Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Bentham used the term particular prevention (Bentham, 1830/2008). When only focusing on negative aspects, the justification was also named specific deterrence (Wenzel, 2004; Rucker, Polifroni, Tetlock, & Scott, 2004; Sidanius, Mitchell, Haley, & Navarrete, 2006).

  2. Gender, age, and aspired degree were not assessed. Approximately, 95% of the sample consisted of students of psychology, 65% were female, and ages ranged between 21 and 27 years.

  3. The present study is actually based on Carlsmith (2001) where the item concerning extenuating circumstances was titled “motivation”.

  4. The order in which the items were presented had no significant effect on the mean rank preference score in any of the studies (Kruskal–Wallis, Study 1: all χ2(2, N = 73) ≤ 3.11, p ≥ .212; Study 2: all χ2(2, N = 78) ≤ 2.28, p ≥ .320). In Study 3, the online-tool did not allow for complete counterbalancing. Hence only items of retribution, incapacitation and general prevention, but not special prevention were presented on top of the list. Again, there were no significant differences in mean rank preference scores between the order in which items were presented (Kruskal–Wallis: all χ2(2, N = 54) ≤ 3.03, p ≥ .220).

  5. After participants had received more information about the criminal case, they indicated their punishment decision. The mean sentences did not differ between the studies, F(2,193) = .015, p = .985, and will not be further reported.

  6. For all three studies, portfolio analyses were conducted as reported by Carlsmith (2006). Results confirmed the pattern of the mean rank preference scores. The analyses can be requested from the first author.

References

  • Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing Authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (1993). Intuitions about penalties and compensation in the context of tort law. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 17–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Carlsmith, K. M. (2001). Why do we punish? Retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation as motives for punishment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(03), 1640B.

    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. (2008). On justifying punishment: The discrepancy between words and action. Social Justice Research, 21, 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsmith, K. M., & Darley, J. M. (2008). Psychological aspects of retributive justice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 193–236.

    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 

  • Carroll, J., Perkowitz, W., Lurigio, A., & Weaver, K. (1987). Sentencing goals, causal attributions, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 107–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Endres, J. (1992). Sanktionszweckeinstellungen im Rechtsbewusstsein von Laien [Attitudes towards punishment goals and moral sense among laypersons]. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1797/1968). Die Metaphysik der Sitten [The metaphysics of conventions]. In Kants Werke (Akademie Textausgabe, Vol. VI) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Roberts, J. V., & Doob, A. N. (1990). News media influences on public views of sentencing. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 451–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Moral heuristics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 531–573.

    PubMed  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: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M. (2004). The social side of sanctions: Personal and social norms as moderators of deterrence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 547–567.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Philipps-University Marburg, Gutenbergstr. 18, 35032, Marburg, Germany

    Livia B. Keller & Mario Gollwitzer

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Bern, Muesmattstr. 45, 3000, Bern 9, Switzerland

    Margit E. Oswald & Ingrid Stucki

Authors
  1. Livia B. Keller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Margit E. Oswald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ingrid Stucki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mario Gollwitzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Livia B. Keller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keller, L.B., Oswald, M.E., Stucki, I. et al. A Closer Look at an Eye for an Eye: Laypersons’ Punishment Decisions Are Primarily Driven by Retributive Motives. Soc Just Res 23, 99–116 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-010-0113-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-010-0113-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation