Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Are “We” More Punitive than “Me”? Self-Construal Styles, Justice-Related Attitudes, and Punitive Judgments

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cross-cultural as well as procedural justice research suggests that an interdependent self-construal is connected to more justice-related concerns, more moral outrage following observed unethical behavior, and a preference for effective but constructive sanctions. Independent self-construal, on the other hand, is expected to be connected to weaker moral reactions toward injustice, but also to preferring punitive over constructive forms of sanctions. Two studies were conducted in which dispositional self-construal was measured. In Study 2, self-construal was also manipulated with a priming procedure. Results show that interdependent self-construal is connected to stronger emotional reactions toward injustice, to social and moral concerns, to preferences for constructive forms, but also to retribution-oriented goals of punitive sanctions. Independent self-construal, on the other hand, goes along with fewer moral concerns, lower punitiveness, but more draconic attitudes.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, L., & Daniels, L. R. (1963). Responsibility and dependency. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 429–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierhoff, H. W. (2000). Skala der sozialen Verantwortung nach Berkowitz und Daniels: Entwicklung und Validierung [Social Responsibility Scale by Berkowitz and Daniels: Development and Validation]. Diagnostica, 46, 18–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobocel, R., & Holmvall, C. (2002). Self-construals and the fair-process effect. Paper presented at the IXth international social justice conference, Skövde, Sweden.

  • Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J., De Cremer, D., Van den Bos, K., & Chen, Y. (2005). The influence of interdependent self-construal on procedural fairness effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 155–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J., Chen, Y.-R., Mannix, E. A., Leung, K., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2000). Culture and procedural fairness: When the effects of what you do depend on how you do it. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 138–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. (1998). Situational salience and cultural difference in the correspondence bias and actor-observer bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 949–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791–808.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J. M. (2002). Just punishments: Research on retributional justice. In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 314–333). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 317–335.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Derlega, V. J., Cukur, C. S., Kuang, J. C., & Forsyth, D. R. (2002). Interdependent construal of self and the endorsement of conflict resolution strategies in interpersonal, intergroup and international disputes. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 33, 610–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feather, N. T. (1999). Values, achievement and justice: Studies in the psychology of deservingness. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fetchenhauer, D., & Huang, X. (2004). Justice sensitivity and behavior in experimental games. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1015–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). “I” value freedom, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10, 321–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, J. H., Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Rage and reason: The psychology of the intuitive prosecutor. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 781–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, M., & Bücklein, K. (2006). Are “we” more punitive than “me”? Self-construal styles, justice-related attitudes, punitive judgments, and sanctioning goals. Paper presented at the XIth international social justice conference, Berlin, Germany.

  • Gollwitzer, M., & Jäger, J. A. (2006). How do we punish a “black sheep”? Punitive reactions toward norm-violations in an intergroup context. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Gollwitzer, M., Schmitt, M., Schalke, R., Maes, J., & Baer, A. (2005). Asymmetrical effects of Justice Sensitivity perspectives on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Social Justice Research, 18, 183–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, V. L., & Sanders, J. (1983). Universals in judging wrongdoing: Japanese and Americans compared. American Sociological Review, 48, 199–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, V. L., & Sanders, J. (1988). Punishment and the individual in the United States and Japan. Law and Society Review, 22, 301–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, V. L., & Sanders, J. (1992). Everyday justice: Responsibility and the individual in Japan and the United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, G.-S. (1995). Understanding social psychology. Seoul, Korea: Hak-Ji.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannover, B. (1997). Das dynamische Selbst. Die Kontextabhängigkeit selbstbezogenen Wissens [The dynamic self: The context-dependence of self-directed knowledge]. Berne, Switzerland: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannover, B. (2000). Self and culture. Effects on social information processing. In H. Metz-Göckel, B. Hannover, & S. Leffelsend (Eds.), Self, motivation und emotion (pp. 107–117). Berlin, Germany: Logos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannover, B., & Kühnen, U. (2004). Culture, context, and cognition: The Semantic procedural interface model of the self. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 297–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannover, B., Kühnen, U., & Birkner, N. (2000). Independentes und interdependentes Selbstwissen als Determinante von Assimilation und Kontrast bei kontextuellem Priming [Independent and interdependent self-knowledge as a determinant of assimilation versus contrast in contextual priming]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 31, 44–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hupfeld, J. (in press). Men’s and women’s theories about the causes of crime: The influence of severity and type of the offence on intentions to punish. In H.-J. Albrecht, T. Serassis, & H. Kania (Eds.), Images of crime III. Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humblot.

  • Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. (1969). National character: The study of modal personality and sociocultural systems. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vol. IV (pp. 418–506). New York: McGraw-Hill. (Original work published 1954).

    Google Scholar 

  • Karremans, J. C., Van Lange, P. A. M., & Holland, R. W. (2005). Forgiveness and its associations with prosocial thinking, feeling, and doing beyond the relationship with the offender. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1315–1326.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kühnen, U., Hannover, B., & Schubert, B. (2001). The semantic-procedural interface model of the self: The role of self-knowledge for context-dependent versus context-independent modes of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 397–409.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. S., Goldberg, J. H., & Tetlock, P. E. (1998). Sober second thought: The effects of accountability, anger, and authoritarianism on attributions of responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 563–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., & Morris, M. W. (2001). Justice through the lens of culture and ethnicity. In J. Sanders & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law (pp. 343–378). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maes, J. (1994). Drakonität als Personmerkmal: Entwicklung und erste Erprobung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung von Urteilsstrenge (Drakonität) versus Milde [Draconity as a personality trait: Development and first testing of a questionnaire measuring harshness of judgments (Draconity) versus mildness] (Reports on Responsibility, Justice, and Morality No. 78). Trier, Germany: University of Trier, Fachbereich I—Psychologie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maes, J., Schmitt, M., & Schmal, A. (1995). Gerechtigkeit als innerdeutsches Problem: Werthaltungen, Kontrollüberzeugungen, Freiheitsüberzeugungen, Drakonität, Soziale Einstellungen, Empathie und Protestantische Arbeitsethik als Kovariate [Justice as an intra-German problem: Value orientations, control beliefs, freedom beliefs, Draconity, social attitudes, empathy, and protestant work ethics as covariate] (Reports on Responsibility, Justice, and Morality No. 85). Trier, Germany: University of Trier, Fachbereich I—Psychologie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marques, J. M., Páez, D., & Abrams, D. (1998). Social identity and intragroup differentation as subjective social control. In S. Worchel, J. F. Morales, D. Páez, & J.-C. Deschamps (Eds.), Social identity (pp. 124–141). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J.-P. (1988). The “Black Sheep Effect”: Extremity of judgment towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. N. (1997). A developmental perspective of self-construals and sex differences: Comment on Cross and Madson (1997). Psychological Bulletin, 122, 45–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961–978.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Na, E.-Y., & Loftus, E. F. (1998). Attitudes toward law and prisoners, conservative authoritarianism, attribution, and internal-external locus of control. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 595–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oetzel, J. G. (1998). Explaining individual communication processes in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups through individualism-collectivism and self-construal. Human Communication Research, 25, 204–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oswald, M. (2001). Reagieren Männer und Frauen unterschiedlich hart auf normabweichendes Verhalten? [Do men and women react differently toward norm-deviant behavior?] In A. Godenzi (Ed.), Frieden, Kultur und Geschlecht (pp. 161–189). Freiburg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach, K. (2000). Changing punishment at the turn of the century: Restorative justice on the rise. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 249–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roeder, U.-R., & Hannover, B. (2002). Kontextabhangigkeit als Dimension der Selbstkonstruktion: Entwicklung und Validierung der Dortmunder Kontextabhangigskeits-Skala (DKS) [The measurement of context-dependency of self-construals]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 23, 339–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogosa, D. (1995). Myths and methods: Myths about longitudinal research plus supplemental questions. In J. M. Gottman (Ed.), The analysis of change (pp. 3–65). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sargent, M. J. (2004). Less thought, more punishment: Need for cognition predicts support for punitive responses to crime. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1485–1493.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M., Eid, M., & Maes, J. (2003). Synergistic person × situation interaction in distributive justice behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 141–147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J., & Arbach, D. (2005). Justice sensitivity: Assessment and location in the personality space. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 202–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert, B. (2002). Wie das Selbst das Denken formt—Der Einfluss von Selbstwissen auf die Informationsverarbeitung im sozialen Kontext [How the self shapes thinking—The influence of self-knowledge on information processing in the social context]. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from http://opus.kobv.de/tuberlin/volltexte/2002/491

  • Schwenkmezger, P., Hodapp, V., & Spielberger, C. D. (1992). State-Trait-Ärgerausdrucks-Inventar STAXI [State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory STAXI]. Berne, Switzerland: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singelis, T. M., Bond, M. H., Sharkey, W. F., & Lai, C. S. Y. (1999). Unpackaging culture’s influence on self-esteem and embarrassability. The role of self-construals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 315–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spielberger, C. D. (1988). STAXI. State-trait anger expression inventory. Tampa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprott, J. B., & Doob, A. N. (1997). Fear, victimization, and attitudes to sentencing, the courts, and the police. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 39, 275–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Boeckmann, R. J. (1997). Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers. Law and Society Review, 31, 237–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Weber, R. (1983). Support for the death penalty. Law and Society Review, 17, 201–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bos, K., Bruins, J., Wilke, H. A. M., & Dronkert, E. (1999). Sometimes unfair procedures have nice aspects: On the psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 324–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Prooijen, J.-W. (2006). Retributive reactions to suspected offenders: The importance of social categorizations and guilt probability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 715–726.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. (2001). Retribution and revenge. In J. Sanders & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law (pp. 31–63). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank John M. Darley, Ute Gabriel, and Jane Thompson for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Campus Landau, Fortstraße 7, Landau, 76829, Germany

    Mario Gollwitzer

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Trier, Trier, Germany

    Katrin Bücklein

Authors
  1. Mario Gollwitzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katrin Bücklein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Gollwitzer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gollwitzer, M., Bücklein, K. Are “We” More Punitive than “Me”? Self-Construal Styles, Justice-Related Attitudes, and Punitive Judgments. Soc Just Res 20, 457–478 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0051-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0051-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation