death penalty research paper abstract

• Search Menu
• Browse content in B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches
• Browse content in B2 - History of Economic Thought since 1925
• B21 - Microeconomics
• B22 - Macroeconomics
• Browse content in C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
• Browse content in C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General
• C10 - General
• C14 - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
• Browse content in C2 - Single Equation Models; Single Variables
• C23 - Panel Data Models; Spatio-temporal Models
• C25 - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
• Browse content in C5 - Econometric Modeling
• C50 - General
• C52 - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection
• Browse content in C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
• C70 - General
• C72 - Noncooperative Games
• C78 - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
• Browse content in C9 - Design of Experiments
• C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
• C92 - Laboratory, Group Behavior
• Browse content in D - Microeconomics
• Browse content in D0 - General
• D01 - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
• D02 - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact
• D03 - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
• Browse content in D1 - Household Behavior and Family Economics
• D11 - Consumer Economics: Theory
• D12 - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
• D14 - Household Saving; Personal Finance
• D18 - Consumer Protection
• Browse content in D2 - Production and Organizations
• D21 - Firm Behavior: Theory
• D22 - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
• D23 - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
• Browse content in D3 - Distribution
• D30 - General
• D31 - Personal Income, Wealth, and Their Distributions
• Browse content in D4 - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design
• D40 - General
• D42 - Monopoly
• D43 - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
• Browse content in D6 - Welfare Economics
• D60 - General
• D61 - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
• D62 - Externalities
• D63 - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
• Browse content in D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making
• D70 - General
• D71 - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
• D72 - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
• D73 - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption
• D74 - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions
• D78 - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation
• Browse content in D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
• D80 - General
• D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
• D82 - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
• D83 - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
• D86 - Economics of Contract: Theory
• Browse content in D9 - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics
• D91 - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
• Browse content in E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Browse content in E0 - General
• E00 - General
• E02 - Institutions and the Macroeconomy
• Browse content in E1 - General Aggregative Models
• E12 - Keynes; Keynesian; Post-Keynesian
• Browse content in E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy
• E24 - Employment; Unemployment; Wages; Intergenerational Income Distribution; Aggregate Human Capital; Aggregate Labor Productivity
• Browse content in E5 - Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit
• E51 - Money Supply; Credit; Money Multipliers
• Browse content in F - International Economics
• Browse content in F1 - Trade
• F10 - General
• F13 - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
• F18 - Trade and Environment
• Browse content in F2 - International Factor Movements and International Business
• F22 - International Migration
• Browse content in F3 - International Finance
• F34 - International Lending and Debt Problems
• Browse content in F5 - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy
• F53 - International Agreements and Observance; International Organizations
• F55 - International Institutional Arrangements
• Browse content in G - Financial Economics
• Browse content in G0 - General
• G01 - Financial Crises
• Browse content in G1 - General Financial Markets
• G12 - Asset Pricing; Trading volume; Bond Interest Rates
• G14 - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading
• G18 - Government Policy and Regulation
• Browse content in G2 - Financial Institutions and Services
• G21 - Banks; Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages
• G24 - Investment Banking; Venture Capital; Brokerage; Ratings and Ratings Agencies
• G28 - Government Policy and Regulation
• Browse content in G3 - Corporate Finance and Governance
• G31 - Capital Budgeting; Fixed Investment and Inventory Studies; Capacity
• G32 - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
• G34 - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
• G38 - Government Policy and Regulation
• Browse content in H - Public Economics
• Browse content in H0 - General
• H00 - General
• Browse content in H1 - Structure and Scope of Government
• H10 - General
• H11 - Structure, Scope, and Performance of Government
• Browse content in H2 - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
• H20 - General
• H23 - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
• H24 - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies; includes inheritance and gift taxes
• Browse content in H3 - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents
• H31 - Household
• Browse content in H4 - Publicly Provided Goods
• H40 - General
• H41 - Public Goods
• Browse content in H5 - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies
• H51 - Government Expenditures and Health
• Browse content in H6 - National Budget, Deficit, and Debt
• H63 - Debt; Debt Management; Sovereign Debt
• Browse content in H7 - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations
• H70 - General
• H71 - State and Local Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
• H72 - State and Local Budget and Expenditures
• H73 - Interjurisdictional Differentials and Their Effects
• H74 - State and Local Borrowing
• H75 - State and Local Government: Health; Education; Welfare; Public Pensions
• H76 - State and Local Government: Other Expenditure Categories
• Browse content in H8 - Miscellaneous Issues
• H81 - Governmental Loans; Loan Guarantees; Credits; Grants; Bailouts
• H82 - Governmental Property
• Browse content in I - Health, Education, and Welfare
• Browse content in I1 - Health
• I10 - General
• I11 - Analysis of Health Care Markets
• I12 - Health Behavior
• I13 - Health Insurance, Public and Private
• I18 - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
• Browse content in I2 - Education and Research Institutions
• I21 - Analysis of Education
• I28 - Government Policy
• Browse content in I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty
• I38 - Government Policy; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
• Browse content in J - Labor and Demographic Economics
• Browse content in J0 - General
• J00 - General
• Browse content in J1 - Demographic Economics
• J12 - Marriage; Marital Dissolution; Family Structure; Domestic Abuse
• J13 - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
• J15 - Economics of Minorities, Races, Indigenous Peoples, and Immigrants; Non-labor Discrimination
• J18 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J2 - Demand and Supply of Labor
• J22 - Time Allocation and Labor Supply
• J28 - Safety; Job Satisfaction; Related Public Policy
• Browse content in J3 - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs
• J30 - General
• J31 - Wage Level and Structure; Wage Differentials
• J32 - Nonwage Labor Costs and Benefits; Retirement Plans; Private Pensions
• J33 - Compensation Packages; Payment Methods
• J38 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J4 - Particular Labor Markets
• J41 - Labor Contracts
• J45 - Public Sector Labor Markets
• J48 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J6 - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers
• J61 - Geographic Labor Mobility; Immigrant Workers
• J62 - Job, Occupational, and Intergenerational Mobility
• Browse content in J7 - Labor Discrimination
• J71 - Discrimination
• J78 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J8 - Labor Standards: National and International
• J81 - Working Conditions
• J83 - Workers' Rights
• J88 - Public Policy
• Browse content in K - Law and Economics
• Browse content in K0 - General
• K00 - General
• Browse content in K1 - Basic Areas of Law
• K10 - General
• K11 - Property Law
• K12 - Contract Law
• K13 - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics
• K14 - Criminal Law
• K19 - Other
• Browse content in K2 - Regulation and Business Law
• K20 - General
• K21 - Antitrust Law
• K22 - Business and Securities Law
• K23 - Regulated Industries and Administrative Law
• Browse content in K3 - Other Substantive Areas of Law
• K30 - General
• K31 - Labor Law
• K32 - Environmental, Health, and Safety Law
• K34 - Tax Law
• K35 - Personal Bankruptcy Law
• K36 - Family and Personal Law
• Browse content in K4 - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior
• K40 - General
• K41 - Litigation Process
• K42 - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law
• K49 - Other
• Browse content in L - Industrial Organization
• Browse content in L1 - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
• L11 - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms
• L12 - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
• L13 - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
• L14 - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation; Networks
• L15 - Information and Product Quality; Standardization and Compatibility
• Browse content in L2 - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior
• L22 - Firm Organization and Market Structure
• L24 - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures; Technology Licensing
• Browse content in L3 - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise
• L38 - Public Policy
• Browse content in L4 - Antitrust Issues and Policies
• L40 - General
• L42 - Vertical Restraints; Resale Price Maintenance; Quantity Discounts
• L49 - Other
• Browse content in L5 - Regulation and Industrial Policy
• L51 - Economics of Regulation
• Browse content in L8 - Industry Studies: Services
• L83 - Sports; Gambling; Recreation; Tourism
• Browse content in L9 - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities
• L91 - Transportation: General
• L96 - Telecommunications
• Browse content in M - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics
• Browse content in M1 - Business Administration
• M13 - New Firms; Startups
• Browse content in M4 - Accounting and Auditing
• M42 - Auditing
• M48 - Government Policy and Regulation
• Browse content in M5 - Personnel Economics
• M50 - General
• M52 - Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects
• Browse content in N - Economic History
• Browse content in N1 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; Industrial Structure; Growth; Fluctuations
• N11 - U.S.; Canada: Pre-1913
• Browse content in N4 - Government, War, Law, International Relations, and Regulation
• N40 - General, International, or Comparative
• N41 - U.S.; Canada: Pre-1913
• N42 - U.S.; Canada: 1913-
• N43 - Europe: Pre-1913
• Browse content in N5 - Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment, and Extractive Industries
• N53 - Europe: Pre-1913
• Browse content in O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth
• Browse content in O1 - Economic Development
• O13 - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Other Primary Products
• Browse content in O3 - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
• O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
• O34 - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
• Browse content in P - Economic Systems
• P4 - Other Economic Systems
• P5 - Comparative Economic Systems
• Browse content in Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics
• Browse content in Q1 - Agriculture
• Q15 - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
• Browse content in Q3 - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation
• Q30 - General
• Browse content in Q5 - Environmental Economics
• Q53 - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
• Browse content in R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics
• Browse content in R1 - General Regional Economics
• R10 - General
• R11 - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, Environmental Issues, and Changes
• R14 - Land Use Patterns
• Browse content in R2 - Household Analysis
• R21 - Housing Demand
• R23 - Regional Migration; Regional Labor Markets; Population; Neighborhood Characteristics
• Browse content in R3 - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location
• R31 - Housing Supply and Markets
• R38 - Government Policy
• Browse content in R5 - Regional Government Analysis
• R50 - General
• R52 - Land Use and Other Regulations
• R58 - Regional Development Planning and Policy
• Browse content in Z - Other Special Topics
• Browse content in Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology
• Z12 - Religion
• Z13 - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Social and Economic Stratification
• Z18 - Public Policy
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Books for Review
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About American Law and Economics Review
• About the American Law and Economics Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Estimating the Impact of the Death Penalty on Murder

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

John J. Donohue, Justin Wolfers, Estimating the Impact of the Death Penalty on Murder, American Law and Economics Review , Volume 11, Issue 2, Fall 2009, Pages 249–309, https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahp024

• Permissions Icon Permissions

This paper reviews the econometric issues in efforts to estimate the impact of the death penalty on murder, focusing on six recent studies published since 2003. We highlight the large number of choices that must be made when specifying the various panel data models that have been used to address this question. There is little clarity about the knowledge potential murderers have concerning the risk of execution: are they influenced by the passage of a death penalty statute, the number of executions in a state, the proportion of murders in a state that leads to an execution, and details about the limited types of murders that are potentially susceptible to a sentence of death? If an execution rate is a viable proxy, should it be calculated using the ratio of last year's executions to last year's murders, last year's executions to the murders a number of years earlier, or some other values? We illustrate how sensitive various estimates are to these choices. Importantly, the most up-to-date OLS panel data studies generate no evidence of a deterrent effect, while three 2SLS studies purport to find such evidence. The 2SLS studies, none of which shows results that are robust to clustering their standard errors, are unconvincing because they all use a problematic structure based on poorly measured and theoretically inappropriate pseudo-probabilities that are designed to capture the key deterrence elements of a state's death penalty regime, and because their instruments are of dubious validity. We also discuss the appropriateness of the implicit assumption of the 2SLS studies that OLS estimates of the impact of the death penalty would be biased against a finding of deterrence.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1465-7260
• Print ISSN 1465-7252
• Copyright © 2024 American Law and Economics Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Advertisement

Criminological Research and the Death Penalty: Has Research by Criminologists Impacted Capital Punishment Practices?

