Advertisement

Social Justice Research

, Volume 23, Issue 2–3, pp 99–116 | Cite as

A Closer Look at an Eye for an Eye: Laypersons’ Punishment Decisions Are Primarily Driven by Retributive Motives

  • Livia B. KellerEmail author
  • Margit E. Oswald
  • Ingrid Stucki
  • Mario Gollwitzer
Article

Abstract

According to recent research on laypersons’ punitive attitudes people’s sentencing decisions are primarily driven by a desire for retribution. The research designed to test this notion, however, can be criticized for suffering from several limitations. Three online-based studies were conducted with samples from Western Europe with the aim of replicating the findings of Carlsmith (J Exp Soc Psychol 42:437–451, 2006) in which participants’ punishment motives were inferred from their behavior in a process tracing task. In the present research, this approach was adopted and modified in order to provide a more conservative test for the notion that people mainly care about retribution. Although these modifications strongly influenced the overall pattern of results, retribution still was the most important punishment motive in all three studies.

Keywords

Retribution Punishment motives Punishment justifications Behavioral process tracing Just deserts 

References

  1. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing Authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (1993). Intuitions about penalties and compensation in the context of tort law. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentham, J. (2008). The rationale of punishment. In R. Smith (Ed. and Trans.), The making of the modern world. Farmington Hills, MI: Thomson Gale. (Original work published 1830).Google Scholar
  4. Carlsmith, K. M. (2001). Why do we punish? Retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation as motives for punishment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(03), 1640B.Google Scholar
  5. Carlsmith, K. M. (2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 437–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlsmith, K. M. (2008). On justifying punishment: The discrepancy between words and action. Social Justice Research, 21, 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlsmith, K. M., & Darley, J. M. (2008). Psychological aspects of retributive justice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 193–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 284–299.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Carroll, J., Perkowitz, W., Lurigio, A., & Weaver, K. (1987). Sentencing goals, causal attributions, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 107–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Darley, J. (2002). Just punishment: Research on retributional justice. In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 314–333). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Darley, J. M., Carlsmith, K. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2000). Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 659–683.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Darley, J. M., & Pittman, T. S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 324–336.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Doble, J. (2002). Attitudes to punishment in the US—Punitive and liberal opinions. In J. V. Roberts & M. Hough (Eds.), Changing attitudes to punishment (pp. 128–147). Cullompton, UK: Willan.Google Scholar
  14. Endres, J. (1992). Sanktionszweckeinstellungen im Rechtsbewusstsein von Laien [Attitudes towards punishment goals and moral sense among laypersons]. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  15. Feather, N. T. (1996). Reactions to penalties for an offense in relation to authoritarianism, values, perceived responsibility, perceived seriousness, and deservingness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 571–587.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gollwitzer, M. (2004). Do normative transgressions affect punitive judgments? An empirical test of the psychoanalytic scapegoat hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1650–1660.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gromet, D. M., & Darley, J. M. (2006). Restoration and retribution: How including retributive components affects the acceptability of restorative justice procedures. Social Justice Research, 19, 395–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hogan, R., & Emler, N. P. (1981). Retributive justice. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 125–143). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jacoby, J., Jaccard, J., Kuss, A., Troutman, T., & Mazursky, D. (1987). New directions in behavioral process research: Implications for social psychology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 146–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kant, I. (1797/1968). Die Metaphysik der Sitten [The metaphysics of conventions]. In Kants Werke (Akademie Textausgabe, Vol. VI) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  21. Mayhew, P., & van Kesteren, J. (2002). Cross-national attitudes to punishment. In J. V. Roberts & M. Hough (Eds.), Changing attitudes to punishment (pp. 63–92). Cullompton, UK: Willan.Google Scholar
  22. Napier, J. L., & Jost, J. T. (2008). The “Antidemocratic Personality” revisited: a cross-national investigation of working-class authoritarianism. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 595–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M. (2008). Punishment as restoration of group and offender values following a transgression: Value consensus through symbolic labelling and offender reform. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 346–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oswald, M. E., Hupfeld, J., Klug, S. C., & Gabriel, U. (2002). Lay-perspectives on criminal deviance, goals of punishment, and punitivity. Social Justice Research, 15, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oswald, M. E., & Stucki, I. (2009). A two-process-model of punishment. In M. E. Oswald, S. Bieneck, & J. Hupfeld-Heinemann (Eds.), Social psychology of punishment of crime (pp. 173–192). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Roberts, J. V., & Doob, A. N. (1990). News media influences on public views of sentencing. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roberts, J. V., & Edwards, D. (1989). Contextual effects in judgments of crimes, criminals, and the purposes of sentencing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 902–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rucker, D. D., Polifroni, M., Tetlock, P. E., & Scott, A. L. (2004). On the assignment of punishment: The impact of general-societal threat and the moderating role of severity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 673–684.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Sidanius, J., Mitchell, M., Haley, H., & Navarrete, C. D. (2006). Support for harsh criminal sanctions and criminal justice beliefs: A social dominance perspective. Social Justice Research, 19, 433–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stalans, L. J. (2002). Measuring attitudes to sentencing. In J. V. Roberts & M. Hough (Eds.), Changing attitudes to punishment (pp. 128–147). Cullompton, UK: Willan.Google Scholar
  32. Steiner, J. M., & Fahrenberg, J. (2000). Autoritäre Einstellung und Statusmerkmale von ehemaligen Angehörigen der Waffen-SS und SS und der Wehrmacht: Eine erweiterte Reanalyse der 1970 publizierten Untersuchung [Authoritarianism and social status of former members of the Waffen-SS and SS and of the Wehrmacht: An extension and reanalysis of the study published in 1970]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 52, 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Suhling, S., Löbmann, R., & Grewe, W. (2005). Zur Messung von Strafeinstellungen: Argumente für den Einsatz von fiktiven Fallgeschichten [Measuring punitive attitudes: Arguments for the use of fictional case vignettes]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 36, 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Moral heuristics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 531–573.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Vidmar, N. (2002). Retributive justice: its social context. In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 291–313). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vidmar, N., & Miller, D. T. (1980). Social psychological processes underlying attitudes toward legal punishment. Law & Society Review, 14, 565–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wenzel, M. (2004). The social side of sanctions: Personal and social norms as moderators of deterrence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 547–567.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Livia B. Keller
    • 1
    Email author
  • Margit E. Oswald
    • 2
  • Ingrid Stucki
    • 2
  • Mario Gollwitzer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyPhilipps-University MarburgMarburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of BernBern 9Switzerland

Personalised recommendations