Skip to main content

Retribution as Revenge and Retribution as Just Deserts

Abstract

Public attitudes towards law-breakers shape the tone and tenor of crime-control policy, and the desire for retribution seems to be the main motivation underpinning punitive attitudes towards sentencing. Yet, there is some confusion in the research literature over what retribution really means. In this paper we distinguish between retribution as revenge (as the desire to punish criminal offenders to retaliate a past wrong by making the offender suffer) and retribution as just deserts (as the preference to restore justice through proportional compensation from the offender). Results from an online survey (n = 176) provide evidence of two distinct dimensions of retribution. But we also show that these two dimensions have different ideological and motivational antecedents, and have different consequences in terms of the treatment of criminal offender. We find that retribution as revenge is associated with the motivation to enforce status boundaries with criminal offenders, as well as ideological preferences for power and dominance (as expressed by social dominance orientation) and in-group conformity (as expressed by right-wing authoritarianism). Endorsement of retribution as revenge also predicts the support of harsh punishment and the willingness to deny fair procedures. By contrast, retribution as just deserts is mainly predicted by a value restoration motive and by right-wing authoritarianism. After controlling for revenge, retribution as just deserts predicts support for procedural justice in the criminal courts. We conclude with the idea that beliefs about proportionality and compensation work as a buffer against the negative effects of revenge.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    There are parallels here to Durkheim’s (1964, 1973) argument that punishment should be considered a moral phenomenon: while crime violates the moral order in society, punishment serves an expressive role of reaffirming social bonds and defining the boundaries of social groups.

  2. 2.

    Finckenauer (1988) proposed scales to measure both concepts and some of his items are used for the current research.

  3. 3.

    To avoid combining the goals of punishment with the process by which punishment is assigned, we do not consider measures on the role of emotions in the decision process or the strength of the response as part of the measurement of retributive punishment. Rather, we consider separate measures on the fairness of procedures by which criminal offenders are punished (in terms of neutrality and whether emotions should play a role, as well as respecting the offender during the sentencing process) and the harshness of punishment.

  4. 4.

    Note, however, that we have left out from this definition the restoration of moral balance in society. While communicative theories of punishment are often classified as part of retribution (e.g. De Keijser et al., 2002), we consider the restoration of moral balance as not being part of the core concept of just deserts, but rather a symbolic motive of punishment that could be relevant to both types of retribution.

  5. 5.

    While it is also possible to evaluate the separate role of the sub-dimensions of RWA (conventionalism and submission to authorities), preliminary analyses of our data suggest that they relate in similar ways to punitive attitudes and we thus consider them together.

  6. 6.

    Nonetheless, two studies that controlled for RWA found no relationship between SDO and punitive attitudes (Colémont et al., 2011; McKee & Feather, 2008). These inconsistent findings might be due to the confounding of different punishment goals, the fact that they controlled for RWA and authoritarian aggression (which usually includes items on the harsh punishment of criminal offenders) and the fact that they have considered SDO as a whole, while only GBD has been found to predict punitive attitudes.

  7. 7.

    Given its focus on proportionality, the extent to which a just deserts perspective relates to preferences for harsh punishment should depend on the severity of the crime. Since we are measuring punishment goals in general, we do not specify a hypothesis about the relationship between just deserts and harsh punishment.

  8. 8.

    Studies on the use of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to collect data have concluded that not only is the data as reliable as data collected through other means, but participants are also more diverse in terms of socio-demographic variables (e.g. Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011).

  9. 9.

    To simplify, in the remaining of this paper we refer to right-wing authoritarianism even though it only considers measures on authoritarian submission and conventionalism.

  10. 10.

    Note that while a two factor model fits the data better, retribution as revenge and just deserts are still highly correlated (r = .61, p < .01) and special caution was placed in the remaining analyses to rule out multicollinearity issues. For the following analyses, variance inflation factors (VIF) were all below 3.1, which suggests that despite the high correlation, multicollinearity problems were only moderate. Also note that we do not use likelihood-ratio test to assess relative model fit because a likelihood-ratio test is not appropriate in the context. The null hypothesis in this case (that the correlation between the two factors is 1) implies a parameter that is on the boundary of the parameter space, so the asymptotic Chi square distribution (that is normally used for likelihood-ratio tests) is not appropriate.

  11. 11.

    Parcels—i.e. indicators that aggregate two or more items by using a sum or average- are often used in structural equation modelling (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). When using parcels random and systematic error of single items are not incorporated into the model, and model fit and stability are thus improved. While some argue that a model should represent the sources of variance of all items, parceling is recommended for studies—such as this—where the aim is to explore relationships between latent variables and not factor structures.

  12. 12.

    We should note, however, that we do not wish to imply a causal path from ideological dispositions to symbolic motives of punishment, retributive justice and the treatment of criminal offenders. Our use of structural equation model seeks to organise and disentangle variables and their relationships more than proposing that some variables are temporarily prior to others. While it may be possible to argue that RWA and SDO are prior to attitudes towards punishment and criminal offenders, respondents are likely to think of symbolic motives, retribution and the treatment of criminal offenders as dimensions of the same attitude.

References

  1. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Banks, C. (2008). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks; London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boeckmann, R. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1997). Commonsense justice and inclusion within the moral community: When do people receive procedural protections from others? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(2–3), 362–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carlsmith, K. M. (2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(4), 437–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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(2), 284–299.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Carroll, J. S., Perkowitz, W. T., Lurigio, A. J., & Weaver, F. M. (1987). Sentencing goals, causal attributions, ideology, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 107–118.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Colémont, A., Van Hiel, A., & Cornelis, I. (2011). Five-factor model personality dimensions and right-wing attitudes: Psychological bases of punitive attitudes? Personality and Individual Differences, 50(4), 486–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. De Keijser, J. W., Van Der Leeden, R., & Jackson, J. L. (2002). From moral theory to penal attitudes and back: A theoretically integrated modeling approach. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20(4), 317–335.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). Amsterdam: Academic Press/Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Duckitt, J., Bizumic, B., Krauss, S. W., & Heled, E. (2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31(5), 685–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Durkheim, É. (1964). The division of labor in society (trans: Simpson, G.). New York; London: Free Press, Collier Macmillan. (Original work published 1893).

  14. Durkheim, É. (1973). Moral education: A study in the theory and application of the sociology of education (trans: Wilson, E., Schnurer, H.). New York: Free Press (Original work published 1925).

  15. Feather, N. T. (1998). Reactions to penalties for offenses committed by the police and public citizens: Testing a social–cognitive process model of retributive justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 528–544.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Feather, N. T., & Souter, J. (2002). Reactions to mandatory sentences in relation to the ethnic identity and criminal history of the offender. Law and Human Behavior, 26(4), 417–438.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Finckenauer, J. O. (1988). Public support for the death penalty: Retribution as just deserts or retribution as revenge? Justice Quarterly, 5(1), 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ho, R., ForsterLee, L., ForsterLee, R., & Crofts, N. (2002). Justice versus vengeance: Motives underlying punitive judgements. Personality and Individual Differences, 33(3), 365–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 209–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York; London: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 151–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Marques, D. (1990). The black sheep-effect: Out-group homogeneity in social comparison settings. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 131–151). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  23. McKee, I., & Feather, N. (2008). Revenge, retribution, and values: Social attitudes and punitive sentencing. Social Justice Research, 21(2), 138–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Miller, D. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 527–553.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M. (2010). The symbolic identity implications of inter and intra-group transgressions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(3), 552–562.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Okimoto, T. G., Wenzel, M., & Feather, N. T. (2011). Retribution and restoration as general orientations towards justice. European Journal of Personality, 26(3), 255–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Orth, U. (2003). Punishment goals of crime victims. Law and Human Behavior, 27(2), 173–186.

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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(2), 85–98.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sidanius, J., Mitchell, M., & Navarrete, N. (2006). Support for harsh criminal sanctions and criminal justice beliefs: A social dominance perspective. Social Justice Research, 19(4), 433–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Stuckless, N., & Goranson, R. (1992). The vengeance scale: Development of a measure of attitudes toward revenge. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 7(1), 25–42.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Thomsen, L., Green, E. G. T., & Sidanius, J. (2008). We will hunt them down: How social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism fuel ethnic persecution of immigrants in fundamentally different ways. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 1455–1464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Vidmar, N. (2000). Retribution and revenge. In J. Sanders & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law (Vol. 2, pp. 31–63). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Vidmar, N., & Miller, D. T. (1980). Socialpsychological processes underlying attitudes toward legal punishment. Law & Society Review, 14, 565–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Von Hirsch, A. (1976). Doing justice: the choice of punishments: Report of the Committee for the Study of Incarceration. New York: Hill and Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Reyna, C. (1997). An attributional examination of retributive versus utilitarian philosophies of punishment. Social Justice Research, 10(4), 431–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T., & Cameron, K. (2012). Do retributive and restorative justice processes address different symbolic concerns? Critical Criminology, 20(1), 25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wenzel, M., & Thielmann, I. (2006). Why we punish in the name of justice: Just desert versus value restoration and the role of social identity. Social Justice Research, 19(4), 450–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica M. Gerber.

Appendix

Appendix

Harsh Punishment

  • People who break the law should be given harsher sentences.

  • The use of harsh punishment should be avoided whenever possible.

  • We should make sentences more severe for all crimes.

  • If prison has to be used, it should be used sparingly and only as a last option.

Procedural Justice: Respect

  • After committing an offence, criminal offenders lose the right to be treated with respect.

  • Despite what has happened, criminal offenders are entitled to treatment with respect and politeness.

  • Criminal offenders deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

Procedural Justice: Neutral Sentencing.

  • When deciding on the appropriate punishment, criminal offenders do not deserve to be treated according to fair rules and procedures.

  • It is essential to ensure fairness and consistency when deciding on the appropriate punishment of criminal offenders.

  • In deciding a criminal case, it is important to be objective when considering the evidence.

  • In deciding a criminal case, it is okay to allow emotions to influence judgements.

  • In deciding a criminal case, it is alright to allow anger towards the defendant to play a part in the decision.

  • In deciding a criminal case, the decision should be based in part, on subjective, personal feelings.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gerber, M.M., Jackson, J. Retribution as Revenge and Retribution as Just Deserts. Soc Just Res 26, 61–80 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-012-0174-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Retribution
  • Revenge
  • Just deserts
  • Right-wing authoritarianism
  • Social dominance orientation