Retributive Reactions to Suspected Offenders: The Importance of Social Categorizations and Guilt Probability

When “good guys” do bad things: Evaluations of sexual harassment allegations against male allies

Across two studies ( Ns = 268 and 574), we examined the perceived legitimacy of sexual harassment allegations made against male allies. Overall, observers were less inclined to believe an allegation (Studies 1 and 2) and endorsed less severe punishments against a perpetrator who engaged in egalitarian (vs. sexist) behaviors toward women (Studies 1 and 2). Observers also endorsed weaker reparatory measures, were more willing to move past the allegation, and were more inclined to blame the victim for the incident when an egalitarian (vs. sexist) man was accused, especially when there was greater uncertainty surrounding his guilt (Study 2). Importantly, these effects were mediated by perpetrator typicality: the egalitarian perpetrator less closely resembled a typical perpetrator of sexual harassment, which, in turn, predicted more lenient evaluations (Study 2). These findings highlight how accusations of male allies’ problematic behavior can reinforce widespread scepticism surrounding sexual harassment allegations and discriminatory attitudes towards victims.

Punishment Reactions to Powerful Suspects

Abstract. This study aimed to replicate the intuitive retributivism hypothesis, according to which people’s punitive sentiments are predominantly driven by retributive concerns. Contrary to prior research that focuses on how people punish offenders, this study investigated how people punish individuals suspected of immoralities. Moreover, we manipulated a suspect’s power level (high/low/undefined) and stated contrasting hypotheses (the “power corrupts” approach vs. the “power leniency” approach) regarding the impact of power on punishment motives. Finally, we investigated the mediating role of recidivism and guilt likelihood in these effects. The results replicated the intuitive retributivism hypothesis and revealed the robustness of this effect. Moreover, in line with the “power corrupts” approach, we found that the role of utilitarian (but not retributive or restorative) motives is stronger in the punishment of powerful suspects as opposed to powerless ones. Unexpectedly, neither guilt likelihood nor recidivism of a suspect mediated the effects of power on punishment motives.

The Importance of Unfair Intentions and Outcome Inequality for Punishment by Third Parties and Victims

Abstract. Retributive theories predominantly focus on third party’s motives for punishment, which are rather affected by the offender’s malicious intentions than the actual outcome of the offense. However, victims experience an offense from a different perspective. The value/status approach argues that an offense has two facets that produce different threats: the intentional violation of values and status imbalance between offender and victims. We suggested that third parties and victims punish unfair intentions, whereas victims also punish because of the outcome inequality. In the present study, we orthogonally crossed the factors offender’s intention with the actual outcome and perspective of punisher (third-party versus victim). Results show that victims punish harsher than third parties. However, there are no qualitative differences of third-party punishment and punishment by victims. Rather, both punish malicious intentions and outcome inequality. We discuss how the findings relate to retributivism and other psychological theories of punishment.

Beyond the Pale: Dark Traits and Close Relations Influence Attitudes toward COVID-19 and the Rejection of Quarantine Rules

Dark personality traits are predictors of detrimental behavior (e.g., selfishness or violating norms). This research examined the influence dark personality traits on attitudes toward the COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine rules. We determined whether specific dark traits could predict non-compliance, beyond the global measure of dark personality traits. Additionally, previous research suggests that people are more likely to violate rules for the benefits of close relations, rather than for their own self-interests. We examined how this tendency interacts with dark traits. The 823 participants in the study completed measures of the dark triad, moral disengagement, and attitudes toward COVID-19 rules, and responded to vignettes about themselves or close relations escaping quarantine. Using a bifactor model approach, results showed that a general dark factor predicted non-compliance to COVID-19 rules, but that some moral disengagement mechanisms contributed to non-compliance beyond this factor. Vignette results showed that participants were more willing to break quarantine rules for a close relation than for themselves, except for those high in moral disengagement, who broke rules more-regardless of who was involved. These findings have important implications for intervention programs and policies, since individuals with dark traits tend to "selfishly" trespass norms, but anyone can "go beyond the pale, i.e., go outside the limits of acceptable behavior, for a loved one.

How intergroup relation moderates group bias in Third-Party Punishment

Two experiments were conducted to investigate how intergroup relation moderates group bias in Third-Party Punishment (TPP) of selfishness. Participants competed or cooperated with the other group and then performed a TPP task in which they could reduce an allocator's benefits after paying a low cost (paying 1/3 unit deducts 1 unit of the allocator in Experiment 1, n = 76) or a high cost (paying 1 unit deducts 1 unit of the allocator in Experiment 2, n = 81). The results supported the "mere-preference hypothesis" of group bias, showing that people were more likely to tolerate their ingroups while punishing outgroups more harshly. Furthermore, when the cost was low, competition increased people's punishment toward outgroups' selfishness but not toward ingroup members, thus enlarging the group bias. When the cost was high, however, this effect disappeared, indicating that people consider a "cost-to-impact ratio" when selectively enforcing the fairness norm in intergroup conflicts. Our findings suggest how intergroup relation and cost-benefit analysis interact together to influence the group bias in TPP, providing insights into mechanisms underlying the maintenance of fairness norms and decision-making in a group context.

Why we sometimes punish the innocent: The role of group entitativity in collective punishment

Because punishments are expected to give offenders what they deserve proportionally to the severity of their offenses, the punishment of an entire group because of the misdeed of a few of its members is generally considered as unfair. Group entitativity might increase support for such collective punishment, because members of highly entitative groups are perceived as more similar and interchangeable. We designed three experiments comparing support for third-party collective punishment of low versus high entitative groups. As comparison base-rate, we included conditions in which participants punish an individual wrongdoer (Experiments 1 & 2). Results show that although support for individual punishment is higher than support for collective punishment, this difference was reduced (Experiment 1) or absent (Experiment 2) when the group was highly entitative. Experiment 3 replicated the increasing effect of group entitativity on support for collective punishment. We conclude that group entitativity increases the likelihood of an entire group being treated as a single unit, facilitating collective punishment when a few group members commit an offense.

Power Moderates the Effects of Social Dominance Orientation on Punishment: An Experimental Analysis

In this study, it was hypothesized that experimentally manipulated levels of power would moderate the association of dispositional social dominance orientation (SDO) with preferences for harsh punishment. In particular, we expected to detect a stronger effect for dispositional SDO in the low-power condition, relying on the notion that low power enhances sensitivity to threats to the status quo, and that high SDO individuals are particularly motivated to enforce hierarchy-enhancing measures as punishment. SDO scores were measured two months prior to the experiment, and then immediately after the experimental session. As expected, preexperimental SDO interacted with the power manipulation. We found stronger preexperimental SDO effects on punishment among low-power participants. We also anticipated and found that individuals high in SDO increased further their postexperimental SDO scores if assigned to a high-power condition. The discussion focuses on the importance of SDO effects among low-status groups and on how situational roles shape dispositional self-descriptions.

A Social Identity Approach to Understanding Responses to Child Sexual Abuse Allegations

Two studies investigated the role of group allegiances in contributing to the failure of institutions to appropriately respond to allegations of child sexual abuse. In Study 1, 601 participants read a news article detailing an allegation of child sexual abuse against a Catholic Priest. Catholics were more protective of the accused–and more skeptical of the accuser—than other participants, an effect that was particularly pronounced among strongly identified Catholics. In Study 2 (N = 404), the tendency for Catholics to be more protective of the accused and more skeptical of the accuser than non-Catholics was replicated. Moreover, these effects held independently of the objective likelihood that the accused was guilty. Overall, the data show that group loyalties provide a psychological motivation to disbelieve child abuse allegations. Furthermore, the people for whom this motivation is strongest are also the people who are most likely to be responsible for receiving and investigating allegations: highly identified ingroup members. The findings highlight the psychological mechanisms that may limit the ability of senior Church figures to conduct impartial investigations into allegations of child abuse within the Church.

The patronizing character and status-preserving function of leniency for outgroup offenders

This research investigates cases in which leniency for offenders from low-status (out)groups reflects a strategy of high-status (in)groups to consolidate intergroup status differentials. In Study 1, we found that participants from a high-status ingroup recommended a more lenient punishment for a low-status outgroup offender only when intergroup status differentials were likely to remain stable. This leniency, however, disappeared when status differentials were fragile. In Study 2, we found that patronizing leniency can even consolidate intergroup status differentials: When participants learned that their ingroup had punished an outgroup offender leniently, they considered an outgroup member who legitimately complained about discrimination more as being a hypersensitive complainer than when they learned that their ingroup had punished the outgroup offender more harshly or similarly as an ingroup offender. These findings suggest that leniency for outgroup offenders can indeed be used strategically by the in-group to secure its advantaged status.

Delineating the Influence of Emotion and Reason on Morality and Punishment

The present article examines the available literature on the association between emotion, conscious reasoning, morality, and punishment. Although conscious reasoning has traditionally been implicated in moral judgment, contemporary research suggests that emotions play a primary role in moral judgment. This article reviews the different lines of evidence supporting the role of emotion in moral decision-making. Disgust seems to be unique from other emotions in its ability to influence moral judgment. Immorality often elicits disgust, individuals sensitive to experiencing disgust tend to make more severe moral judgments, and experimental disgust inductions can influence judgments about moral violations. However, the extent to which the emotion-moral judgment association extends to decisions about punishment remains unclear. This review considers various concepts, including moral outrage, responsibility, and blameworthiness that may influence the extent to which emotion informs punishment decisions. The implications of these findings for current thinking on morality and punishment, and future directions for research are discussed.

Terrorists Among Us

Support among US citizens for severe interrogation has been recognized as drawing upon utilitarian as well as on retributive motivation ( Carlsmith & Sood, 2009 ). Two studies were conducted to expand on these findings in a Swiss sample. In Study 1, participants rated the severity of different interrogation techniques, which were scaled to provide an alternative measure of interrogation severity. In Study 2, retributive motivation was manipulated by varying the terrorist past of a male suspect, and utilitarian motivation was manipulated by varying the probability that the suspect could provide valuable information. Additionally, we manipulated the suspect’s group membership. The results of the vignette study suggest that the number and severity of recommended interrogation techniques is mainly influenced by whether the suspect might provide valuable information. Whether the suspect had a terrorist past was an additional influence that, however, was primarily attributable to the suspect’s group membership: If the suspect belonged to the ingroup, participants’ harsher interrogation recommendations were affected by that person’s past, whereas recommendations were not significantly influenced by a terrorist past if the suspect was an outgroup member.

The impact of choice on retributive reactions: how observers' autonomy concerns shape responses to criminal offenders

The present research examined the psychological origins of retributive reactions, which are defined as independent observers' anger-based emotions, demonized perceptions, and punishment intentions in response to criminal offenders. Based on the idea that society's justice system has an autonomy-protective function, we reason that chronic autonomy interacts with situational autonomy cues (i.e., opportunities to make choices) to predict retributive reactions to criminal offenders. More specifically, we hypothesized that choice opportunities in an unrelated decision-making context would prompt people to display stronger retributive reactions to offenders than no-choice opportunities, and that these effects of choice would be particularly pronounced among people who chronically experience deprivation of autonomy needs. Results from two experiments supported this hypothesis. It is concluded that retributive reactions to criminal offenders originate from a desire to regulate basic autonomy needs.

Motivation losses in teamwork

Team diversity may lead to a categorization of teammates as ingroup versus outgroup members. Therefore, the question arises whether there would be more permissiveness in reaction to ingroup free-riders than outgroup free-riders. To test this hypothesis, subjects were randomly assigned to one of two reward conditions (equity versus equality) and had to work with a partner who obviously underachieved and supposedly belonged to the same or a different group with regard to cognitive style. In addition, we assessed subjects’ individual sensitivity to equity norms, assuming that this would be a further moderator of the sucker effect. As expected, significant interaction effects on individual performance occurred for both variables.

The Other Side of Perspective Taking

The current investigation examined the untested effects of perspective taking on revenge. After taking the perspective of their offender (or not), victims of an experimentally induced injustice were given the opportunity to exact revenge. When the violation was ambiguous, perspective taking resulted in favorable attribution biases and reduced revenge. In contrast, perspective taking increased desires for revenge when the violation was clear. Both effects were apparent only for victims with a high interdependent self-construal, suggesting that they are motivated by the desire to condemn moral threats to one’s social self-concept, either by attributing the offender’s immoral actions to an external cause (decreased revenge) or taking a stand against the offender’s immorality (increased revenge).

What You Did Only Matters if You Are One of Us

Research has demonstrated that repeat offenders are generally punished more severely than first-time offenders. In the present article, we argue that this should particularly be true if the offender is a member of one’s own social category. A group of 86 students were told about a fellow student who hid books from the university library. The student was either an ingroup or an outgroup member and was either a first-time or a repeat offender. As expected, repeat ingroup offenders were more severely punished than first-time ingroup offenders; this effect was mediated by anger/outrage and societal concerns. If the offender was an outgroup member, however, criminal history did not influence punitive reactions.