Skip to main content

Increased Voting for Candidates Who Compensate Victims Rather than Punish Offenders

Abstract

Three studies demonstrate that people are more likely to vote for political candidates who respond to injustice in a compensatory rather than punitive manner. Participants were more likely to vote for candidates who responded to various transgressions (the Darfur crisis, campus bike theft, and domestic violence) by compensating victims (or simultaneously compensating victims and punishing perpetrators) rather than solely punishing the perpetrator or not responding. Furthermore, participants’ perceptions of candidates’ warmth (but not competence) mediated the relationship between punishing versus compensating and voting.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hayes and Preacher (2011) recommend using dummy-coding to facilitate interpretation of the coefficients when you have a multi-categorical independent variable in a mediation model. Although it is common to use the control condition as the reference group in this coding strategy it is not required. Instead, we purposefully used the punishment condition as the reference group so we could directly analyze the comparison of interest: punishing versus compensating. In addition, given that the punisher was more likely to be voted for than the non-responder but less likely to be voted for than the compensator, use of punishment as the reference group allowed us to explain the most interesting differences in the data with one set of dummy-coded vectors.

  2. 2.

    We conducted similar mediation analyses using the non-response condition as the reference group. Warmth (but not competence) mediated the effects of (a) not responding versus compensating and (b) not responding versus simultaneously punishing/compensating on voting. This was also true in Studies 2 and 3.

References

  1. Aaker, J., Vohs, K. D., & Mogilner, C. (2010). Nonprofits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: Firm stereotypes matter. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 224–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abelson, R. P., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., & Fiske, S. T. (1982). Affective and semantic components in political person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(4), 619–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., Carey, J. A., & Cartier, P. (2001). Recipient and observer reactions to discipline: Are managers experiencing wishful thinking? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 249–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims, H. P. (1993). Justice and organizational punishment: Attitudinal outcomes of disciplinary events. Social Justice Research, 6, 39–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Balliet, D., Mulder, L. B., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2011). Reward, punishment, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 594–619.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Barclay, P. (2006). Reputational benefits for altruistic punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(5), 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Becker, J. C., Glick, P., Ilic, M., & Bohner, G. (2011). Damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t: Consequences of accepting versus confronting patronizing help for the female target and male actor. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 761–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Blau, P. M. (1963). The dynamics of bureaucracy: A study of interpersonal exchange in two government agencies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Carlsmith, K. M., & Darley, J. M. (2008). Psychological aspects of retributive justice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 41, pp. 193–236). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Carlsmith, K. M., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2008). The paradoxical consequences of revenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1316–1324.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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, 107–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 701–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 73–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Darley, J. M., & Pittman, T. S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 324–336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Durkheim, E. (1964). The division of labor in society. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ehrlich, I. (1996). Crime, punishment, and the market for offenses. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10, 43–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Elias, R. (1983). Symbolic politics of victim compensation. Victimology, 8, 213–224.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ellickson, R. (2001). The market for social norms. American Law and Economics Review, 3, 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Third party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 63–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., & Gächter, S. (2002). Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of norms. Human Nature, 13, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management Review, 9, 47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Flynn, F. J. (2003). How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 539–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Goldberg, I., & Nold, F. C. (1980). Does reporting deter burglars? An empirical analysis of risk and return in crime. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 62, 424–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gollwitzer, M., & Denzler, M. (2009). What makes revenge sweet: Seeing the offender suffer or delivering a message? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 840–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gollwitzer, M., & Keller, L. (2010). What you did only matters if you are one of us: Offenders’ group membership moderate the effect of criminal history on punishment severity. Social Psychology, 41(1), 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gordijn, E. H., Wigboldus, D., & Yzerbyt, V. (2001). Emotional consequences of categorizing victims of negative outgroup behavior as ingroup or outgroup. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 317–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gromet, D. M. (2011). Restoring the victim: Emotional reactions, justice beliefs, and support for reparation and punishment. Critical Criminology. doi:10.1007/s10612-011-9146-8.

  31. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gromet, D. M., & Darley, J. M. (2009). Punishment and beyond: Achieving justice through the satisfaction of multiple goals. Law and Society Review, 43, 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., Cohen, T. R., & Livingston, R. W. (2011). Status conferral in intergroup social dilemmas: Behavioral antecedents and consequences of prestige and dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 351–366.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hans, V. P., & Ermann, M. D. (1989). Responses to corporate versus individual wrongdoing. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1402–1413.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2011). Indirect and direct effects of a multicategorical causal agent in statistical mediation analysis. Unpublished manuscript.

  37. Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Graziano, W. G., & West, S. (1995). Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do nice guys really finish last? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 427–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., Abelson, R. P., & Fiske, S. T. (1980). Presidential prototypes. Political Behavior, 2(4), 315–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kiyonari, T., & Barclay, P. (2008). Free-riding may be thwarted by second-order rewards rather than punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 826–842.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lotz, S., Okimoto, T. G., Schlösser, T., & Fetchenhauer, D. (2010). Punitive versus compensatory reactions to injustice: Emotional antecedents to third-party interventions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 477–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Milinski, M., Semmann, D., & Krambeck, H.-J. (2002). Donors to charity gain in both indirect reciprocity and political reputation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 269, 881–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Miller, D. T., & McCann, C. D. (1979). Children’s reactions to the perpetrators and victims of injustices. Child Development, 50, 861–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Niehoff, B. P., Paul, R. J., & Bunch, J. F. S. (1998). The social effects of punishment events: the influence of violator past performance record and severity of the punishment on observers’ justice perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 589–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Okimoto, T. G. (2008). Outcomes as affirmation of membership value: Monetary compensation as an administrative response to procedural injustice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1270–1282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Okimoto, T., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). Is compensation enough? Relational concerns in responding to unintended inequity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 399–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Olivola, C. Y., & Todorov, A. (2010). Elected in 100 milliseconds: Appearance-based trait inferences and voting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34(2), 83–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 113–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Rucker, D. D., Polifroni, M., Tetlock, P. E., & Scott, A. A. (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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Schnake, M. E. (1986). Vicarious punishment in a work setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 343–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Seinen, I., & Schram, A. (2006). Social status and group norms: Indirect reciprocity in a repeated helping experiment. European Economic Review, 50(3), 581–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Skitka, L. J. (1999). Ideological and attributional boundaries on public compassion: Reactions to individuals and communities affected by a natural disaster. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 792–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Skitka, L. J., & Tetlock, P. E. (1993). Providing public assistance: Cognitive and motivational processes underlying liberal and conservative policy preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1205–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Tetlock, P. E., Self, W. T., & Singh, R. (2010). The punitiveness paradox: When is external pressure exculpatory—And when a signal just to spread blame? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 388–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: The effect of negative emotion expressions on status conferral. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 86–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623–1626.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Trevino, L. K. (1992). The social effects of punishment in organizations: A justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 17(4), 647–676.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Van Prooijen, J. W. (2010). Retributive versus compensatory justice: Observers’ preference for punishing in response to criminal offenses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 72–85.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Vidmar, N., & Miller, D. T. (1980). Social psychological processes underlying attitudes towards legal punishment. Law & Society Review, 14, 565–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behavior, 32(5), 375–389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Willer, R. (2009a). Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review, 74, 23–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Willer, R. (2009b). A status theory of collective action. In S. R. Thye & E. J. Lawler (Eds.), Advances in group processes (pp. 133–163). London: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Wojciszke, B., & Klusek, B. (1996). Moral and competence-related traits in political perception. Polish Psychology Bulletin, 27, 319–324.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ybarra, O., Chan, E., & Park, D. C. (2001). Young and old adults’ concerns with morality and competence. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 85–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Lara Tiedens, Benoît Monin, and Monin/Mullen morality lab members for their comments on this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabrielle S. Adams.

Appendices

Appendix

We conducted supplementary analyses with political orientation as a predictor of voting, warmth, and competence in all three studies. Past studies have shown that political orientation is correlated with people’s preferences for punishment and support for government spending on social problems. For example, some research suggests that conservatives are more punitive than liberals (Carroll, Perkowitz, Lurigio, & Weaver, 1987; Skitka & Tetlock, 1993), although other research provides evidence that liberals are more punitive than conservatives (e.g., when responding to corporate wrongdoing; Hans & Ermann, 1989). Research also suggests that liberals are more willing to spend government funds to help those in need (e.g., victims of a natural disaster) relative to conservatives (Skitka, 1999; Skitka & Tetlock, 1993); liberals might therefore be more willing to compensate victims than conservatives. Thus, we explored whether political orientation would be associated with the likelihood of voting for a particular type of injustice responder.

Across all three studies we found that political orientation did not moderate people’s tendency to vote for candidates who included compensation in their response relative to candidates who solely punished. We nevertheless present these analyses for the interested reader. Importantly, results of all the analyses indicated that our conclusions about people’s preferences for voting for compensators (or those who both compensate and punish) relative to punishers hold for both liberals and conservatives.

Study 1: Supplementary Analyses

We conducted three separate moderated regression analyses (Aiken & West, 1991) to test for an interaction between condition and political orientation on warmth, competence, and voting. We mean centered political orientation and created three dummy-coded vectors to capture injustice response (a non-response vector in which non-response was coded 1 and the remaining conditions were coded 0; a compensation vector in which compensation was coded 1 and the remaining conditions were coded 0; and a punish/compensate vector in which simultaneously punishing and compensating was coded 1 and the remaining conditions were coded 0) (Hayes & Preacher, 2011). Thus, each vector represents the effect of a particular injustice response relative to punishing. We chose the punishment condition as the referent group to facilitate testing for interactions with the comparisons of theoretical interest (i.e., punishment versus not responding, punishment versus compensation, and punishment versus simultaneously punishing and compensating). The results of these regression analyses are reported in Table 4.

Table 4 Unstandardized regression coefficients for predictors of warmth, competence, and voting, Study 1

Study 2: Supplementary Analyses

Despite not having very many conservatives in our sample in Study 2, we again conducted moderated regression analyses to test for an interaction between injustice response condition (using the same vectors as in Study 1) and political orientation (centered) on voting. Results of these regression analyses revealed that political orientation did not have any main or interactive effects with injustice response on warmth, competence or voting, see Table 5. Given the smaller number of conservatives in the sample, these analyses should be interpreted with caution.

Table 5 Unstandardized regression coefficients for predictors of warmth, competence, and voting, Study 2

Study 3: Supplementary Analyses

We conducted moderated regression analyses to test for an interaction between injustice response condition (using the same vectors as in Study 1) and political orientation (centered) on voting. Results of these analyses revealed that political orientation did not have any main or interactive effects with injustice response condition on warmth, competence, or voting, see Table 6.

Table 6 Unstandardized regression coefficients for predictors of warmth, competence, and voting, Study 3

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Adams, G.S., Mullen, E. Increased Voting for Candidates Who Compensate Victims Rather than Punish Offenders. Soc Just Res 26, 168–192 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-013-0179-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Punishment
  • Compensation
  • Voting
  • Warmth
  • Competence
  • Status conferral