• Published: 16 April 2019
• Volume 44 , pages 536–580, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

• Gordon P. Waldo 1 &
• Wesley Myers 1  

2376 Accesses

4 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

At the request of the SCJA president this paper addresses five questions. Does criminological research make a difference relative to the death penalty? - If criminological research does make a difference, what is the nature of that difference? - What specific instances can one cite of research findings influencing death penalty policy decisions? Why hasn’t our research made more of a difference? What can we do, either in terms of directing our research or in terms of disseminating it, to facilitate it making a difference? Specific examples of research directly impacting policy are examined. The evidence presented suggests that research on capital punishment has had some impact on policy, but not nearly enough. There is still a high level of ignorance that has limited the impact of criminological research on death penalty policy. The proposed solution is to improve the education of the general public and decision makers in order to increase the impact of criminological research on capital punishment policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Public Sector Criminological Research

Effective Probation in England and Wales? The Rise and Fall of Evidence

Making a Difference in Criminology: Past, Present, and Future

One of the most interesting things the senior author learned in his first statistics class as an undergraduate, which became much clearer when he took his first graduate research methods class, was that if a correlation exists between two variables it does not automatically mean that one of the variables caused the other variable. This is true even if the one that appeared to be the cause (independent variable) met the first criteria for causation and occurred prior to the presumed effect (dependent variable). As he began to teach the first research methods course ever taught in the Criminology Program at Florida State University he also learned about extraneous variables, intervening variables, component variables, antecedent variables, suppressor variables, distorter variables, spurious non-correlations, conditional relationships, conjoint influence, etc. (Rosenberg, 1968 ). These different types of variables will not be discussed, but their existence has relevance in trying to answer the questions posed to the panelists. Instead, reference will be made to ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ influences in this paper because each can be important in bringing about change.

Two other methods the courts have used in this regard is the number of states that have made a significant change in their death penalty statutes, such as the number of states changing the age for execution of juveniles (Thompson v. Oklahoma, 1988 ) . Another method the United States Supreme Court has used is international opinions. “It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion …. The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions” (Roper v. Simmons, 2005 p.11).

Warden describes the first exoneration as follows. “The first of what would become a cavalcade of post-Furman Illinois death row exonerations occurred in 1987 when a young prosecutor, Michael Falconer, came forward with exculpatory evidence that exonerated two condemned Chicagoans, Perry Cobb and Darby Tillis. It is hard to imagine more fortuitous or improbable events than those that led to the exonerations of Cobb and Tillis, who had been sentenced to death for a double murder that occurred a decade earlier.’ In 1983, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed and remanded their case because the trial judge had rejected a defense request to give the jury an accomplice instruction. The prosecution’s star witness, Phyllis Santini, had driven the getaway car used in the crime - admittedly but, she claimed, unwittingly. Chicago Lawyer , an investigative publication … carried a detailed article based on the Illinois Supreme Court opinion and case file. As luck would have it, Falconer, who recently had graduated from law school, read the article, which discussed Santini’s testimony in some depth. Years earlier, Falconer had worked with Santini at a factory and, as he would testify, she had told him that her boyfriend had committed a murder and that she and the boyfriend were working with police and prosecutors to pin it on someone else. “I thought to myself, ‘Jeez, there’s a name from the past,”‘Falconer reflected in a Chicago Lawyer interview. “I read on and started thinking, ‘Holy shit, this is terrible.”‘He called a defense lawyer mentioned in the article, reporting what Santini had told him. At an ensuing bench trial in 1987, Cobb and Tillis were acquitted by a directed verdict on the strength of Falconer’s testimony.” By then, Falconer was a prosecutor in a neighboring jurisdiction.” Cobb and Tillis eventually received gubernatorial pardons based on innocence. As serendipitous as the Cobb and Tillis exonerations” were, they were no more so than many that would follow. … (there were) 20 Illinois death row exonerations -each involving odds-defying fortuity. The error rate among 305 convictions under the 1977 Illinois capital punishment statute was in excess of 6% (Warden, 2012 p. 247–248).

Justice Marshall was careful to fully support his position surrounding the lack of a deterrent effect of the death penalty with two lengthy ‘laundry lists’ of research in the footnotes of his published opinion which are abbreviated here. “See, e. g., Jon Peck, The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Ehrlich and His Critics, 85 Yale L. J. 359 (1976); David Baldus & James Cole, A Comparison of the Work of Thorsten Sellin and Isaac Ehrlich on the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment, 85 Yale L. J. 170 (1975); William Bowers & Glenn Pierce, The Illusion of Deterrence in Isaac Ehrlich’s Research on Capital Punishment, 85 Yale L. J. 187 (1975); Issac Ehrlich. The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death, 65 Am. Econ. Rev. 397 (June 1975); Hook, The Death Sentence, in The Death Penalty in America 146 (Hugo Adam Bedau ed. 1967); Thurston Sellin, The Death Penalty, A Report for the Model Penal Code Project of the American Law Institute (1959).” And “See Passell & Taylor, The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Another View (unpublished Columbia University Discussion Paper 74–7509, Mar. 1975), reproduced in Brief for Petitioner App. E in Jurek v. Texas, O. T. 1975, No. 75–5844; Passell, The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty: A Statistical Test, 28 Stan. L. Rev. 61 (1975); Baldus & Cole, A Comparison of the Work of Thorsten Sellin & Isaac Ehrlich on the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment, 85 Yale L. J. 170 (1975); Bowers & Pierce, The Illusion of Deterrence in Isaac Ehrlich’s Research on Capital Punishment, 85 Yale L. J. 187 (1975); Peck, The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Ehrlich and His Critics, 85 Yale L. J. 359 (1976). See also Ehrlich, Deterrence: Evidence and Inference, 85 Yale L. J. 209 (1975); Ehrlich, Rejoinder, 85 Yale L. J. 368 (1976)… See also Bailey, Murder and Capital Punishment: Some Further Evidence, 45 Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 669 (1975); W. Bowers, Executions in America 121–163 (1974).”

This only happened once with a legislator who was in favor of the death penalty and opposed to abortion. I later learned from other lobbyist’s that he was known as a ‘weird duck’ and they tried to stay away from him. Fortunately, he is no longer in the legislature.

ABA. (1997). American Bar Association Policy 1997 MY 107: Death Penalty Moratorium Resolution . https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/death_penalty_representation/resources/dp-policy/moratorium-1997.html . Accessed 7 June 2018.

ABA. (2017). Amicus Curiae Briefs.  https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/amicus.html . Accessed 30 Aug 2018.

ABA. (2018a). American Bar Association: Death Penalty due Process Review Project Report to the House of Delegates . https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/death_penalty_representation/resources/dp-policy/moratorium-1997.html . Accessed 7 June 2018.

ABA. (2018b, February 5). Ban death penalty for those 21 or younger . ABA Journal: ABA House says http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/Ban_death_penalty_for_those_21_or_younger_aba_house_says/ . Accessed 31 July 2018.

ACLU. (2016). Capital punishment. American Civil Liberties Union . https://www.aclu.org/issues/capital-punishment . Accessed 7 June 2018.

ALI. (1959, May 8). Model Penal Code: Tentative Draft No. 9. American Law Institute.

ALI. (2009). Report of the council to the membership of the American law institute on the matter of the death penalty. American Law Institute. https://www.ali.org/media/filer_public/3f/ae/3fae71f1-0b2b-4591-ae5c-5870ce5975c6/capital_punishment_web.pdf . Accessed 17 June 2018.

AMA. (n.d.). Capital Punishment: Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 9.7.3. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/capital-punishment . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Amnesty International. (n.d.). Death penalty. Amnesty International USA . https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/ . Accessed 7 June 2018.

An Act Revising the Penalty for Capital Felonies (2012) Favorable Report of the Committee on Judiciary- 4/4/2012. , § Connecticut Senate, General Assembly.

APA. (2001, August). The Death Penalty in the United States. American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/about/policy/death-penalty.aspx . Accessed 7 June 2018.

APA. (2005). Roper v . Simmons: American Psychological Association http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/roper.aspx . Accessed 22 August 2018.

Google Scholar  

APA. (2018, May 1). APA amicus briefs by year.  http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/index-chron.aspx . Accessed 30 Aug 2018.

APA, American Psychiatric Association, (2018) National Association of Social Workers, & American Academy of Psychiatry and Law. Dassey v. Dittman. , No. 17–1172 (U.S. 2018). https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1172/39982/20180326134136295_Dassey%20v.%20Dittmann%2003.26.18%20Cert%20Stage%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf . Accessed 22 Aug 2018.

APHA. (1986, January 1). Abolition of the Death Penalty. American Public Health Association. https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2014/07/14/13/50/abolition-of-the-death-penalty . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Applebome, P. (2012, April 11). Connecticut House Votes to Repeal Death Penalty. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/nyregion/connecticut-house-votes-to-repeal-death-penalty.html . Accessed 8 June 2018.

ASA. (2015). Amicus Briefs. http://www.asanet.org/amicus-briefs . Accessed 31 Aug 2018.

ASC. (1989). Historical policy positions: Official policy position of the American Society of Criminology with respect to the death penalty. American Society of Criminology . https://www.asc41.com/policies/policyPositions.html . Accessed 7 June 2018.

Atkins v. Virginia. (2002) 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

Ball, J. (2007, May). Illinois’ death penalty: Still too flawed to fix. Campaign to End the Death Penalty . http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/new_abolitionist/may-2007-issue-42/illinois%E2%80%99-death-penalty . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Banner, S. (2003). The death penalty: an American history (third printing.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. press.

Bard, M., & Ellison, K. (1974). Crisis intervention and investigation of forcible rape. Police Chief, 41 (5), 68–73.

Barnhart, C. (Ed.). (1957). Ignorance. The American College Dictionary (p. 600). New York, N.Y: Random House.

Beck, J. C., & Shumsky, R. (1997). A comparison of retained and appointed counsel in cases of capital murder. Law and Human Behavior, 21 (5), 525–538.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bersoff, D. N. (1987). Social science data and the Supreme Court: Lockhart as a case in point. American Psychologist, 42 (1), 52–58.

Bersoff, D. N., & Ogden, D. W. (1987). In the Supreme Court of the United States Lockhart v. McCree: amicus curiae brief for the American Psychological Association. American Psychologist, 42 (1), 59–68.

Bienen, L. B. (2010). Capital punishment in Illinois in the aftermath of the Ryan commutations: Reforms, economic realities, and a new saliency for issues of cost. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100 (4), 1301–1402.

Black, C. L. (1974). Capital punishment: The inevitability of Caprice and Mistake. Norton.

Bohm, R. M. (2017). Deathquest: an introduction to the theory and practice of capital punishment in the United States (Fifth edition.). New York ; London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Bowers, W. J. (1983). The Pervasiveness of Arbitrariness and Discrimination under Post-"Furman" Capital Statutes. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 74 (3), 1067.

Bye, R. T. (1926). Recent History and Present Status of Capital Punishment in the United States. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 17 (2), 234.

Byrd, V., & Allen, D. (2017, February 21). ANA Releases New Position Statement Opposing Capital Punishment. American Nurses Association. https://www.nursingworld.org/news/news-releases/2017-news-releases/ana-releases-new-position-statement-opposing-capital-punishment/ . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Coker v. Georgia. (1977) 433 U.S. 584 (1977).

Cowan, C. L., Thompson, W., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors' predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8 , 53–80.

Culp-Ressler, T. (2014, April 10). One Sentence That Could Help End The Death Penalty In America. Think Progress. https://thinkprogress.org/one-sentence-that-could-help-end-the-death-penalty-in-america-8246f562d923/ . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Donohue, J. J. (2011, October 15). Capital Punishment in Connecticut, 1973–2007: A Comprehensive Evaluation from 4686 Murders to One Execution. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/DonohueCTStudy.pdf . Accessed 8 Jun 2018.

DPIC. (2002). Executions is the U.S. 1608-2002: The ESPY File Executions by State. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/ESPYyear.pdf . Accessed 25 Sep 2018.

DPIC. (2009). Governor bill Richardson signs repeal of the death penalty. Death Penalty Information Center . https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/governor-bill-richardson-signs-repeal-death-penalty . Accessed 8 June 2018.

DPIC. (2016, November 9). States With and Without the Death Penalty. Death Penalty Information Center. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty . Accessed 7 June 2018.

DPIC. (2017, December 31). Death sentences in the United States from 1977 by state and by year. Death Penalty Information Center . https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-sentences-united-states-1977-present . Accessed 7 June 2018.

DPIC. (2018a). Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries.  https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/abolitionist-and-retentionist-countries . Accessed 25 Sep 2018.

DPIC. (2018b). Nebraska Executes Carey Dean Moore in First Execution in 21 Years. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/7175 . Accessed 25 Sep 2018.

DPIC. (2018c). Recent Legislative Activity. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/recent-legislative-activity#currentyear . Accessed 25 Sep 2018.

DPIC. (2018d). States With and Without the Death Penalty.  https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty . Accessed 8 Apr 2019.

DPIC. (2018e). The Death Penalty: An International Perspective.  https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-international-perspective#interexec . Accessed 25 Sep 2018.

DPIC. (2018f, May 16). Searchable execution database. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/views-executions . Accessed 25 Sep 2018.

DPIC. (2018g, July 12). Poll: Washington State Voters Overwhelmingly Prefer Life Sentences to Death Penalty. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/7149 . Accessed 25 Sep 2018.

Eberhart v. Georgia. (1977) 433 U.S. 917 (1977).

Eckholm, E. (2016, August 2). Delaware Supreme Court Rules State’s Death Penalty Unconstitutional. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/delaware-supreme-court-rules-states-death-penalty-unconstitutional.html. Accessed 8 June 2018 .

Ellsworth, P. C. (1988). Unpleasant facts: The Supreme Court's response to empirical research on capital punishment. In K. C. Haas & J. A. Inciardi (Eds.), Challenging capital punishment: Legal and social science approaches (pp. 177–211). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Enmund V. Florida (1982) 458 U.S. 782 (1982),

Epstein, L. (1992). The supreme court and legal change: Abortion and the death penalty. Univ of North Carolina Press.

Erickson, R. J., & Simon, R. J. (1998). The use of social science data in supreme court decisions. University of Illinois Press.

European Commission. (2018, June 7). Fight against death penalty. International Cooperation and Development. https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sectors/human-rights-and-governance/democracy-and-human-rights/fight-against-death-penalty_en . Accessed 7 June 2018.

Ford v. Wainwright. (1986) 477 U.S. 399 (1986).

Furman v Georgia. (1972) 408 U.S. 238 (1972).

Gallup Inc. (n.d.). Death penalty. Gallup.com . http://news.gallup.com/poll/1606/Death-Penalty.aspx . Accessed 21 January 2018.

Gregg v Georgia. (1976) 428 U.S. 153 (1976).

Grinberg, E. (2009, March 18). New Mexico governor repeals death penalty in state. CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/18/new.mexico.death.penalty/ . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Hall v Florida. (2014) 527 U.S. ___ (2014).

Hall, H. V. (2008). Forensic Psychology and Neuropsychology for Criminal and Civil Cases . CRC Press.

Haney, C. (Ed.). (1984). Death qualification [Special issue]. Law and Human Behavior, 8 (1&2).

Haney, C. (2016, August 16). Floridians prefer life without parole over capital punishment for murderers. Tampa Bay Times. http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/column-floridians-prefer-life-without-parole-over-capital-punishment-for/2289719 . Accessed 7 June 2018.

Hillsman, S. (2005). Executive Officer’s column: What really mattered to the supreme court. American Sociological Association. http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/footnotes/mayjun05/exec.html . Accessed 22 August 2018.

Hodgson v. Minnesota. (1990) 497 U.S. 417 (1990).

Hooks v. Georgia. (1977) 433 U.S. 917 (1977).

Hughes, C. C., & Robinson, M. (2013). Perceptions of law enforcement officers on capital punishment in the United States. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences; Thirunelveli, 8 (2), 153–165.

Hurst v Florida. (2016) 577 U.S. ___ (2016).

In re Kemmler. (1890) 136 U.S. 436 (1890).

International Commission Against the Death Penalty. (2013). How States Abolish the Death Penalty. http://www.icomdp.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Report-How-States-abolition-the-death-penalty.pdf . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Keil, T. J., & Vito, G. F. (1995). Race and the death penalty in Kentucky murder trials: 1976-1991. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20 (1), 17–36.

Kennedy v. Louisiana. (2008) 554 U.S. 407 (2008).

Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment. (2008). Final Report to the General Assembly . https://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5300/sc5339/000113/012000/012331/unrestricted/20100208e.pdf . Accessed 8 June 2018.

NAACP. (2017, January 17). Death penalty fact sheet. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People . http://www.naacp.org/latest/naacp-death-penalty-fact-sheet/ . Accessed 7 June 2018.

New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission. (2007). New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission Report. http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/committees/dpsc_final.pdf . Accessed 8 June 2018.

New Mexico Coalition to Repeal the Death Penalty. (2017). New Mexico death penalty action. New Mexico Coalition to Repeal the Death Penalty . http://www.nmrepeal.org/ . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Oliphant, B. (2016, September 29). Support for death penalty lowest in more than four decades. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/09/29/support-for-death-penalty-lowest-in-more-than-four-decades/ . Accessed 31 July 2018.

Oliphant, B. (2018, June 11). Public support for the death penalty ticks up. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/06/11/us-support-for-death-penalty-ticks-up-2018/ . Accessed 31 July 2018.

Oxford, A. (2018, February 3). Swift end for House bill to reinstate death penalty. The Santa Fe New Mexican. http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/legislature/swift-end-for-house-bill-to-reinstate-death-penalty/article_4dec9f33-0253-50c3-8e22-16a12ba01f9a.html . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Packer, H. L. (1963). Making the Punishment Fit the Crime. Harvard Law Review, 77 , 1071.

Panetti v. Quarterman. (2007) 551 U.S. 930 (2007).

Paternoster, R. (1991). Prosecutorial discretion and capital sentencing in North and South Carolina. In R. M. Bohm (Ed.), The death penalty in America: Current research (pp. 39–52). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Paternoster, R., & Kazyaka, A. (1988). Racial considerations in capital punishment: The failure of evenhanded justice. In K. C. Haas & J. A. Inciardi (Eds.), Challenging capital punishment: Legal and social science approaches (pp. 113–148). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Pentin, E. (2018, August 2). Pope Francis Changes Catechism to Say Death Penalty ‘Inadmissible.’ http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-francis-changes-catechism-to-declare-death-penalty-inadmissible . Accessed 25 Sep 2018.

Pierce, G. L., & Radelet, M. L. (2002). Race, religion, and death sentencing in Illinois, 1988-1997. Oregon Law Review, 81 , 39–96.

Powell v. Alabama. (1932) 287 U.S. 45 (1932).

Quinnipiac University National Poll. (2018, March 22). Most U.S. Voters Back Life Over Death Penalty. QU Poll. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2530 . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Robinson, M. B. (2008). Death nation: the experts explain American capital punishment . Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/prentice hall.

Roper v. Simmons. (2005) 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

Rosenberg, M. (1968). The logic of survey analysis. New York: Basic.

Sanger, R. M. (2003). Comparison of the Illinois commission report on capital punishment with the capital punishment system in California. Santa Clara Law Review, 44 , 101–234.

Saklofske, D. H., Schwean, V. L., & Reynolds, C. R. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Child Psychological Assessment: Psychological Evaluation | Psychological Testing . Oxford University Press.

Singleton v. Norris. (2003) 267 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2003).

Sorensen, J. R., & Wallace, D. H. (1995). Capital punishment in Missouri: Examining the issue of racial disparity. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 13 (1), 61–81.

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. (2013). Table 2.51.2013: Attitudes toward the death penalty for persons convicted of murder. https://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t2512013.pdf . Accessed 21 January 2018.

Stanford v. Kentucky. (1989) 492 U.S. 361 (1989).

Thomson, E. (1997). Discrimination and the Death Penalty in Arizona. Criminal Justice Review, 22 (1), 65–76.

Thompson v. Oklahoma. (1988) 487 U.S. 815 (1988).

Top Stories. (2017, October 5). Lower house in US state of Delaware votes to reinstate death penalty. Top Stories. http://www.dw.com/en/lower-house-in-us-state-of-delaware-votes-to-reinstate-death-penalty/a-38781130 . Accessed 8 June 2018.

Trop v. Dulles. (1958) 356 U.S. 86 (1958).

UN General Assembly. (1989, November 15). Resolution 44/824: 2nd Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/44/128 . Accessed 7 June 2018.

UN General Assembly. (2015, February 4). Resolution 69/186: Moratorium on the use of the death penalty. http://dag.un.org/bitstream/handle/11176/158748/A_RES_69_186-EN.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y . Accessed 7 June 2018.

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. (1980). Bishops’ statement on capital punishment. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops . http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/statement-on-capital-punishment.cfm . Accessed 7 June 2018.

Vollum, S., Carmen, R. V. del, Frantzen, D., Miguel, C. S., Cheeseman, K., Carmen, R. V. del, … Cheeseman, K. (2015). The death penalty : Constitutional issues, commentaries, and case briefs. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315721293

Waldo, G. P., & Chiricos, T. G. (1977). Work release and recidivism: An empirical evaluation of a social policy. Evaluation Quarterly, 1(1), 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X7700100104 .

Wanger, E. G. (2017). Fighting the death penalty . East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Warden, R. (2012). How and why Illinois abolished the death penalty. Law and Inequality, 30 (2), 244–286.

Weems v. United States. (1910) 217 U.S. 349 (1910).

White, D. L. (2018, March 2). Survey Shows Most Pinellas County Voters Oppose Death Penalty. St. Pete Patch. https://patch.com/florida/stpete/survey-shows-most-pinellas-county-voters-oppose-death-penalty . Accessed 7 June 2018.

Wilkerson v. Utah. (1879) 99 U.S. 130 (1879).

Wilson, M. J. (2008). The application of the death penalty in New Mexico, July 1979 through December 2007: An empirical analysis. New Mexico Law Review, 38 , 255–302.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 112 S. Copeland Street, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-1273, USA

Gordon P. Waldo & Wesley Myers

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gordon P. Waldo .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Waldo, G.P., Myers, W. Criminological Research and the Death Penalty: Has Research by Criminologists Impacted Capital Punishment Practices?. Am J Crim Just 44 , 536–580 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-019-09478-4

Download citation

Received : 02 April 2019

Accepted : 02 April 2019

Published : 16 April 2019

Issue Date : 15 August 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-019-09478-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Death penalty
• Capital punishment
• Impact of research
• Policy implications
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Abstract: The academic debate over the deterrent effect of capital punishment has intensified again with a major policy outcome at stake. About two dozen empirical studies have recently emerged that explore the issue. Donohue and Wolfers (2005) claim to have examined the recent studies and shown the evidence not to be robust to specification changes. We argue that the narrow scope of their study does not warrant this claim. Moreover, focusing on our two studies that they have examined, we show the deterrence findings to be robust, while their work has serious flaws and their reporting appears to be selective. The selectivity is biased towards showing 'no deterrence'.

Abstract: Critiques of scholarly research contain their own flaws; sometimes even more so than the work they are critiquing. Such is the case of the critique of our research authored by John Donohue and Jason Wolfers. Published in the Stanford Law Review their paper avoided the blind peer review process and consequently contains elements that undoubtedly would not have survived peer review. That possibility aside, we show that their alternative measures of criminal activity have no theoretical basis nor any empirical precedent within the modified portfolio approach employed in our research. Putting even that aside, we show that their empirical results are not inconsistent with ours. Thus, upon reflection, we see no justification to amend, modify or otherwise alter our methods or results.

Abstract: Does the death penalty save lives? In recent years, a new round of research has been using annual time-series panel data from the 50 U.S. states for 25 or so years from the 1970s to the late 1990s that claims to find many lives saved through reductions in subsequent homicide rates after executions. This research, in turn, has produced a round of critiques, which concludes that these findings are not robust enough to model even small changes in specifications that yield dramatically different results. A principal reason for this sensitivity of the findings is that few state-years exist (about 1 percent of all state-years) in which six or more executions have occurred. To provide a different perspective, we focus on Texas, a state that has used the death penalty with sufficient frequency to make possible relatively stable estimates of the homicide response to executions. In addition, we narrow the observation intervals for recording executions and homicides from the annual calendar year to monthly intervals. Based on time-series analyses and independent-validation tests, our best-fitting model shows that, from January 1994 through December 2005, evidence exists of modest, short-term reductions in homicides in Texas in the first and fourth months that follow an execution—about 2.5 fewer homicides total. Another model suggests, however, that in addition to homicide reductions, some displacement of homicides may be possible from one month to another in the months after an execution, which reduces the total reduction in homicides after an execution to about .5 during a 12-month period. Implications for additional research and the need for future analysis and replication are discussed.

Abstract: In a recent paper Donohue and Wolfers (D&W) critique a number of modern econometric studies purporting to demonstrate a deterrent effect of capital punishment. This paper focuses on D&W's central criticism of a study by Zimmerman; specifically, that the estimated standard errors on the subset of his regressions that suggest a deterrent effect are downward biased due to autocorrelation. The method that D&W rely upon to adjust Zimmerman's standard errors is, however, potentially problematic, and is also only one of several methods to address the presence of autocorrelation. To this end, Zimmerman's original models are subjected to several parametric corrections for autocorrelation, all of which result in statistically significant estimates that are of the same magnitude to his original estimates. The paper also presents results obtained from an alternative model whose specification is motivated on theoretical and statistical grounds. These latter results also provide some evidence supporting a deterrent effect. Finally, the paper discusses D&W's use of randomization testing and their contention that executions are not carried out often enough to plausibly deter murders.

Abstract: We draw on variations in the reach of capital punishment statutes between 1977 and 2004 to identify the deterrent effects associated with capital eligibility. Focusing on the most prevalent eligibility expansion, we estimate that the adoption of a child murder factor is associated with an approximately 20% reduction in the child murder rate. Eligibility expansions may enhance deterrence by (i) paving the way for more executions and (ii) providing prosecutors with greater leverage to secure enhanced noncapital sentences. While executions themselves are rare, this latter channel may be triggered fairly regularly, providing a reasonable basis for a general deterrent response.

Abstract: The vast majority of death penalty studies use geographically or temporally aggregated data. Such aggregation can make it virtually impossible to identify small amounts of variation in homicides due to executions. Therefore, this study uses data that are disaggregated down to daily and city levels to test whether executions have a short-term deterrent effect. Little consistent evidence is found that Texas executions deter Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston homicides from 1999 to 2004. The analysis also does not consistently support the hypotheses that the deterrent effect should be more evident for local executions or executions that received local media coverage.

Abstract: This paper reviews the econometric issues in efforts to estimate the impact of the death penalty on murder, focusing on six recent studies published since 2003. We highlight the large number of choices that must be made when specifying the various panel data models that have been used to address this question. There is little clarity about the knowledge potential murderers have concerning the risk of execution: are they influenced by the passage of a death penalty statute, the number of executions in a state, the proportion of murders in a state that leads to an execution, and details about the limited types of murders that are potentially susceptible to a sentence of death? If an execution rate is a viable proxy, should it be calculated using the ratio of last year's executions to last year's murders, last year's executions to the murders a number of years earlier, or some other values? We illustrate how sensitive various estimates are to these choices. Importantly, the most up-to-date OLS panel data studies generate no evidence of a deterrent effect, while three 2SLS studies purport to find such evidence. The 2SLS studies, none of which shows results that are robust to clustering their standard errors, are unconvincing because they all use a problematic structure based on poorly measured and theoretically inappropriate pseudo-probabilities that are designed to capture the key deterrence elements of a state's death penalty regime, and because their instruments are of dubious validity. We also discuss the appropriateness of the implicit assumption of the 2SLS studies that OLS estimates of the impact of the death penalty would be biased against a finding of deterrence.

Abstract: The reintroduction of capital punishment in 1976 that ended the four-year moratorium on executions generated by the Supreme Court in the 1972 decision Furman v. Georgia has permitted researchers to employ state-level heterogeneity in the use of capital punishment to study deterrent effects. However, no scholarly consensus exists as to their magnitude. A key reason that this has occurred is that the use of alternative models across studies produces differing estimates of the deterrent effect. Because differences across models are not well motivated by theory, the deterrence literature is plagued by model uncertainty. We argue that the analysis of deterrent effects should explicitly recognize the presence of model uncertainty in drawing inferences. We describe methods for addressing model uncertainty and apply them to understand the disparate findings between two major studies in the deterrence literature, finding that evidence of deterrent effects appears, while not nonexistent, weak.

Abstract: In 1975, Ehrlich published a seminal paper in American Economic Review which argued that executions prevent murders in America. Subsequent empirical studies varied in their methodology and the time-period/region/country covered, and therefore it is difficult to draw a clear conclusion about the deterrent effect of executions. This article applies a meta-analysis to combine the results from refereed studies in order to summarize objectively the findings. The overall results of the meta-analysis supported the deterrent effect of executions, but the evidence for a deterrent effect depended on the type of study carried out (time-series and panel data versus cross-sectional data and the effects of publicity).

Abstract: Econometric measures of the effect of capital punishment have increasingly provided evidence that it deters homicides. However, most researchers on both sides of the death penalty debate continue to rely on rather simple assumptions about criminal behavior. I attempt to provide a more nuanced and predictive rational choice model of the incentives and disincentives to kill, with the aim of assessing to what extent the statistical findings of deterrence are in line with theoretical expectations. In particular, I examine whether it is plausible to suppose there is a marginal increase in deterrence created by increasing the penalty from life imprisonment without parole to capital punishment. The marginal deterrence effect is shown to be a direct negative function of prison conditions as they are anticipated by the potential offender – the more tolerable someone perceives imprisonment to be, the less deterrent effect prison will have, and the greater the amount of marginal deterrence the threat of capital punishment will add. I then examine the empirical basis for believing there to be a subset of killers who are relatively unafraid of the prison environment, and who therefore may be deterred effectively only by the death penalty. Criminals, empirically, appear to fear a capital sentence, and are willing to sacrifice important procedural rights during plea bargaining to avoid this risk. This has the additional effect of increasing the mean expected term of years attached to a murder conviction, and may generate a secondary deterrent effect of capital punishment. At least for some offenders, the death penalty should induce greater caution in their use of lethal violence, and the deterrent effect seen statistically is possibly derived from the change in the behavior of these individuals. This identification of a particular group on whom the death penalty has the greatest marginal effect naturally suggests reforms in sentencing (and plea bargaining) which focus expensive capital prosecutions on those most insensitive to alternative criminal sanctions.

Abstract: Several recent econometric studies suggest that states' application of capital punishment deters the rate of murder [Brumm and Cloninger (1996), Cloninger and Marchesini (2001), Mocan and Gittings (2001), and Zimmerman (2002)]. Since the U.S. Supreme Court's moratorium on state executions was lifted in 1976, states with death penalty laws have executed individuals using one or more of five different methods of execution (electrocution, lethal injection, gas chamber asphyxiation, hanging, and/or firing squad). The perceived "brutality" of certain execution methods (such as electrocution and gas chamber asphyxiation) has also recently lead to lethal injection being imposed as the sole method of execution in several death penalty states. Using a panel of state-level data over the years 1978-2000, this paper examines whether the method by which death penalty states conduct their executions affects the per-capita incidence of murder in a differential manner. Several measures of the subjective probability of being executed are developed taking into account the timing of individual executions as in Mocan and Gittings (2001). The empirical estimates suggest that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is driven primarily by executions conducted by electrocution. None of the other four methods of execution are found to have a statistically significant impact on the per-capita incidence of murder. These results are robust with respect to the manner in which the subjective probabilities of being executed are defined, whether or not a state has a death penalty law on the books, the removal of state and year fixed effects, controls for state-specific time trends, simultaneous control of all execution methods, and controls for other forms of public deterrence. In addition, it is shown that the negative and statistically significant impact of electrocutions is not driven by the occurrence of a "botched" electrocution execution during the relevant time period.

Abstract: This paper empirically estimates a murder supply equation for the United States from 1965 to 2001 within a cointegration and error correction framework. Our findings suggest that any support for the deterrence hypothesis is sensitive to the inclusion of variables for the effect of guns and other crimes. In the long-run we find that real income and the conditional probability of receiving the death sentence are the main factors explaining variations in the homicide rate. In the short run the aggravated assault rate and robbery rate are the most important determinants of the homicide rate.

Abstract: We use panel data for 50 states during the 1960–2000 period to examine the deterrent effect of capital punishment, using the moratorium as a "judicial experiment." We compare murder rates immediately before and after changes in states' death penalty laws, drawing on cross-state variations in the timing and duration of the moratorium. The regression analysis supplementing the before-and-after comparisons disentangles the effect of lifting the moratorium on murder from the effect of actual executions on murder. Results suggest that capital punishment has a deterrent effect, and that executions have a distinct effect which compounds the deterrent effect of merely (re)instating the death penalty. The finding is robust across 96 regression models.

Abstract: A number of papers have recently appeared claiming to show that in the United States executions deter serious crime. There are many statistical problems with the data analyses reported. This article addresses the problem of "influence," which occurs when a very small and atypical fraction of the data dominate the statistical results. The number of executions by state and year is the key explanatory variable, and most states in most years execute no one. A very few states in particular years execute more than five individuals. Such values represent about 1 percent of the available observations. Reanalyses of the existing data are presented showing that claims of deterrence are a statistical artifact of this anomalous 1 percent.

Abstract: In an earlier work the impact of an execution moratorium in Texas on the monthly returns (first differences) of homicides was investigated. That moratorium was judicially imposed pending the appeal of a death sentence that could have had widespread consequences. A similar methodology is applied to the state of Illinois. In January 2000, the Governor of Illinois declared a moratorium on executions pending a review of the judicial process that condemned certain murderers to the death penalty. In January 2003 just prior to leaving office, the Governor commuted the death sentences of all of those who then occupied death row. It is found that these actions are coincident with the increased risk of homicide incurred by the residents of Illinois over the 48 month post-event period for which data were available. The increased risk produced an estimated 150 additional homicides during the post-event period.

Abstract: Social science has long played a role in examining the efficacy and fairness of the death penalty. Empirical studies of the deterrent effect of capital punishment were cited by the Supreme Court in its landmark cases in the 1970s; most notable was the 1975 Isaac Ehrlich study, which used multivariate regression analysis and purported to show a significant marginal deterrent effect over life imprisonment, but which was soon roundly criticized for methodological flaws. Decades later, new econometric studies have emerged, using panel data techniques, that report striking findings of marginal deterrence, even up to 18 lives saved per execution. Yet the cycle of debate continues, as these new studies face criticism for omitting key potential variables and for the potential distorting effect of one anomalously high-executing state (Texas). Meanwhile, other empiricists, relying mainly on survey questionnaires, have taken a fresh look at the human dynamics of death penalty trials, especially the attitudes and personal background factors that influence capital jurors.

Abstract: I examine two important questions in the capital punishment literature: what kinds of murders are deterred and what effect the length of the death-row wait has on deterrence? To answer these questions, I analyze data unused in the capital punishment literature: monthly murder and execution data. Monthly data measure deterrence better than the annual data used in earlier capital punishment papers for two reasons: it is impossible to see monthly murder fluctuations in annual data and only monthly data allow a model in which criminals update their perceived execution risk frequently. Results from least squares and negative binomial estimations indicate that capital punishment does deter: each execution results in, on average, three fewer murders. In addition, capital punishment deters murders previously believed to be undeterrable: crimes of passion and murders by intimates. Moreover, murders of both black and white victims decrease after executions. This suggests that, even if the application of capital punishment is racist, the benefits of capital punishment are not. However, longer waits on death row before execution lessen the deterrence. Specifically, one less murder is committed for every 2.75-years reduction in death row waits. Thus, recent legislation to shorten the wait on death row should strengthen capital punishment's deterrent effect.

Abstract: This study employs a panel of U.S. state-level data over the years 1978-1997 to estimate the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Particular attention is paid to problems of endogeneity bias arising from the non-random assignment of death penalty laws across states and a simultaneous relationship between murders and the deterrence probabilities. The primary innovation of the analysis lies in the estimation of a simultaneous equations system whose identification is based upon the employment of instrumental variables motivated by the theory of public choice. The estimation results suggest that structural estimates of the deterrent effect of capital punishment are likely to be downward biased due to the influence of simultaneity. Correcting for simultaneity, the estimates imply that a state execution deters approximately fourteen murders per year on average. Finally, the results also suggest that the announcement effect of capital punishment, as opposed to the existence of a death penalty provision, is the mechanism actually driving the deterrent effect associated with state executions.

Abstract: Economists have made repeated efforts through both theoretical modeling and empirical testing to understand the deterrent effect of capital punishment. By and large, they have found a negative and statistically significant effect of capital punishment on the act of murder (that is, the death penalty deters murder). Ehrlich [1975] provides the first systematic analysis of the relationship between capital punishment and murder along with the first empirical test of the deterrence hypothesis concerning not only capital punishment but also other deterrent measures. His results suggest that on the average eight murder victims might have been saved as a result of one execution for the sample period 1933-67 in the United States. Although Ehrlich's work was criticized by scholars such as Waldo [1981] and Forst [1983], many subsequent studies, using independent time-series and cross-section data from the United States [Ehrlich, 1977; Layson, 1985; Cloninger, 1992; Ehrlich and Liu, 1999; Dezhbakhsh, et al. 2000], Canada [Layson, 1983] and the UK [Wolpin, 1978], have offered corroborating evidence consistent with the deterrence hypothesis.

Abstract:   This paper merges a state-level panel data set that includes crime and deterrence measures and state characteristics with information on all death sentences handed out in the United States between 1977 and 1997. Because the exact month and year of each execution and removal from death row can be identified, they are matched with state-level criminal activity in the relevant time frame. Controlling for a variety of state characteristics, the paper investigates the impact of the execution rate, commutation and removal rates, homicide arrest rate, sentencing rate, imprisonment rate, and prison death rate on the rate of homicide. The results show that each additional execution decreases homicides by about five, and each additional commutation increases homicides by the same amount, while an additional removal from death row generates one additional murder. Executions, commutations, and removals have no impact on robberies, burglaries, assaults, or motor-vehicle thefts.

Abstract:   Evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment is important for many states that are currently reconsidering their position on the issue.  We examine the deterrent hypothesis using county-level, post-moratorium panel data and a system of simultaneous equations.  The procedure we employ overcomes common aggregation problems, eliminates the bias arising  from unobserved heterogeneity, and provides evidence relevant for current conditions.  Our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders—with a margin of error of plus or minus 10.  Tests show that results are not driven by tougher sentencing laws, and are also robust to many alternative specifications.

Abstract : Previous research has attempted to identify a deterrent effect of capital punishment. We argue that the quality of life in prison is likely to have a greater impact on criminal behavior than the death penalty. Using state-level panel data covering the period 1950--90, we demonstrate that the death rate among prisoners (the best available proxy for prison conditions) is negatively correlated with crime rates, consistent with deterrence. This finding is shown to be quite robust. In contrast, there is little systematic evidence that the execution rate influences crime rates in this time period.

Objective:   This article reports on a basic regression analysis of the deterrence hypothesis incorporating U.S. data that has accumulated since the resumption of capital punishment in 1977.  Methods .  The cross-sectional approach employs data on state homicide rates and estimated execution rates between 1976 and 1997 across 50 states and the District of Columbia.  The time series approach employs annual data on the U.S. national homicide rate and estimated national execution rate between 1930 and 1997.  Results .  Using state data, statistically weak support is found for the deterrence hypothesis.  Using national time series data, considerably stronger statistical support is found for the deterence hypothesis.  It is also shown that the same time series regression using data from 1930 to 1976 does not support the deterrence hypothesis, thus showing the probative value of the more recent data.  Conclusions .  Statistical data from the postmoratorium period are likely to be useful in evaluating the deterrence hypothesis, and therefore social scientists should be carefully examining this evidence.

Abstract: Using portfolio analysis in a type of controlled group experiment, this study develops an empirical model of homicide changes in Texas over a period of a "normal" number of executions. The empirically derived model then estimates the changes in the number of homicides in Texas (1) over a period of near zero executions and; (2) over an immediate subsequent period of double the "normal" number of executions. The actual changes in Texas homicides over the first period is less than estimated by the model and greater (or no different) than estimated by the model in the second period. Because changes in the number of homicides in Texas and throughout the United States were negative over both periods, these empirical results are consistent with the deterrence hypothesis. That is, there were a greater than predicted number of homicides in the first period and fewer than predicted number in the second period.

Abstract:   This study tested the deterrence hypothesis in Texas, the most active execution jurisdication during the modern era.

Abstract:   Leamer and McManus applied Extreme Bound Analysis (EBA) in an empirical study of the deterrent effects of capital punishment and other penalties. Their analysis has questioned the validity of the deterrence hypothesis. The thrust of our paper is twofold: first, by applying EBA to well-known econometric models of demand, production, and human-capital investment, our analysis exposes and illustrates the inherent flaws of EBA as a method of deriving valid inferences about model specification. Second, since the analysis shows Leamer and McManus's inferences about deterrence to be based on a flawed methodology, we offer an alternative, theory-based sensitivity analysis of estimated deterrent effects using similar data. Our analysis supports the deterrence hypothesis. More generally, it emphasizes the indispensable role of theory in guiding sensitivity analyses of model specification.

Abstract:   If the behavior of potential murderers does in fact respond to the risk of punishment, it is the perceived risk rather than the ex post risk as measured by arrest rates, conviction rates, or execution rates. Previous empirical studies of homicide behavior have, by and large, ignored this distinction. The present paper accommodates this distinction by estimating a covariance structure model in which the perceived risk is treated as an endogenous latent variable, with two measures of sanctions as its indicators. Cross-section data are used for the estimation. One of the principal findings is that the homicide commission rate is significantly and negatively correlated with the perceived risk of punishment, which provides empirical support for the deterrence hypothesis (Ehrlich, 1975). The other principal findings are that the perceived risk of punishment is (a) significantly and negatively correlated with the homicide commission rate, and (b) significantly and positively correlated with police presence. The latter results provide empirical support for the resource saturation hypothesis (Fisher and Nagin, 1978).

Abstract: Although decades of empirical research has demonstrated that criminal behavior responds to incentives, non-economists frequently express the belief that human beings are not rational enough to make calculated decisions about the costs and benefits of engaging in crime and therefore, a priori drawing the conclusion that criminal activity cannot be altered by incentives. However, scientific research should not be driven by personal beliefs. Whether or not economic conditions matter or deterrence measures such police, arrests, prison deaths, executions, and commutations provide signals to people is an empirical question, which should be guided by a solid theoretical framework. In this paper we extend the analysis of Mocan and Gittings (2003). We alter the original model in a number of directions to make the relationship between homicide rates and death penalty related outcomes (executions, commutations and removals) disappear. We deliberately deviate from the theoretically consistent measurement of the risk variables originally employed by Mocan and Gittings (2003) in a variety of ways. We also investigate the sensitivity of the results to changes in the estimation sample (removing high executing states for example) and weighting. The basic results are insensitive to these and a variety of other specification tests performed in the paper. The results are often strong enough to even hold up under theoretically meaningless measurements of the risk variables. In summary, the original findings of Mocan and Gittings (2003) are robust, providing evidence that people indeed react to incentives induced by capital punishment. Research findings about the deterrent effect of the death penalty evoke strong feelings, which could be due to political, ideological, religious, or other personal beliefs. Yet, such findings do not mean that capital punishment is good or bad, nor does it provide any judgment about whether capital punishment should be implemented or abolished. It is simply a scientific finding which demonstrates that people react to incentives. Therefore, there is no need to be afraid of this result.

Abstract: John J. Donohue and Justin Wolfers [Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate, Stanford Law Review, vol. 58 (2005): 791-846] critique a number of recent econometric studies purporting to demonstrate a deterrent effect of capital punishment. Donohue and Wolfers argue that the conclusions drawn from most of these studies are fundamentally flawed as their results are highly sensitive to small changes in the employed econometric specification. This paper focuses on Donohue's and Wolfers' criticism of a study by Paul R. Zimmerman [State Executions, Deterrence, and the Incidence of Murder, Journal of Applied Economics, vol. 7 (2004): 163-193]. It is shown that Donohue and Wolfers make a number of misrepresentations and errors in assessing the results and conclusions put forward in Zimmerman's analysis, and as such, their criticisms of the latter are effectively vacuous. And although Zimmerman's ultimate conclusions regarding the deterrent effect of capital punishment are not fundamentally different from Donohue's and Wolfers', the latter authors' comprehensive review of recent death penalty studies (as well as their admonishments concerning the use of potentially fragile empirical models to inform policy decisions) marks their paper as an important contribution to the literature.

John R. Lott, Jr. and William M. Landes Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws:  Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement University of Chicago Law School, John M. Olin Law and Economics Working Paper No. 73 (2002), Link to earlier version of the working paper:  http://www.thevrwc.org/JohnLott.pdf

Abstract:   Few events obtain the same instant worldwide news coverage as multiple victim public shootings. These crimes allow us to study the alternative methods used to kill a large number of people (e.g., shootings versus bombings), marginal deterrence and the severity of the crime, substitutability of penalties, private versus public methods of deterrence and incapacitation, and whether attacks produce "copycats." Yet, economists have not studied this phenomenon. Our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce "normal" murder rates, our results find that the only policy factor to influence multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws. We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce both the number of shootings as well as their severity, and why other penalties like executions have differential deterrent effects depending upon the type of murder.

The following articles discuss the philosophical and policy implications of deterrence and capital punishment. Because they do not claim to be empirical research, the criterion of peer-reviewed publication does not apply.

Abstract: Many people believe that the death penalty should be abolished even if, as recent evidence seems to suggest, it has a significant deterrent effect. But if such an effect can be established, capital punishment requires a life-life tradeoff, and a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, that form of punishment. The familiar problems with capital punishment— potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness, and racial skew—do not require abolition because the realm of homicide suffers from those same problems in even more acute form. Moral objections to the death penalty frequently depend on a sharp distinction between acts and omissions, but that distinction is misleading in this context because government is a special kind of moral agent. The widespread failure to appreciate the life-life tradeoffs potentially involved in capital punishment may depend in part on cognitive processes that fail to treat “statistical lives” with the seriousness that they deserve. The objection to the act/omission distinction, as applied to government, has implications for many questions in civil and criminal law.

Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule argue that, if recent empirical studies finding that capital punishment has a substantial deterrent effect are valid, consequentialists and deontologists alike should conclude that capital punishment is not merely morally permissible but actually morally required. While the empirical studies are highly suspect (as John Donohue and Justin Wolfers elaborate in a separate article in this Issue), this Article directly critiques Sunstein and Vermeule’s moral argument. Acknowledging that the government has special moral duties does not render inadequately deterred private murders the moral equivalent of government executions. Rather, executions constitute a distinctive moral wrong (purposeful as opposed to nonpurposeful killing) and a distinctive kind of injustice (unjustified punishment). Moreover, acceptance of “threshold” deontology in no way requires a commitment to capital punishment even if substantial deterrence is proven. Rather, arguments about catastrophic “thresholds” face special challenges in the context of criminal punishment. This Article also explains how Sunstein and Vermeule’s argument necessarily commits us to accepting other brutal or disproportionate punishments and concludes by suggesting that even consequentialists should not be convinced by the argument.

No abstract.

How can the policy combination promote the development of green buildings? -Analysis based on stage perspective

• Meng, Qingfeng
• Chong, Heap-Yih
• Hao, Tiantian

The development of green buildings (GBs) relies on the incentives and penalty provided by government policies. Firstly, different development stages of GBs are identified in this study, and an evolutionary game approach is used to explore the stage characteristics and behavioral strategies of key stakeholders at different stages. Thereafter, considering the multidimensional synergistic effects of government incentive and penalty policies at different stages, this study investigates how to set and match incentive and penalty combinations at different development stages of GBs. Research indicates that the "incentive and penalty combinations" in policies is a core element for the benign development of the GBs. In the preliminary stage, the level of green technology innovation significantly influences the direction of the system. The "light incentive and light penalty" policy of government is preferable as it can guide developers and consumers to understand GBs, thus opening up the green building market. In the growth stage, the maturity of green technology plays a significant role. The "heavy incentive and heavy penalty" policy of government is effective, which helps developers compensate for construction costs, actively develop GBs, and effectively avoid deviant behavior. Meanwhile, consumers also change their purchasing preferences based on the benefits of GBs. In the mature stage, the role of industry associations becomes more prominent after the government withdraws from the market. The supervision strategy of "strong supervision and light penalty" effectively manages the green building market. Consumers continue to trust the quality of GBs from developers, and the synergy among the government, developers, and consumers collectively promotes the maturity of the green building market.

• Green buildings;
• Policy combination;
• Supervision strategy;
• Multi-stage;
• Evolutionary game

• Introduction
• Conclusions
• Article Information

Models were stratified by age, cohort (sex), and calendar time, and adjusted for Southern European/Mediterranean ancestry (yes/no), married (yes/no), living alone (yes/no), smoking status (never, former, current smoker 1-14 cigarettes/d, 15-24 cigarettes/d, or ≥25 cigarettes/d), physical activity (<3.0, 3.0-8.9, 9.0-17.9, 18.0-26.9, ≥27.0 metabolic equivalent of task–h/wk), multivitamin use (yes/no), history of hypertension (yes/no), history of hypercholesterolemia (yes/no), history of diabetes (yes/no), in women postmenopausal status and menopausal hormone use (premenopausal, postmenopausal [no, past, or current hormone use]), total energy intake (kcal/d), family history of dementia (yes/no), history of depression (yes/no), census socioeconomic status (9-variable score, in quintiles), and body mass index calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared (<23, 23-25, 25-30, 30-35, ≥35). Pooled results were obtained by pooling the datasets of the cohorts. AMED score is without monounsaturated:saturated fats intake ratio component. AHEI score is without polyunsaturated fats intake component. HR indicates hazard ratio.

a Reference value.

b P  < .05.

Substitution analysis of 5 g/d intake of olive oil for the equivalent amount of butter, other vegetable oils, mayonnaise, and margarine. All Cox proportional hazards models were stratified by age and calendar time. Models were adjusted for Southern European/Mediterranean ancestry (yes/no), married (yes/no), living alone (yes/no), smoking status (never, former, current smoker 1-14 cigarettes/d, 15-24 cigarettes/d, or ≥25 cigarettes/d), alcohol intake (0, 0.1-4.9, 5.0-9.9, 10.0-14.9, and ≥15.0 g/d), physical activity (<3.0, 3.0-8.9, 9.0-17.9, 18.0-26.9, ≥27.0 metabolic equivalent of task–h/wk), multivitamin use (yes/no), history of hypertension (yes/no), history of hypercholesterolemia (yes/no), in women postmenopausal status and menopausal hormone use (premenopausal, postmenopausal [no, past, or current hormone use]), total energy intake (kcal/d), family history of dementia (yes/no), history of depression (yes/no), census socioeconomic status (9-variable score, in quintiles), body mass index calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared (<23, 23-25, 25-30, 30-35, ≥35), red meat, fruits and vegetables, nuts, soda, whole grains intake (in quintiles), and trans-fat. Pooled results were obtained by pooling the data sets of the cohorts and Cox proportional hazards model 3 was further stratified by cohort (sex). HR indicates hazard ratio.

eTable 1. Odds Ratios for Dementia-Related Mortality by APOE4 Allelic Dosage

eTable 2. Risk of Death With Dementia (Composite Outcome) According to Categories of Total Olive Oil

eTable 3. Joint Associations of Olive Oil Intake and AMED (A), and AHEI (B) With Dementia-Related Mortality Risk

eTable 4. Risk of Dementia-Related Mortality According to Categories of Total Olive Oil in the Genomic DNA Subsample

eFigure. Subgroup Analyses for 5g/d Increase in Olive Oil Intake With Dementia-Related Mortality Risk

eTable 5. Risk of Dementia-Related Mortality According to Categories of Total Olive Oil Without Stopping Diet Update Upon Report of Intermediate Non-Fatal Events

eTable 6. Risk of Dementia Mortality According to Categories of Total Olive Oil Applying a 4-Year Lag Period Between Dietary Intake and Dementia Mortality

eTable 7. Risk of Dementia-Related Mortality According to Categories of Total Olive Oil Adjusting for Other Covariates

eTable 8. Risk of Mortality From Dementia and Other Causes of Death According to Categories of Total Olive Oil Applying a Competing Risk Model

eReferences

Data Sharing Statement

See More About

Sign up for emails based on your interests, select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing

Get the latest research based on your areas of interest.

Others also liked.

• Download PDF
• X Facebook More LinkedIn

Tessier A , Cortese M , Yuan C, et al. Consumption of Olive Oil and Diet Quality and Risk of Dementia-Related Death. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(5):e2410021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.10021

Manage citations:

© 2024

• Permissions

Consumption of Olive Oil and Diet Quality and Risk of Dementia-Related Death

• 1 Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
• 2 School of Public Health, the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China
• 3 Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
• 4 Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
• 5 Department of Public Health and Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Question   Is the long-term consumption of olive oil associated with dementia-related death risk?

Findings   In a prospective cohort study of 92 383 adults observed over 28 years, the consumption of more than 7 g/d of olive oil was associated with a 28% lower risk of dementia-related death compared with never or rarely consuming olive oil, irrespective of diet quality.

Meaning   These results suggest that olive oil intake represents a potential strategy to reduce dementia mortality risk.

Importance   Age-standardized dementia mortality rates are on the rise. Whether long-term consumption of olive oil and diet quality are associated with dementia-related death is unknown.

Objective   To examine the association of olive oil intake with the subsequent risk of dementia-related death and assess the joint association with diet quality and substitution for other fats.

Design, Setting, and Participants   This prospective cohort study examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS; 1990-2018) and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS; 1990-2018). The population included women from the NHS and men from the HPFS who were free of cardiovascular disease and cancer at baseline. Data were analyzed from May 2022 to July 2023.

Exposures   Olive oil intake was assessed every 4 years using a food frequency questionnaire and categorized as (1) never or less than once per month, (2) greater than 0 to less than or equal to 4.5 g/d, (3) greater than 4.5 g/d to less than or equal to 7 g/d, and (4) greater than 7 g/d. Diet quality was based on the Alternative Healthy Eating Index and Mediterranean Diet score.

Main Outcome and Measure   Dementia death was ascertained from death records. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs adjusted for confounders including genetic, sociodemographic, and lifestyle factors.

Results   Of 92 383 participants, 60 582 (65.6%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 56.4 (8.0) years. During 28 years of follow-up (2 183 095 person-years), 4751 dementia-related deaths occurred. Individuals who were homozygous for the apolipoprotein ε4 ( APOE ε4 ) allele were 5 to 9 times more likely to die with dementia. Consuming at least 7 g/d of olive oil was associated with a 28% lower risk of dementia-related death (adjusted pooled HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.64-0.81]) compared with never or rarely consuming olive oil ( P for trend < .001); results were consistent after further adjustment for APOE ε4 . No interaction by diet quality scores was found. In modeled substitution analyses, replacing 5 g/d of margarine and mayonnaise with the equivalent amount of olive oil was associated with an 8% (95% CI, 4%-12%) to 14% (95% CI, 7%-20%) lower risk of dementia mortality. Substitutions for other vegetable oils or butter were not significant.

Conclusions and Relevance   In US adults, higher olive oil intake was associated with a lower risk of dementia-related mortality, irrespective of diet quality. Beyond heart health, the findings extend the current dietary recommendations of choosing olive oil and other vegetable oils for cognitive-related health.

One-third of older adults die with Alzheimer disease or another dementia. 1 While deaths from diseases such as stroke and heart disease have been decreasing over the past 20 years, age-standardized dementia mortality rates have been on the rise. 2 The Mediterranean diet has gained in popularity owing to its recognized, multifaceted health benefits, particularly on cardiovascular outcomes. 3 Accruing evidence suggests this dietary pattern also has a beneficial effect on cognitive health. 4 As part of the Mediterranean diet, olive oil may exert anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects due to its high content of monounsaturated fatty acids and other compounds with antioxidant properties such as vitamin E and polyphenols. 5 A substudy conducted as part of the Prevencion con Dieta Mediterranea (PREDIMED) randomized trial provided evidence that higher intake of olive oil for 6.5 years combined with adherence to a Mediterranean diet was protective of cognitive decline when compared with a low-fat control diet. 6 - 8

Given that most previous studies on olive oil consumption and cognition were conducted in Mediterranean countries, 7 - 10 studying the US population, where olive oil consumption is generally lower, could offer unique insights. Recently, we showed that olive oil consumption was associated with a lower risk of total and cause-specific mortality in large US prospective cohort studies, including a 29% (95% CI, 22%-36%) lower risk for neurodegenerative disease mortality in participants who consumed more than 7 g/d of olive oil compared with little or none. 11 However, this previous analysis was not designed to examine the association of olive oil and diet quality with dementia-related mortality, and therefore the latter remains unclear.

In this study, we examined the association between total olive oil consumption and the subsequent risk of dementia-related mortality in 2 large prospective studies of US women and men. Additionally, we evaluated the joint associations of diet quality (adherence to the Mediterranean diet and Alternative Healthy Eating Index [AHEI] score) and olive oil consumption with the risk of dementia-related mortality. We also estimated the difference in the risk of dementia-related mortality when other dietary fats were substituted with an equivalent amount of olive oil.

Analyses were performed in 2 large US prospective cohorts: the Nurses’ Health Study I (NHS) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS). The NHS was initiated in 1976 and recruited 121 700 US female registered nurses aged 30 to 55 years. 12 The HPFS was established in 1986 and included 51 525 male health professionals aged 40 to 75 years. 13 The cohorts have been described elsewhere. 12 , 13 Lifestyle factors and medical history were assessed biennially through mailed questionnaires, with a follow-up rate greater than 90%. Baseline for this analysis was 1990, which is when the food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) first included information on olive oil consumption.

Participants with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) or cancer at baseline, with missing data on olive oil consumption, or who reported implausible total energy intakes (<500 or >3500 kcal/d for women and <800 or >4200 kcal/d for men) were excluded. The completion of the questionnaire self-selected cognitively highly functioning women and men. In total, 60 582 women and 31 801 men were included. The study protocol was approved by the institutional review boards of the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, which deemed the participants’ completion of the questionnaire to be considered as implied consent. This report followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology ( STROBE ) reporting guideline.

Dietary intake was measured using a validated greater than 130-item FFQ administered in 1990 and every 4 years thereafter. The validity and reliability of the FFQ have been described previously. 14 Participants were asked how frequently they consumed specific foods, including types of fats and oils used for cooking or added to meals in the past 12 months. Total olive oil intake was determined by summing up answers to 3 questions related to olive oil consumption (ie, olive oil used for salad dressings, olive oil added to food or bread, and olive oil used for baking and frying at home). The equivalent of 1 tablespoon of olive oil was considered to be 13.5 g. Intakes of other fats and nutrients were calculated using the United States Department of Agriculture and Harvard University Food Composition Database, 15 and biochemical analyses. The nutritional composition of olive oil and other types of fat, as well as trends of types of fat intake in the NHS and HPFS, have been reported previously. 11

Adherence to the Mediterranean diet was assessed using a modified version of the 9-point Alternative Mediterranean index (AMED) score. 16 Adherence to the AHEI (0-110), previously associated with lower risk of chronic disease, was also computed. 17 Higher scores indicated better overall diet quality.

The apolipoprotein E ε4 ( APOE ε4 ) allele is known to interfere with lipid and glucose metabolism such that it increases the risk of dementia. 18  APOE genotyping was conducted in a subset of 27 296 participants. Blood samples were collected between 1989 and 1990 in the NHS and between 1993 and 1995 in the HPFS. NHS participants who had not provided blood samples were invited to contribute buccal samples from 2002 to 2004. DNA was extracted with the ReturPureGene DNA Isolation Kit (Gentra Systems). The APOE genotype was determined using a Taqman Assay (Applied Biosystems) 19 in 5069 participants, and through imputation from multiple genome-wide association studies, 20 which has shown high accuracy, 20 in the remaining subset.

Deaths were ascertained from state vital statistics records and the National Death Index or by reports from next of kin or the postal authorities. The follow-up for mortality exceeded 98% in these cohorts. Dementia deaths were determined by physician review of medical records, autopsy reports, or death certificates. Dementia deaths were those in which dementia was listed as the underlying cause of death, or as a contributing cause of death, or as reported by the family, in the absence of a more likely cause. The International Classification of Diseases, Eighth Revision (ICD-8) was used in the NHS and ICD-9 in the HPFS, which were the revisions used at the inception of those cohorts. Dementia deaths included codes 290.0 (senile dementia, simple type), 290.1 (presenile dementia), and 331.0 (Alzheimer disease). To test the validity of the dementia mortality outcome, we examined the likelihood of dementia mortality by APOE ε4 allelic dosage (eTable 1 in Supplement 1 ). 18 A composite outcome was also created including both participants who reported having dementia during follow-up and later died, with those who had dementia reported on their death certificate.

Participants completed biennial questionnaires reporting updates on body weight, smoking, physical activity, multivitamin use, menopausal status, and postmenopausal hormone use in women, family history of dementia, self-report of chronic diseases, and ancestry. History of depression was identified based on antidepressive medication use and self-report of depression. Socioeconomic status (SES) was established through a composite score derived from home address details and various factors such as income, education, and housing; the composite score methods are described in a previous report. 21 Body mass index (BMI) was obtained by dividing the weight in kilograms by the height in meters squared.

In each cohort, age-stratified Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the association of olive oil intake with dementia-related mortality. Participant person-time was calculated from baseline until end of follow-up (June 30, 2018, in NHS; January 31, 2018, in HPFS), loss to follow-up, or death, whichever came first. The cumulative average (mean) of olive oil intake from all available FFQs, from baseline until 2014 (or loss to follow-up or death), was used as the exposure. Because potential diet modifications following cancer or CVD diagnosis may not represent long-term diet, we ceased updating dietary variables upon report of these conditions. For missing covariates, we carried forward nonmissing values from previous questionnaires and assigned median values for continuous variables.

Participants were categorized by olive oil intake frequency: never or less than once per month (reference group), greater than 0 to less than or equal to 4.5 g/d, greater than 4.5 g/d to less than or equal to 7 g/d, and greater than 7 g/d. P values for linear trends were obtained using the Wald test on a continuous variable represented by the median intake of each category. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for dementia mortality according to categories of olive oil intake, separately in each cohort. Participants were censored at death from causes other than dementia. Model 1 was stratified for age and calendar time. Multivariable model 2 was adjusted for Southern European/Mediterranean ancestry, married, living alone, smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, multivitamin use, history of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, in women postmenopausal status and menopausal hormone use, total energy intake, family history of dementia, history of depression, census SES, and BMI. Multivariable model 3 was further adjusted for intake of red meat, fruits and vegetables, nuts, soda, whole grains, and trans-fat, all indicative of diet quality.

In a secondary analysis we used the composite outcome for dementia-related deaths. We also repeated the main analysis in the genotyping subsample. We carried out mediation analyses to calculate the percentage of the association between olive oil intake and dementia-related mortality that is attributable to CVD, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, and diabetes. We also performed stratified analyses by prespecified subgroups (eMethods in Supplement 1 ).

A joint analysis was performed to test whether olive oil intake (never or <1/mo, >0 to ≤7g/d, and >7g/d) and the AMED or the AHEI score (tertiles) combined as the exposure was associated with dementia mortality. In substitution analyses, we assessed the risk of dementia-related mortality by replacing 5 g/d of different fat sources, including margarine, mayonnaise, butter, and a combination of other vegetable oils (corn, safflower, soybean, and canola), with olive oil. Both continuous variables as 5-g/d increments were included in a multivariable model 3, mutually adjusted for other types of fat. The difference in the coefficients obtained for olive oil and the substituted fat provided the estimated HR and 95% CI for substituting 5 g/d of olive oil for an equivalent amount of the other fats.

Several exploratory sensitivity analyses were performed including a 4-year lagged analysis, analyses adjusting for other covariates, a cause-specific competing risk model and analyses excluding participants who self-reported having dementia at baseline (n = 12) (eMethods in Supplement 1 ). Analyses were performed from May 2022 to July 2023 using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute). All statistical tests were 2-sided with an α = .05.

Over 2 183 095 person-years of follow-up, this study documented a total of 4751 dementia deaths (3473 in NHS and 1278 in HPFS; 37 649 total deaths). Among 92 383 participants included at baseline in 1990, 60 582 (65.6%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 56.4 (8.0) years. Mean (SD) olive oil intake was 1.3 (2.5) g/d in both NHS and HPFS; the mean (SD) adherence score for the Mediterranean diet was 4.5 (1.9) points in the NHS and 4.2 (1.9) points in the HPFS; and the mean (SD) AHEI diet quality score was 52.5 (11.1) points in the NHS and 53.4 (11.6) points in the HPFS.

Table 1 shows baseline characteristics of participants categorized by total olive oil intake. Participants with a higher olive oil intake (>7 g/d) at baseline had an overall higher caloric intake, but not a higher BMI, had better diet quality, had higher alcohol intake, were more physically active, and were less likely to smoke compared with those never consuming olive oil or less than once per month ( Table1 ). Individuals who were homozygous for the APOE ε4 allele were 5.5 to 9.4 times more likely to die with dementia compared with noncarriers for the APOE e4 allele (χ 2  P  < .001) (eTable 1 in Supplement 1 ).

