Punitive attitudes in Australia: Investigating the rural-urban divide
Research exploring punitive attitudes across different geographic locations is limited. Available research suggests that rural residents may be less tolerant of crime and more likely to hold punitive attitudes when compared to their urban counterparts. However, we have little understanding of this difference. Drawing on survey data from a representative sample of the Australian public (Urban 77.1 %, N = 401 and Rural 22.9 %, N = 119), this study explores differences in punitive attitudes among rural and urban Australians and examines the factors contributing to this difference. The findings indicate that Australians hold somewhat punitive attitudes, with rural respondents being significantly more punitive than urban respondents. Moreover, increased fear of crime and a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system moderate the difference in punitive attitudes across rural and urban areas. The findings provide support for the role of spatiality in shaping attitudes, including those towards crime and punishment. The practical and theoretical implications of these findings are discussed. • Rural Australians are significantly more punitive than urban Australians. • Internal attribution of crime predicted punitive attitudes in urban areas. • Perceptions of crime predicted punitive attitudes in rural areas. • Fear of crime moderates differences in punitive attitudes. • Lack of confidence in the justice system moderates punitive attitudes differences.
Authors
- Susan Watt (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7938-7444)
- Kyle Mulrooney (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1457-274X)
- Caitlin B. Davey (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5024-9671)
Institutions
- Griffith University (AU)
- University of New England (AU)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Journal of Rural Studies
- Published
- 2025-06-16
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2025.103740
- Citations
- 2
- Primary Topic
- Rural development and sustainability
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 9.66
Funders
- University of New England