivate\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20 (22.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26 (23.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28 (26.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e74 (24.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUnsure\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2 (2.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1 (0.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1 (0.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4 (1.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eType of Institution\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo Year\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20 (22.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21 (18.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21 (19.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e62 (20.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSmall Four Year\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4 (4.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5 (4.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4 (3.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13 (4.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedium Four Year\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26 (29.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e33 (29.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25 (23.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e84 (27.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMajor University\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e38 (43.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e52 (46.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e54 (50.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e144 (46.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProfessional/Trade\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0 (0.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2 (1.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2 (1.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4 (1.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYear\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7 (8.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16 (14.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7 (6.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30 (9.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16 (18.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30 (26.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11 (10.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e57 (18.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThird\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23 (26.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17 (15.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27 (25.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e67 (21.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFourth\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e38 (43.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e46 (40.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e60 (56.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e144 (46.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther/Unsure\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4 (4.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4 (3.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1 (0.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9 (3.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNotes\u003c/em\u003e: Values are N (%) unless noted; percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding; AI/AN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;American Indian/Alaska Native;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003eIncludes seven transgender men;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003eIncludes three transgender women;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003eSignificant discrepancy (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.008), see text;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExperiential and Psychosocial Covariates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eControl\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;88 (29%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eMental Illness\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;113 (37%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eCriminal\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;106 (35%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eTotal\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;307\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"BoldUnderline\" class=\"BoldUnderline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eExperiential Covariate [Mdn (IQR) or N (%)]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePsych. Dx.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(N [%] Yes)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e34 (39.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36 (32.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e43 (41.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e113 (37.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePersonal incarcerated\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e(N [%] Yes)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4 (4.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10 (8.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2 (1.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16 (5.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKnown Incarcerated\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.0 (1.0 to 2.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.0 (1.0 to 2.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.0 (1.0 to 2.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.0 (1.0 to 2.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNeighborhood Crime\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.0 (2.0 to 4.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.0 (2.0 to 3.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.0 (2.0 to 3.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.0 (2.0 to 3.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVictimization\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;4\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.0 (0.0 to 3.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.0 (0.0 to 3.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.0 (0.0 to 2.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.0 (0.0 to 3.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"BoldUnderline\" class=\"BoldUnderline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ePsychosocial Covariates [M (SD)]\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePQ+\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u0026ndash;12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.6 (1.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.4 (1.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.2 (2.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.4 (1.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNQ\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u0026ndash;12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.5 (2.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.9 (2.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.5 (2.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.7 (2.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLight Triad\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11\u0026ndash;55\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35.4 (4.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35.0 (4.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35.4 (4.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35.3 (4.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSD4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28\u0026ndash;140\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e70.1 (16.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e71.9 (14.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e67.5 (13.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e69.9 (14.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVSRWA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u0026ndash;45\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24.3 (9.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23.0 (9.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23.8 (9.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23.7 (9.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSINS\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.9 (1.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.1 (1.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.9 (1.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.0 (1.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSITES\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.3 (0.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.2 (0.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.3 (0.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.3 (0.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSISES\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.0 (1.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.8 (1.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.8 (1.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.9 (1.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSRMH\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u0026ndash;5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.5 (1.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.6 (1.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.4 (1.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.5 (1.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNotes\u003c/b\u003e: Psych. Dx\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Percentage reporting a psychiatric diagnosis; Been incarcerated\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;specified as having been in jail or prison for more than one month; Known incarcerated\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;How many close known others who were incarcerated; Victimization\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Self or close other being victims of violent or non-violent crimes; PQ+/NQ\u0026ndash; = Positive Quality enhancement and Negative Quality minimization scales (respectively) of the KSE-G (see text); SD4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Short Dark Tetrad; VSRWA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Very Short Right Wing Authoritarianism; SINS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Single Item Narcissism Scale; SITES\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Single Item Trait Empathy Scale; SISES\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Single Item Self-Esteem Scale; SRMH\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Single-item Self-Reported Mental Health; Each variable was statistically comparable across groups; percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e 1 (\u003cem\u003enone\u003c/em\u003e) to 5 (\u003cem\u003emore than five\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e 1 (\u003cem\u003erarely\u003c/em\u003e) to 5 (\u003cem\u003eall the time\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e Tally of \u0026ldquo;yes\u0026rdquo; to four items asking about self or close others being the victim of violent or non-violent crime\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMeasures.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStigma\u003c/b\u003e. We included a modified version of the Situational Attitude Scale (SAS). The SAS was originally developed by Sedlacek and Brooks Jr. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e), and later modified by McTier and colleagues to measure stigma pertaining to students with criminal backgrounds (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e). The SAS is based on attribution theory, which posits that people explain others\u0026rsquo; behaviors by attributing them to underlying causes\u0026mdash;often relying on limited or irrelevant contextual information (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e). Our version maintained the structure of the SAS\u0026mdash;eight brief vignettes describing scenarios involving a fellow student\u0026mdash;while manipulating the background of the student across three between-subjects conditions: \u003cem\u003econtrol\u003c/em\u003e (no stated background), \u003cem\u003ecriminal\u003c/em\u003e (specified felony conviction), or \u003cem\u003emental illness\u003c/em\u003e (specified, highly stigmatized diagnosis). For the control and criminal history conditions, our modifications were identical to prior work (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e). For the mental health conditions, we replaced criminal histories with specific diagnoses that were selected based on high stigma ratings (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e). For example: \u0026ldquo;[\u003cb\u003eControl\u003c/b\u003e: A classmate; \u003cb\u003eCriminal\u003c/b\u003e: A classmate who had previously notified you about an assault conviction; \u003cb\u003eMental Illness\u003c/b\u003e: A classmate who had previously notified you about having antisocial personality disorder] emails you to request a meeting outside of the university.\u0026rdquo; In this example, the bracketed information preceded the situation, and in the brackets, the prime differed based on assigned condition; participants assigned to the control condition only saw the control prompts, etc. Participants were instructed to \u0026ldquo;Please indicate how you would feel if you experienced the following scenarios\u0026rdquo; by rating five emotional dimensions using a five-point semantic differential scale: \u003cb\u003eAnger\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eVery Angry\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) to \u003cem\u003eVery Calm\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e); \u003cb\u003eSurprise\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eVery Unsurprised\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) to \u003cem\u003eVery Surprised\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e); \u003cb\u003eSafety\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eVery Safe\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) to \u003cem\u003eVery Unsafe\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e); \u003cb\u003eDisappointment\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eVery Disappointed\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) to \u003cem\u003eVery Pleased\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e); \u003cb\u003eFear\u003c/b\u003e: \u003cem\u003eVery Afraid\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) to \u003cem\u003eNot at All Afraid\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). To ensure that higher scores consistently reflected more positive emotional responses, items anchored by \u003cem\u003eunsurprised\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003esafe\u003c/em\u003e, were reverse scored. Full vignette text, item content, and scoring details for the adapted SAS are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;3.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;3: Each vignette and the scores attained per group on the SAS.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVignette\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"BoldUnderline\" class=\"BoldUnderline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eControl\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;88)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"BoldUnderline\" class=\"BoldUnderline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eMental Illness\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;113)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"BoldUnderline\" class=\"BoldUnderline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eCriminal\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;106)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"BoldUnderline\" class=\"BoldUnderline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eTotal\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;307)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMentoring\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYour university announces a new program [\u003cb\u003efor students\u003c/b\u003e; \u003cb\u003efor students who have been convicted of crimes; for students who have a major mental illness\u003c/b\u003e]. The funding for this program will come from existing programs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15.0 (2.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15.3 (2.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.3 (2.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.9 (2.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCar\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYou see [\u003cb\u003ea classmate\u003c/b\u003e; \u003cb\u003ea classmate who has been convicted of drug possession; a classmate who told you about having schizophrenia\u003c/b\u003e] driving a luxury car.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.2 (2.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.0 (2.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.6 (2.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.2 (2.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.0\u0026ndash;19.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0\u0026ndash;19.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEarns A\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[\u003cb\u003eA classmate; A classmate who had previously informed you about a conviction for menacing (threats) and intimidation; A classmate who had previously informed you about having Delusional Disorder\u003c/b\u003e] earns an A in your class.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.9 (1.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.8 (2.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.4 (2.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.4 (2.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.0\u0026ndash;18.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.0\u0026ndash;19.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTest Scores\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[\u003cb\u003eA classmate; A classmate who told you about a prior conviction for forgery; A classmate who told you about having bipolar disorder\u003c/b\u003e] was admitted with entrance test scores much lower than those of the general student population.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.8 (2.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.5 (2.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.1 (1.9)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.1 (2.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0\u0026ndash;16.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSexual Assault\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[\u003cb\u003eA classmate; classmate who had previously disclosed to you a rape conviction; who had previously discussed having dissociative identity disorder\u003c/b\u003e] has recently been arrested for sexual assault.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.2 (2.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.7 (2.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.1 (3.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.0 (3.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.0\u0026ndash;19.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.0\u0026ndash;17.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0\u0026ndash;19.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0\u0026ndash;19.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCheating\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e[A classmate; A classmate who had previously informed you of a burglary conviction; A classmate who had previously informed you of having Gambling Disorder\u003c/b\u003e] cheating on an exam.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.1 (1.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.9 (1.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.6 (1.8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.8 (1.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.0\u0026ndash;15.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.0\u0026ndash;16.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0\u0026ndash;14.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.0\u0026ndash;16.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeeting\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[\u003cb\u003eA classmate\u003c/b\u003e; \u003cb\u003eA classmate who had previously notified you about an assault conviction; A classmate who had previously notified you about having antisocial personality disorder\u003c/b\u003e] emails you to request a meeting outside of the university.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.3 (2.2)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.4 (2.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.9 (2.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.8 (2.4)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.0\u0026ndash;19.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.0\u0026ndash;19.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNewspaper\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe academic accomplishments of [\u003cb\u003ea classmate; a classmate who had previously disclosed to you a conviction for murder; a classmate who had previously told you about having post-traumatic stress disorder\u003c/b\u003e] in one of your classes are featured in the campus newspaper.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.2 (2.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.7 (2.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.1 (2.3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.6 (3.0)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.0\u0026ndash;19.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.0\u0026ndash;16.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eScholarship\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[\u003cb\u003eA classmate; A classmate who had previously told you about a conviction for manslaughter; A classmate who had previously told you about having a borderline personality disorder\u003c/b\u003e] and is majoring in your field has received a full scholarship to attend your university.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eM (SD)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.2 (2.1)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.5 (2.6)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.6 (1.7)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.4 (2.5)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRange\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.0\u0026ndash;16.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.0\u0026ndash;20.0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNotes\u003c/b\u003e: Possible score ranges were 4 to 20 where higher scores indicated more positive reactions; Each vignette version is shown with Control, Criminal, and Mental Illness primes in that order; participants only saw one version of each;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e Item removed from final analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOpen Ended Questions.\u003c/b\u003e To attain sentiment analysis, participants were asked three questions developed by the authors. Questions were modified in a parallel manner depending on the condition: (a) How do you view society\u0026rsquo;s treatment of [college students; college students with a criminal record; college students who have a mental illness]? Please elaborate on any personal experiences or observations that have influenced your perspective.; (b) What are your thoughts and feelings about [your classmates; classmates if you learned they had been incarcerated (for more than a month); classmates if you learned they had a major mental illness]?; (c) How do, or how would, you treat [your classmates; classmates if you learned they had been incarcerated (for more than a month); a classmate if you learned they have a major mental illness]?\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCovariates.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDemographic, Student/School Status, and Criminal Background\u003c/b\u003e. Demographic and experiential covariates were developed by the authors and included: (a) age; (b) year in school; (c) full- versus part-time student status; (d) size of institution (two-year college; four-year college with no graduate programs; four-year college with some graduate programs; four-year college with extensive graduate or health science programs; professional/trade school); (e) public versus private institution; (f) personal history of incarceration, defined as \u0026ldquo;the experience of going to jail or prison for more than a month\u0026rdquo; (yes/no); (g) number of known individuals with an incarceration history (none, one, two or three, four or five, more than five, prefer not to respond); (h) perceived neighborhood crime exposure on a scale from 1 (\u003cem\u003enever or almost never\u003c/em\u003e) to 5 (\u003cem\u003eall the time\u003c/em\u003e); (i) a count of all \u0026ldquo;yes\u0026rdquo; responses across four yes/no items assessing personal and known other experiences of violent and non-violent crime; and (j) self-reported presence of a serious mental illness diagnosis (ten major diagnoses were presented as a checklist; any reported diagnoses were recoded as \u0026ldquo;yes\u0026rdquo; and all omissions were coded as \u0026ldquo;no\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePsychosocial Attitudes and Well-being\u003c/b\u003e. To account for individual differences that may influence sentiment expression, a range of self-report covariates were included in all ANCOVA models. These included: (a) the six-item English-language version of the Social Desirability\u0026mdash;Gamma Short Short Scale (KSE-G; 57), which yields two subscales\u0026mdash;Positive Quality Enhancement (PQ+; \u003cem\u003eω\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.58) and Negative Quality Minimization (NQ\u0026minus;; ω\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.56)\u0026mdash;each with three items; (b) the 28-item Short Dark Tetrad (SD4; \u003cem\u003eω\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.89; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e)[1]\u003ca class=\"FNLink\" href=\"#Fn1\" id=\"#FNLinkFn1\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e); (c) the 12-item Light Triad Scale (\u003cem\u003eω\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.77; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e)[2]\u003ca class=\"FNLink\" href=\"#Fn2\" id=\"#FNLinkFn2\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e); (d) the six-item Very Short Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (VSRWA; \u003cem\u003eω\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.78; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e); (e) the Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS; 61); (f) the Single Item Self-Esteem Scale (SISE; 62); (g) the Single Item Trait Empathy Scale (SITES; 63); (h) a single item measure of self-rated mental health (SRMH; 64); (i) political philosophy (developed for this study) on a sliding scale from 0 (very conservative) to 100 (very liberal). Academic major and political affiliation were collected for descriptive purposes but not included as covariates: 32 majors were selected, reducing model stability and power; party affiliation was omitted in favor of the continuous conservative\u0026ndash;liberal variable (swapping the variables did not change results).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eProcedure\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter selecting the study and completing informed consent, participants answered the experiential items described above. They then completed the self-report measures (order of presentation was randomized for each participant). Next, participants were randomly assigned to complete the control (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;87), mental illness (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;113), or criminal background (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;106) version of the SAS and the corresponding open-ended questions. Binomial tests confirmed comparable group sizes (\u003cem\u003eps\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.10). Finally, they completed the demographic questions described above and three quality control items (not presented). Upon completion, participants were debriefed and compensated in accordance with Prolific\u0026rsquo;s reimbursement policies, up to \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e3 USD; reimbursement data are not released to researchers. Median completion time was 14.3 minutes (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17.6, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.4). All procedures were approved by our Institutional Review Board.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSAS Data Reduction.\u003c/b\u003e Data reduction for the SAS was conducted in several stages. First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed in which responses to all 40 items (five affective ratings across eight vignettes) were modeled onto an eight-factor structure\u0026mdash;one factor per vignette\u0026mdash;to evaluate whether each vignette functioned as a distinct unit and to assess overall model fit prior to data reduction. Initial model fit was mixed and marginal: χ\u0026sup2;(909)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2714.97, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.792, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.773, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.071, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.081 (90% CI = [0.077, 0.084]). Inspection of modification indices suggested that the \u003cem\u003esafety\u003c/em\u003e item exhibited poor fit across multiple vignettes, with consistently high residual covariances and cross-loadings. As a result, the \u003cem\u003esafety\u003c/em\u003e item was removed from all eight vignettes. A revised CFA excluding safety yielded improved model fit: χ\u0026sup2;(558)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1385.39, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.862, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.844, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.070 [90% CI: 0.065, 0.074], SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.071. A unitary model did not approach good fit, so we summed the scores of each vignette (without the \u003cem\u003esafety\u003c/em\u003e scale) to provide a score of 4\u0026ndash;16 per vignette. Then, we entered each vignette\u0026rsquo;s score into a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) using parallel analysis, revealing a single-component solution. The vignette pertaining to cheating on an exam did not load adequately (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.40) and was therefore removed. All vignettes loaded positively except the one pertaining to sexual assault, which loaded negatively. Given its negative direction and conceptual divergence from the remaining vignettes, we also removed this item. The component scores then served as the dependent variable in the analyses below. Higher scores indicated more positive attitudes. More information about this PCA is available in Appendix A in the supplement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOpen Ended Questions Sentiment Analysis.\u003c/b\u003e Text responses were analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count 22.0 (LIWC; Pennebaker Conglomerates, Austin, TX). For parsimony, all three responses were entered and measured. We included three scales from the LIWC output that reflect participants\u0026rsquo; sentiment toward their target group: (\u003cem\u003eEmotional\u003c/em\u003e) \u003cem\u003eTone\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eAffect\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eSocial\u003c/em\u003e. The \u003cem\u003eTone\u003c/em\u003e score reflects the relative balance of positive to negative emotion words, with higher values indicating a more positive overall emotional tone. The \u003cem\u003eAffect\u003c/em\u003e score captures the overall frequency of emotion-related words\u0026mdash;both positive and negative\u0026mdash;serving as a general index of emotional expression. The \u003cem\u003eSocial\u003c/em\u003e score indexes language related to interpersonal processes and relationships, including references to social interaction, connection, or group affiliation (e.g., \u0026ldquo;we,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;help,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;friend\u0026rdquo;). These three scores were entered into a PCA, which yielded a single component interpreted as reflecting warmth and approach (versus negativity and avoidance), hereafter referred to as \u003cem\u003eSentiment\u003c/em\u003e. We saved the component scores, which then served as the dependent variable in subsequent analyses; higher scores reflect greater positive regard for the group. See Boyd et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e) for more information about LIWC and its dictionaries. Information on the PCA is available in the Appendix B in the supplement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eData analysis plan.\u003c/b\u003e The main analyses were conducted with two one-way ANCOVA with condition entered as the independent variable, SAS component and then Sentiment component entered as the dependent variable. All self-report and demographic items mentioned above were entered as covariates. Tukey-corrected post-hoc \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-tests were conducted. A Pearson correlation was also calculated between the SAS and Sentiment components. A correlation matrix with all self-report variables is available in Appendix C of the supplement, and Appendix D presents the full ANCOVA model with covariates.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, the sample was mostly White, women, full time students, who were seniors and attending a major public university. Top three majors were: computer science (12%), business and management (11%), and psychology (11%). A plurality identified as Democrats (48%) or Independent (33%). The three groups were statistically comparable on most demographic and self-report measures (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.06), with the exception of year in school, \u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2;(\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;23.67, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.008, \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.20. This difference was likely due to a slight overrepresentation of second-year students in the mental illness condition and third- and fourth-year students in the criminal background condition. Given the small effect size and that year in school was included as a covariate in the central analyses, the potential impact of this imbalance was likely minimal and statistically controlled.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn terms of SAS scores, results of the ANCOVA showed a significant main effect of Condition, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,271)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;91.68, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, with a very large effect size, \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.404. Tukey-corrected post hoc \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-tests indicated that scores were significantly lower for the Criminal condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.69, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.14) than both the Control (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.63, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.14), \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.76, and Mental Illness conditions (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.57, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.13), \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.69. There was no significant difference between the Control and Mental Illness conditions, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.879, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.07.These findings suggest that participants in the Criminal condition expressed markedly more negative emotional reactions toward the individuals in their vignettes than did participants in the other two conditions; the other two conditions held similar reactions to each other. Figure\u0026nbsp;1 (left) presents these data as a graph.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the Sentiment component, there was also a significant main effect of condition, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,271)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;45.54, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, with a very large effect size \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.252. Tukey-corrected post hoc \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-tests indicated that Sentiment scores were significantly lower for the Criminal condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.58, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.16) than both the Control (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.63, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.16), \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.44, and Mental Illness conditions (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.14), \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.75. The mental illness condition was also significantly lower than the control condition, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.69. In short: sentiment scores reflected an emotional gradient: participants in the control condition expressed overall positive sentiment, those in the mental illness condition expressed sentiment that averaged to be nearly neutral (i.e., close to zero), and those in the criminal background condition expressed markedly negative sentiment in response to their prompts. Figure 1 (right) presents these data as a graph. Examples of high and low sentiment statements per condition are shown in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\"\u003eTable 4: Sample statements from high and low sentiment ratings (positive vs. negative) in each condition.\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tabb\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRating\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSociety Treatment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePersonal Thoughts\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePersonal Treatment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ei feel like we are mostly treated good\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMy classmates are kind and empathic individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI\u0026apos;d treat them with care and respect.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003etheyre not horrible towards them but also expect a lot\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ethey come from all walks of life and diverse.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI treat them as my equals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMental Illness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThey tend to dismiss it. They also treat it like it\u0026rsquo;s a phase.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI am always pleased to hear anyone has achieved success especially with a mental illness.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI\u0026apos;d show compassion and support. I\u0026apos;d listen and be there for them. Treat them with kindness and respect. Encourage open conversations. Promote a stigma free environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI don\u0026rsquo;t feel that society addresses the mental health of students as a priority.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI would view them the same way as I viewed them before. Having a major mental illness does not change my opinion.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo different than I would treat anyone else.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCriminal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI think it is fair. I don\u0026apos;t think certain criminal records should be allowed on campus.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI feel like everyone makes mistakes and hopefully a lesson was learned.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI would treat them the same as any other classmate.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI believe they are treated poorly by the general population.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI really don\u0026rsquo;t care as long as I don\u0026rsquo;t feel like I am being targeted.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ei\u0026apos;d exercise caution, but be discreet about it\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNotes\u003c/strong\u003e: These statements are presented in full and are verbatim; each was in the five highest or lowest rated statements; each statement is from a different respondent.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, there was a moderate, positive correlation between SAS and Sentiment, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e(305)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.311, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe central finding of the present study is that current undergraduates reported and expressed negative attitudes toward formerly incarcerated classmates compared to those with no stated history and those with reported psychiatric diagnoses. These attitudes were attained through both self-report and sentiment analysis of responses to open-ended questions, all while controlling for key psychosocial covariates and political beliefs. Our hypotheses had mixed support but nonetheless provide important insight into the landscape of stigma on campus. More specifically, we hypothesized that the control group would be evaluated with the highest regard, followed by students with mental illness, and then those with criminal backgrounds. SAS scores indicated similarly high regard for the control and mental illness groups, somewhat counter to expectations. However, sentiment analyses followed the hypothesized pattern: participants used more positive, affiliative, and emotionally warm language when describing the control group, followed by the mental illness group, and then the criminal background group. We explore possible explanations and implications of these findings below.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe present results complement and extend previous findings that faculty (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e), administrators (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e), and fellow undergraduates (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e) harbor more negative views toward students' criminal histories compared to those with no stated history. However, this is just the second study\u0026mdash;following Overton and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;that focused on asking students about hypothetical \u003cem\u003ecurrent\u003c/em\u003e classmates. Notably, when comparing Control and Criminal conditions, the present Cohen\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003es exceeded 1.4 in both Sentiment and SAS comparisons, even while controlling for covariates. By contrast, Overton and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e) reported an unadjusted social distance score with an effect size of \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;.8 (based on descriptive statistics), and regression coefficients that were meaningful but modest by most conventions (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e \u0026asymp; \u0026ndash;.17 to \u0026ndash;.20). Their outcome\u0026mdash;self-reported trustworthiness in a student government context\u0026mdash;is arguably more neutral and less personally salient than the emotionally charged vignettes used in the SAS. Further, the use of free responses in the present study allowed participants to express spontaneous, less filtered reactions in their own words. This approach likely tapped into comparatively stronger underlying biases. Together with Overton et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e), these results suggest that negative attitudes toward students with criminal histories are robust across distinct modes of evaluation and emerge in both emotionally charged and relatively neutral contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis consistency is striking, particularly when criminal histories are evaluated in socially relevant or evocative contexts. Consistent with prior characterizations of individuals with criminal histories as incompetent, untrustworthy, or dangerous (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e), participants\u0026rsquo; responses reflected entrenched negative associations both emotionally (via SAS) and linguistically (via sentiment analysis). The convergence across distinct assessment strategies, despite differences in psychological accessibility, suggests that these attitudes are not only widespread but deeply ingrained (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, the magnitude of these effects\u0026mdash;even when controlling for social desirability, political ideology, and relevant personality traits\u0026mdash;implies that stigma toward this group may operate relatively automatically or resist normative pressure more than other forms of bias. Further research is needed to disentangle the mechanisms and boundary conditions of this stigma.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study is also the first to address a key gap in the literature: \u003cem\u003eAre individuals with criminal histories viewed with unique form and intensity of stigma compared to other groups?\u003c/em\u003e In this case, the answer appears to be \u0026ldquo;yes.\u0026rdquo; Ranking stigma risks reinforcing social hierarchies and essentialism (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;particularly when mental illness is involved (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;yet cautiously measuring attitudes toward these groups is essential to understand campus climate and inform appropriate policies and other interventions. To that end, the mixed-methods design of this study offered unique insight into stigma toward students with mental illness compared to criminal histories. The SAS and sentiment scores were moderately correlated, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.311, or a little less than 10% shared variance. The formats seemingly elicited comparable negative responses, but not necessarily from the same individuals. This divergence was especially apparent in the Mental Illness condition: compared to the Control group, reactions to the mental illness group were rated comparably on the SAS, yet written responses regarding students with mental illness were significantly more emotionally distant, critical, or indifferent. These findings complement recent evidence that mental illness stigma persists even as public discourse suggests it is waning (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is not clear why the divergence with the Mental Illness condition emerged. Views about mental illness could be subject to the \u003cem\u003efalse uniqueness effect\u003c/em\u003e, or the tendency to believe one\u0026rsquo;s own attitudes or behaviors are more favorable than those of others (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e). If this explained the muted sentiment regarding this population, we would expect to see lower scores on \u0026ldquo;Society\u0026rdquo; prompt than the others; yet exploratory analyses indicated that sentiment ratings were generally consistent across prompts (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.98, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.14; see supplement).[3]\u003ca class=\"FNLink\" href=\"#Fn3\" id=\"#FNLinkFn3\"\u003e\u003c/a\u003e Thus, the effect is unlikely to account for the observed results. Notably, we also controlled for socially desirable responding, so that is also unlikely to explain these findings. One possibility is that mental illness elicits a more ambivalent or emotionally distant stance when participants are asked to describe others in open-ended terms. Though participants may rate a student with mental illness neutrally or even positively in structured response formats, their free-response language may reflect discomfort or disengagement. These results suggest that individuals with mental illness may be viewed negatively, but the nature and strength of these views depend on how attitudes are measured. Conversely, stigma toward individuals with criminal histories appears robust across methods.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe present findings have important implications for how colleges design interventions to improve campus climate. Efforts to support students with mental illness remain vital (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e). Moreover, many students with criminal histories also report mental health challenges (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e69\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e): addressing one without the other risks offering incomplete or ineffective support. That said, there are many well-established and effective interventions for reducing stigma around mental health for undergraduates (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e). Much less discussed are interventions and programs to reduce stigma for formerly incarcerated students; we focus on these interventions for this manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeyond structural and peer-level stigma, successful interventions must also address practical and institutional barriers in a holistic way. Formerly incarcerated students benefit from wraparound programs that include mentorship, housing support, legal aid, and academic counseling, as seen in initiatives like Project Rebound and Berkeley Underground Scholars (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e). Reducing stigma requires not just services but also a shift in campus culture\u0026mdash;through faculty education and admissions policy reform (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e). Mentorship and academic support to help navigate the unspoken norms and expectations of college life (i.e., the \u0026ldquo;invisible curriculum\u0026rdquo;) may be particularly important for this population (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e). Peer support programs can also mitigate the effects of negative student sentiment, and expanding access to such networks could further enhance belonging and success (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e72\u003c/span\u003e), in turn reducing the likelihood of recidivism (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e). In addition to individual growth and success, these programs can reverberate not just for individual, but for campus and the communities they serve (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLimitations and Future Directions.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study provides some important insights into degree of interpersonal stigma toward formerly incarcerated individuals and those with mental health diagnoses, but it is not without limitations. Although the SAS and Sentiment data capture implicit aspects of stigma, and measures like VSRWA and dark/light traits reflect broader ideological tendencies, we did not include direct self-report measures of stigma toward formerly incarcerated individuals or those with mental illness. Further, sentiment analysis tools can struggle with sarcasm, ambiguity, brevity, and other contextual nuance; interpretation of these scores requires caution as a result. It was beyond the scope of this paper to conduct deeper thematic analyses of the open-ended responses, which may have helped identify common themes or stereotypes underlying the sentiment scores. It was also beyond the scope of the present manuscript to evaluate key intersectional demographic (e.g., race, socioeconomic status) and psychosocial variables (e.g., psychiatric diagnosis) of the respondent or target, a necessary next step to avoid characterizing the formerly incarcerated population as a homogenous group.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe also encountered several measurement challenges that may inform future use of the SAS or similar instruments. For instance, one item\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003esafety\u003c/em\u003e\u0026mdash;did not load in the CFA with the other items, likely because it reflects a more cognitive than emotional reaction. Two vignettes were excluded: one involving cheating on an exam\u0026mdash;also flagged in prior work (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;that was removed for poor component loading in the PCA and one involving sexual assault that loaded negatively and was conceptually distinct from the remaining items. Cheating is rated as morally ambiguous, even on exams, which may lead to diverse appraisals of the behavior (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e73\u003c/span\u003e). The vignette featuring sexual assault was the only one to describe a crime\u0026mdash;a violent one at that\u0026mdash;which may have elicited distinct evaluative processes. Future researchers should be mindful of item content when adapting tools to study stigma.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs more individuals come into contact with the justice system\u0026mdash;and as access to higher education expands in response\u0026mdash;addressing the attitudinal and structural barriers that shape this population\u0026rsquo;s academic trajectory can prevent rearrest and other severe downstream risks. This study, together with a growing body of work, suggests that undergraduate attitudes toward stigmatized populations likely remain a key obstacle. Reducing stigma on campus is not just a moral imperative\u0026mdash;it is a necessary step toward broader social change. Beyond improving individual outcomes, fostering more supportive campus climates may also support broader efforts to interrupt cycles of marginalization and repeated incarceration.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at SUNY Old Westbury (IRB# 2023-017) and was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee, and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All participants provided informed consent prior to participation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to concerns regarding participant confidentiality but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;This study was supported by an internal grant awarded to the first author from the Panther Center for Undergraduate Research Experiences (CURE) at SUNY Old Westbury.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;LS and EB conceptualized and designed the study. LS managed conducted preliminary analyses and drafted the original versions of this manuscript. EB conducted the primary analyses and led manuscript preparation. Both authors contributed to the interpretation of findings and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The authors thank Dr. Svetlana Jović for input on the development of the project and Colette Vaughan for editorial assistance. We are also grateful to Drs. Molly Ott and Terrence McTier, Jr. for providing the Situational Attitude Scale used in this study, as well as for their input into the study design.\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSawyer W, Wagner P. Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2025 [Internet]. Prison Policy Initiative; 2025 [cited 2025 July 20]. Available from: https://www.ncsl.org/civil-and-criminal-justice/criminal-records-and-reentry-toolkit\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlper M, Durose MR, Markman J. 2018 Update on Prisoner Recidivism: A 9-Year Follow-up Period (2005-2014) [Internet]. Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2018. Report No.: 250975. Available from: https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStevenson MT. Assessing Risk Assessment in Action. Minnesota Law Review. 2018;103:303\u0026ndash;84. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLink NW, Ward JT, Stansfield R. Consequences of mental and physical health for reentry and recidivism: Toward a health‐based model of desistance. Criminology. 2019 Aug;57(3):544\u0026ndash;73. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarper A, Ginapp C, Bardelli T, Grimshaw A, Justen M, Mohamedali A, et al. Debt, Incarceration, and Re-entry: a Scoping Review. Am J Crim Just. 2021 Apr;46(2):250\u0026ndash;78. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEren O, Owens E. Economic Booms and Recidivism. J Quant Criminol. 2024 June;40(2):343\u0026ndash;72. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZane SN, Pupo JA, Welsh BC. Correctional treatment as an economically sound approach to reducing the high costs of recidivism: A review of the research. Criminal Behav Ment Health. 2023 Apr;33(2):125\u0026ndash;38. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCloud DH, Garcia-Grossman IR, Armstrong A, Williams B. Public Health and Prisons: Priorities in the Age of Mass Incarceration. Annu Rev Public Health. 2023 Apr 3;44(1):407\u0026ndash;28. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStickle B, Schuster SS. Are Schools in Prison Worth It? The Effects and Economic Returns of Prison Education. Am J Crim Just. 2023 Dec;48(6):1263\u0026ndash;94. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSuiter SV, Meadows ML. Educational Attainment and Educational Contexts as Social Determinants of Health. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice. 2023 Dec 1;50(4):579\u0026ndash;89. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraveman P, Gottlieb L. The Social Determinants of Health: It\u0026rsquo;s Time to Consider the Causes of the Causes. Public Health Rep. 2014 Jan;129(1_suppl2):19\u0026ndash;31. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAtherwood S, S\u0026aacute;nchez-Soto G. Does Social Class Matter Equally for the Timely Transition Into and Out of College? Evidence from the NLSY97. Res High Educ. 2023 Feb;64(1):95\u0026ndash;128. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCase A, Deaton A. Life expectancy in adulthood is falling for those without a BA degree, but as educational gaps have widened, racial gaps have narrowed. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA [Internet]. 2021 Mar 16 [cited 2025 July 26];118(11). Available from: https://pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2024777118\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKennedy-Turner K, Serbin LA, Stack DM, Ledingham JE, Schwartzman AE. Beyond educational attainment: The role of achievement and school absence in the development of criminal justice involvement. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement. 2021 Oct;53(4):412\u0026ndash;22. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuke B. A Meta-Analysis Comparing Educational Attainment Prior to Incarceration and Recidivism Rates in Relation to Correctional Education. 2018; \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFranklin TW. Sentencing Outcomes in U.S. District Courts: Can Offenders\u0026rsquo; Educational Attainment Guard Against Prevalent Criminal Stereotypes? Crime \u0026amp; Delinquency. 2017 Feb;63(2):137\u0026ndash;65. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSwisher RR, Dennison CR. Educational Pathways and Change in Crime Between Adolescence and Early Adulthood. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 2016 Nov;53(6):840\u0026ndash;71. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVeselak KM. The Relationship between Educational Attainment and the Type of Crime Committed by Incarcerated Offenders. Journal of Correctional Education. 2015;66(2):30\u0026ndash;56. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConway PF. Beyond Recidivism: Exploring Formerly Incarcerated Student Perspectives on the Value of Higher Education in Prison. rhe. 2023 June;46(4):453\u0026ndash;83. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePelletier E, Evans D. Beyond Recidivism. The Journal of Correctional Education. 2019;70(2):49\u0026ndash;68. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEsperian JH. The Effect of Prison Education Programs on Recidivism. Journal of Correctional Education. 2010;61(4):316\u0026ndash;34. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGaskill S, Gould MR, Price V, Castro EL, Lerman AE. The landscape of higher education in prisons, Academic Years: 2018-2021 [Internet]. Alliance for Higher Education in Prison; 2023. Available from: http://higheredinprison.org\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDholakia N. How college in prison is changing lives. 2023 [cited 2025 July 26]. How College in Prison is Changing Lives. Available from: https://www.vera.org/news/how-college-in-prison-changes-lives\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFinkel E. Once the norm, collegiate prison programs grow again - Community College Daily [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2025 July 26]. Available from: https://www.ccdaily.com/2024/03/once-the-norm-collegiate-prison-programs-grow-again/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcCorkel J, DeFina R. Identifying the Liberatory Possibilities of Prison Higher Education. Critical Education. 2019;10(7):1\u0026ndash;19. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBellinger P, Melvin L, Woods M, Quinet B, Gualtieri K, Hunt L, et al. Criminal and disciplinary history in college admissions. Washington, DC: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers; 2019. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMayer J, Smith J. College Admissions and Criminal Records: The Social Construction of Risk in the University Setting. Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 2024;1\u0026ndash;19. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStewart R, Uggen C. Criminal records and college admissions: A modified experimental audit. Criminology. 2020 Feb;58(1):156\u0026ndash;88. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson K, Varghese FP, Trower E, Sandlin L, Norwood N. Perceptions of African American College Applicants: The Roles of Race, Criminal History, and Qualifications. Race Soc Probl. 2013 Sept;5(3):157\u0026ndash;72. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurton AL, Puddy HN, Hong S, Burton Jr VS, Miller WT. College Students\u0026rsquo; Attitudes Toward Denying Admission to Prospective Students with Criminal Records. Journal of School Violence. 2024 Jan 2;23(1):71\u0026ndash;81. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCuster BD. College Admission Policies for Ex-Offender Students. Journal of Correctional Education. 2016;67(2):35\u0026ndash;43. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePescosolido BA, Martin JK. The Stigma Complex. Annu Rev Sociol. 2015 Aug 14;41(1):87\u0026ndash;116. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBowles TV, Brindle KA. Identifying facilitating factors and barriers to improving student retention rates in tertiary teaching courses: a systematic review. Higher Education Research \u0026amp; Development. 2017 July 29;36(5):903\u0026ndash;19. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmed R, Johnson M, Caudill C, Diedrich N, Mains D, Key A. Cons and pros: prison education through the eyes of the prison educated. Review of Communication. 2019 Jan 2;19(1):69\u0026ndash;76. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeBel TP. Invisible Stripes? Formerly Incarcerated Persons\u0026rsquo; Perceptions of Stigma. Deviant Behavior. 2012 Feb;33(2):89\u0026ndash;107. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcTier Jr. TS, Briscoe KL, Davis TJ. College Administrators\u0026rsquo; Beliefs and Perceptions of College Students with Criminal Records. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice. 2020 May 26;57(3):296\u0026ndash;308. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCopenhaver A, Edwards-Willey TL, Byers BD. Journeys in Social Stigma: The Lives of Formerly Incarcerated Felons in Higher Education. Journal of Correctional Education. 2007;58(3):268\u0026ndash;83. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuach K, Cerda-Jara M, Deverux R, Smith J. Prison, College, and the Labor Market: A Critical Analysis by Formerly Incarcerated and Justice-Impacted Students. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2022 May;701(1):78\u0026ndash;97. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHalkovic A, Greene AC. Bearing Stigma, Carrying Gifts: What Colleges Can Learn from Students with Incarceration Experience. Urban Rev. 2015 Nov;47(4):759\u0026ndash;82. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBinnall JM, Scott-Hayward CS, Petersen N, Gonzalez RM. Taking Roll: College Students\u0026rsquo; Views of Their Formerly Incarcerated Classmates. Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 2022 July 3;33(3):347\u0026ndash;67. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOverton J, Fretwell MD, Dum CP. Who do you trust? College students\u0026rsquo; attribution of stigma to peers with incarceration histories. J Exp Criminol. 2022 Dec;18(4):847\u0026ndash;70. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOtt M, McTier Jr. TS. Faculty attitudes toward college students with criminal records. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. 2020 Dec;13(4):297\u0026ndash;308. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVan Hiel A, Onraet E, Bostyn DH, Stadeus J, Haesevoets T, Van Assche J, et al. A meta-analytic integration of research on the relationship between right-wing ideological attitudes and aggressive tendencies. European Review of Social Psychology. 2020 Jan 1;31(1):183\u0026ndash;221. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePerinelli E, Gremigni P. Use of Social Desirability Scales in Clinical Psychology: A Systematic Review: Social Desirability Scales in Clinical Psychology. J Clin Psychol. 2016 June;72(6):534\u0026ndash;51. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHampejs V, Zwickl AA, Tran US, Voracek M. The Dark Triad of personality and criminal and delinquent behavior: Preregistered systematic review and three-level meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences. 2025 Nov;246:113308. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchomerus G, Schindler S, Sander C, Baumann E, Angermeyer MC. Changes in mental illness stigma over 30 years \u0026ndash; Improvement, persistence, or deterioration? European Psychiatry. 2022 Jan;65(1):e78. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorrigan PW, Kleinlein P. The Impact of Mental Illness Stigma. In: Corrigan PW, editor. On the stigma of mental illness: Practical strategies for research and social change [Internet]. Washington: American Psychological Association; 2005 [cited 2025 July 27]. p. 11\u0026ndash;44. Available from: https://content.apa.org/books/10887-001\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEisenberg D, Downs MF, Golberstein E, Zivin K. Stigma and Help Seeking for Mental Health Among College Students. Med Care Res Rev. 2009 Oct;66(5):522\u0026ndash;41. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuarneri JA, Oberleitner DE, Connolly S. Perceived Stigma and Self-Stigma in College Students: A Literature Review and Implications for Practice and Research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 2019 Jan 2;41(1):48\u0026ndash;62. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHatzenbuehler ML, Phelan JC, Link BG. Stigma as a Fundamental Cause of Population Health Inequalities. Am J Public Health. 2013 May;103(5):813\u0026ndash;21. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWaqas A, Malik S, Fida A, Abbas N, Mian N, Miryala S, et al. Interventions to Reduce Stigma Related to Mental Illnesses in Educational Institutes: a Systematic Review. Psychiatr Q. 2020 Sept;91(3):887\u0026ndash;903. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaloch NA, Jennings WG. A Preliminary Investigation of the Intersection of Race and Disabilities among Inmates in the U.S. State Prison System. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2019 Mar;63(4):597\u0026ndash;609. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrins SJ. Prevalence of Mental Illnesses in U.S. State Prisons: A Systematic Review. PS. 2014 July;65(7):862\u0026ndash;72. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSedlacek WE, BrooksJr. GC. Measuring Racial Attitudes in a Situational Context. Psychol Rep. 1970 Dec 1;27(3):971\u0026ndash;80. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKelley HH, Michela JL. Attribution Theory and Research. Annu Rev Psychol. 1980;31(1):457\u0026ndash;501. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHazell CM, Berry C, Bogen-Johnston L, Banerjee M. Creating a hierarchy of mental health stigma: testing the effect of psychiatric diagnosis on stigma. BJPsych open. 2022 Sept;8(5):e174. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNie\u0026szlig;en D, Partsch MV, Kemper CJ, Rammstedt B. An English-Language Adaptation of the Social Desirability\u0026ndash;Gamma Short Scale (KSE-G). Meas Instrum Soc Sci. 2019 Dec;1(1):2. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePaulhus DL, Buckels EE, Trapnell PD, Jones DN. Screening for Dark Personalities: The Short Dark Tetrad (SD4). European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2021 May;37(3):208\u0026ndash;22. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaufman SB, Yaden DB, Hyde E, Tsukayama E. The Light vs. Dark Triad of Personality: Contrasting Two Very Different Profiles of Human Nature. Front Psychol. 2019 Mar 12;10:467. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBizumic B, Duckitt J. Investigating right wing authoritarianism with a very short authoritarianism scale. J Soc Polit Psych. 2018 Apr 25;6(1):129\u0026ndash;50. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKonrath S, Meier BP, Bushman BJ. Development and Validation of the Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS). Wicherts JM, editor. PLoS ONE. 2014 Aug 5;9(8):e103469. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobins RW, Hendin HM, Trzesniewski KH. Measuring Global Self-Esteem: Construct Validation of a Single-Item Measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2001 Feb;27(2):151\u0026ndash;61. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKonrath S, Meier BP, Bushman BJ. Development and validation of the single item trait empathy scale (SITES). Journal of Research in Personality. 2018 Apr;73:111\u0026ndash;22. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmad F, Jhajj AK, Stewart DE, Burghardt M, Bierman AS. Single item measures of self-rated mental health: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Dec;14(1):398. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoyd RL, Ashokkuma A, Seraj S, Pennebaker JW. The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC-22 [Internet]. University of Texas at Austin; 2022. Available from: www.liwc.app\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoyd RL, Pennebaker JW. Language-based personality: a new approach to personality in a digital world. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2017 Dec;18:63\u0026ndash;8. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMula M. Is there a hierarchy in mental health stigma? BJPsych open. 2023 Jan;9(1):e4. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSigelman CK. Social Distance from Stigmatized Groups: False Consensus and False Uniqueness Effects on Responding. Rehabilitation Psychology. 1991;36(3):139\u0026ndash;51. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNishar S, Brumfield E, Mandal S, Vanjani R, Soske J. \u0026ldquo;It\u0026rsquo;s a revolving door\u0026rdquo;: understanding the social determinants of mental health as experienced by formerly incarcerated people. Health Justice. 2023 June 10;11(1):26. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchnittker J, Massoglia M, Uggen C. Out and Down: Incarceration and Psychiatric Disorders. J Health Soc Behav. 2012 Dec;53(4):448\u0026ndash;64. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTietjen G, Burnett J, Jessie BO. Onward and Upward: the Significance of Mentorship for Formerly Incarcerated Students and Academics. Crit Crim. 2021 Sept;29(3):633\u0026ndash;47. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBoles W, Tatum T, Wall J, Nguyen L, Van Dall A, Mulhollem C, et al. Us helping us: The evolution of a peer support group for formerly incarcerated people. Front Psychiatry. 2022 Aug 2;13:920640. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYu H, Glanzer PL, Johnson BR. Examining the relationship between student attitude and academic cheating. Ethics \u0026amp; Behavior. 2021 Oct 3;31(7):475\u0026ndash;87. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Although the SD4 was developed to yield four distinct, 7-item subscales (Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism), we used the total score in the present analyses to reflect global \u0026ldquo;dark\u0026rdquo; personality traits. This decision was made for parsimony as the variable served as a covariate rather than a focal construct.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e The Light Triad is comprised of three, 4-item subscales (Kantianism, humanism, and faith in humanity) as a foil to the Dark Triad; we included a sum score of the instrument as the original publication allows for either use of subscales or a single-scale measure.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e Note that, to do this analysis, the responses had to be disaggregated by prompt within LIWC, which changes the sentiment ratings and therefore these are not entirely analogous to the ones in the main text. Further, one could be similarly concerned for the Criminal condition, but these were similarly null, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.93, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.18. There was, however, evidence of the false uniqueness effect in the control condition as participants in that group expressed markedly higher sentiment for their own treatment than that of society\u0026rsquo;s, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.92.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Stigma, Situational Attribution, Sentiment Analysis, Higher Education, Peer attitudes","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7510179/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7510179/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStigma remains a significant barrier to educational attainment for individuals with criminal records or mental illness, yet little is known about how college students perceive peers with these stigmatized backgrounds.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eUndergraduates (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;419) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions to assess attitudes: (a) no disclosed background (control), (b) a mental health diagnosis, or (c) a criminal record. They completed a version of the Situational Attitudes Scale (SAS), wherein they read a series of short vignettes and rated their emotional reactions (e.g., anger, fear) to each scenario. Participants also responded to open-ended questions about societal and personal attitudes toward individuals in their assigned condition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSAS scores were statistically similar between the control and mental illness conditions, whereas the criminal background condition scored significantly lower than both. Sentiment analysis of open-ended responses revealed a more graded pattern: responses to the criminal background condition were rated significantly less positive than the other two, whereas the mental illness condition was also rated lower than the control. Importantly, these patterns emerged while adjusting for key demographic and psychosocial covariates, including social desirability, prior justice system involvement, and trait-based measures (e.g., dark tetrad, light triad).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStigma toward individuals with criminal backgrounds may differ in both form and intensity than toward other groups. These results underscore the value of combining direct and indirect measures of stigma to capture subtle but meaningful variations in how bias is expressed. Given the critical role of educational attainment as both a social determinant of health and a protective factor against recidivism, addressing campus climate is essential\u0026mdash;not only to support students with stigmatized backgrounds, but also to advance equity and well-being within academic institutions and the communities they serve.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"“i'd exercise caution, but be discreet about it”: Comparing undergraduates’ stigma toward peers with criminal records and mental health disorders","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-23 07:45:15","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7510179/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-10-27T04:29:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-23T15:27:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-02T18:35:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"93917002456022741902060261655563545998","date":"2025-09-25T17:26:40+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-25T14:25:48+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"286508682864282537042246409334496428041","date":"2025-09-24T01:15:43+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"65147174256871558183894859583998841451","date":"2025-09-18T13:57:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-15T03:27:36+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-09-15T02:58:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-04T05:23:57+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-09-03T12:20:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2025-09-03T12:16:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"74952687-4158-4478-8457-aea88ce7fcd8","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 23rd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-09T16:05:52+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7510179","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04243-9","journal":{"identity":"bmc-psychology","isVorOnly":false,"title":"BMC Psychology"},"publishedOn":"2026-03-02 15:58:44","publishedOnDateReadable":"March 2nd, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-23 07:45:15","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s40359-026-04243-9","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04243-9","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7510179","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7510179","identity":"rs-7510179","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}