Olive oil intake was inversely associated with dementia-related mortality in age-stratified and multivariable-adjusted models ( Table 2 ). Compared with participants with the lowest olive oil intake, the pooled HR for dementia-related death among participants with the highest olive oil intake (>7 g/d) was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.64-0.81), after adjusting for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. The association between each 5-g increment in olive oil consumption with dementia-related death was also inverse and significant in the pooled analysis. The multivariable-adjusted HR for dementia-related death for the highest compared with the lowest olive oil intake (>7 g/d) was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.59-0.77) for women and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.69-1.09) for men ( Table 2 ). Olive oil intake in 5-g increments was inversely associated with dementia-related mortality in women (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.84-0.93]), but not in men (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.88-1.04]). Analyses remained consistent when using the composite outcome for death with dementia (eTable 2 in Supplement 2 ). In the genotyping subsample, the results remained unchanged after further adjusting for the APOE ε4 allelic genotype (multivariable-adjusted pooled HR comparing high vs low olive oil intake, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.54-0.81]; P for trend < .001) (eTable 4 in Supplement 1 ). Pooled mediation analyses found that CVD, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, and diabetes did not significantly attenuate the association (unchanged HRs with and without adjusting for the intermediate; data not shown).

In joint analyses, participants with the highest olive oil intake had a lower risk for dementia-related mortality, irrespective of their AMED score (28% to 34% lower risk compared with participants in the combined low olive oil and high AMED) ( Figure 1 A; eTable 3 in Supplement 1 ) and of their AHEI (27% to 38% lower risk compared with participants with low olive oil and high AHEI) ( Figure 1 B; eTable 3 in Supplement 1 ).

Replacing 5 g/d of mayonnaise with 5 g/d of olive oil was associated with a 14% (95% CI, 7%-20%) lower risk of dementia-related mortality in pooled multivariable-adjusted models ( Figure 2 ). As for the substitution of 5 g/d of margarine with the equivalent amount of olive oil, we estimated an 8% (95% CI, 4%-12%) lower risk. Substitutions of other vegetable oils or butter with olive oil were not statistically significant.

Exploratory subgroup analyses (eFigure in Supplement 1 ) showed associations between higher olive oil intake and lower risk of dementia-related mortality across most subgroups. No statistically significant associations were found in participants with a family history of dementia, living alone, using a multivitamin, and in non– APOE ε4 carriers. Results from exploratory sensitivity analyses (eTables 5-8 in Supplement 1 ) were comparable with the findings from the main analysis (eResults in Supplement 1 ).

In 2 large US prospective cohorts of men and women, we found that participants who consumed more than 7 g/d of olive oil had 28% lower risk of dying from dementia compared with participants who never or rarely consumed olive oil. This association remained significant after adjustment for diet quality scores including adherence to the Mediterranean diet. We estimated that substituting 5 g/d of margarine and mayonnaise with olive oil was associated with significantly lower dementia-related death risk, but not when substituting butter and other vegetable oils. These findings provide evidence to support dietary recommendations advocating for the use of olive oil and other vegetable oils as a potential strategy to maintain overall health and prevent dementia.

In the NHS and HPFS, a lower risk of neurodegenerative disease mortality, including dementia mortality, was observed with higher olive oil consumption (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.78-0.84]). 11 Evidence that pertains to cognitive decline or incident dementia is more widely available than it is for dementia mortality. 6 , 22 In the French Three-City Study (n = 6947), participants with the highest olive oil intake were 17% (95% CI, 1%-29%) less likely to experience a 4-year cognitive decline related to visual memory, but no association was found for verbal fluency (odds ratio [OR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.70-1.03]). 22 Furthermore, participants with a higher intake of olive oil (moderate or intensive vs never) had a lower risk of verbal fluency and visual memory cognitive impairment. Potential sex differences were not investigated. In the PREDIMED trial, which supplemented a Mediterranean-style diet with extra-virgin olive oil (1 L/wk/household) or nuts (30 g/d), 23 the authors investigated cognitive effects and status in 285 and 522 cognitively healthy participants using global and in-depth neuropsychological battery testing. Although the study was not originally designed for cognitive outcomes and the effect of olive oil cannot be isolated, after 6.5 years, the olive oil group exhibited improved cognitive performance in verbal fluency and memory tests compared with a low-fat diet (control), and they were less prone to develop mild cognitive impairment (OR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.12-0.97]; n = 285). 6 Global cognitive performance was higher in both the olive oil and the nut groups compared with the control post trial (n = 522). 8 These studies were conducted in Europe, in populations with typically higher olive oil intake compared with US populations.

Observational studies and some trials have consistently found associations between following diets such as the Mediterranean, DASH, MIND, and AHEI, and prudent patterns to healthier brain structure, 24 reduced cognitive impairment and Alzheimer risk, and improved cognitive function. 4 In our study, those with the highest olive oil intake (>7 g/d) had the lowest dementia-related death risk compared with those with minimal intake (never or less than once per month), regardless of diet quality. This highlights a potentially specific role for olive oil. Still, the group with both high AHEI scores and high olive oil intake exhibited the lowest dementia mortality risk (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58-0.79]; reference: low AHEI score and low olive oil intake), suggesting that combining higher diet quality with higher olive oil intake may confer enhanced benefit.

Olive oil consumption may lower dementia mortality by improving vascular health. 18 Several clinical trials support the effect of olive oil in reducing CVD via improved endothelial function, coagulation, lipid metabolism, oxidative stress, platelet aggregation and decreased inflammation. 25 Nonetheless, the results of our study remained independent of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. Mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer disease, and related dementias were associated with abnormal blood brain barrier permeability, possibly allowing the crossing of neurotoxic molecules into the brain. 26 Mechanistical evidence from animal 27 - 29 and human studies 9 , 30 have shown that phenolic compounds in olive oil, particularly extra-virgin olive oil, may attenuate inflammation, oxidative stress and restore blood brain barrier function, thereby reducing brain amyloid-β and tau-related pathologies and improving cognitive function. However, incident CVD, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, and diabetes were not significant mediators of the association between olive oil intake and dementia-related death in our study.

The association was significant in both sexes but did not remain in men after full adjustment of the model. Some previous research has reported cognitive-related sex differences. Evidence from trials also showed sex- and/or gender-specific responses to lifestyle interventions for preventing cognitive decline, possibly due to differences in brain structure, hormones (sex) and social factors (gender). 31 Olive oil intake may be protective of dementia and related mortality, particularly in women. Nonetheless, we did not observe significant heterogeneity or interaction of cohort by olive oil intake on the risk of fatal dementia. Sex and gender differences should be carefully considered in future studies examining the association or effect of olive oil on cognitive-related outcomes to improve our understanding.

We found that using olive oil instead of margarine and mayonnaise, but not butter and other vegetable oils, was associated with a lower risk of dementia-related death. At the time of the study, margarine and mayonnaise contained considerable levels of hydrogenated trans-fats. The latter were strongly associated with all-cause mortality, CVD, type 2 diabetes, and dementia, 32 , 33 which may explain the lower dementia-related death risk observed when replacing it with olive oil. The US Food and Drug Administration banned manufacturers from adding partially hydrogenated oils to foods in 2020. 34 Future studies examining intake of trans-fat–free margarine will be informative. Although the substitution of butter with olive oil was found to be associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and total mortality, 11 we did not find an association with the risk of dementia mortality. Although these previous studies did not examine the associations for butter per se, intake of regular fat dairy products, including cheese, yogurt, and milk, was reported to be either not associated or inversely associated with lower cognitive function, cognitive decline, and dementia. 35 - 37

Our cohort analyses include several strengths, namely the long follow-up period and large sample size with a high number of dementia death cases. Also, we included genotyping of the APOE ε4 allele in a large subsample of participants to reduce potential confounding attributed to this well-known risk factor for Alzheimer disease. Additionally, our repeated diet measurements, weight, and lifestyle variables permitted us to account for long-term olive oil intake and confounding factors. Furthermore, the use of dietary cumulative average updates reduced random measurement error by considering within-person variations in intake.

This study has limitations. The possibility of reverse causation cannot be excluded due to the observational nature of our study. However, the 4-year lagged analysis results, consistent with the primary analysis, suggest that olive oil intake is predictive of dementia mortality rather than a consequence of premorbid dementia. While it is plausible that higher olive oil intake could be indicative of a healthier diet and higher SES, our results remained consistent after accounting for the latter. Despite adjusting for key covariates, residual confounding may remain due to unmeasured factors. Also, our study was conducted among health professionals. While this minimizes the potential confounding effects of socioeconomic factors and likely increases reporting due to a high level of education, this may also limit generalizability. Our population was predominantly of non-Hispanic White participants, limiting generalizability to more diverse populations. Additionally, we could not differentiate among various types of olive oil that differ in their polyphenols and other nonlipid bioactive compounds content.

This study found that in US adults, particularly women, consuming more olive oil was associated with lower risk of dementia-related mortality, regardless of diet quality. Substituting olive oil intake for margarine and mayonnaise was associated with lower risk of dementia mortality and may be a potential strategy to improve longevity free of dementia. These findings extend the current dietary recommendations of choosing olive oil and other vegetable oils to the context of cognitive health and related mortality.

Accepted for Publication: March 6, 2024.

Published: May 6, 2024. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.10021

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License . © 2024 Tessier AJ et al. JAMA Network Open .

Corresponding Authors: Anne-Julie Tessier, RD, PhD ( [email protected] ), and Marta Guasch-Ferré, PhD ( [email protected] ), Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 655 Huntington Ave, Bldg 2, Boston, MA 02115.

Author Contributions: Drs Tessier and Guasch-Ferré had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Tessier, Chavarro, Hu, Willett, Guasch-Ferré.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Tessier, Cortese, Yuan, Bjornevik, Ascherio, Wang, Chavarro, Stampfer, Willett, Guasch-Ferré.

Drafting of the manuscript: Tessier.

Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Tessier, Cortese, Yuan, Bjornevik, Ascherio, Wang, Chavarro, Stampfer, Hu, Willett, Guasch-Ferré.

Statistical analysis: Tessier, Cortese, Wang, Willett, Guasch-Ferré.

Obtained funding: Chavarro, Stampfer, Hu, Guasch-Ferré.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Cortese, Yuan, Stampfer, Hu.

Supervision: Chavarro, Hu, Guasch-Ferré.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Cortese reported a speaker honorarium from Roche outside the submitted work. Dr Ascherio reported receiving speaker honoraria from WebMD, Prada Foundation, Biogen, Moderna, Merck, Roche, and Glaxo-Smith-Kline. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study is supported by the research grant R21 AG070375 from the National Institutes of Health to Dr Guasch-Ferré. The NHS, NHSII and HPFS are supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (UM1 CA186107, P01 CA87969, U01 CA167552, P30 DK046200, HL034594, HL088521, HL35464, HL60712). Dr Tessier is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Postdoctoral Fellowship Award. Dr Guasch-Ferré is supported the Novo Nordisk Foundation grant NNF23SA0084103.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2 .

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts