Punishment Reactions to Powerful Suspects :  Comparing a “Corrupt” Versus a “Leniency” Approach of Power

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Abstract. This study aimed to replicate the intuitive retributivism hypothesis, according to which people’s punitive sentiments are predominantly driven by retributive concerns. Contrary to prior research that focuses on how people punish offenders, this study investigated how people punish individuals suspected of immoralities. Moreover, we manipulated a suspect’s power level (high/low/undefined) and stated contrasting hypotheses (the “power corrupts” approach vs. the “power leniency” approach) regarding the impact of power on punishment motives. Finally, we investigated the mediating role of recidivism and guilt likelihood in these effects. The results replicated the intuitive retributivism hypothesis and revealed the robustness of this effect. Moreover, in line with the “power corrupts” approach, we found that the role of utilitarian (but not retributive or restorative) motives is stronger in the punishment of powerful suspects as opposed to powerless ones. Unexpectedly, neither guilt likelihood nor recidivism of a suspect mediated the effects of power on punishment motives.

Related collections

Most cited references 59

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Power-Dependence Relations

Richard M. Emerson (1962)

0 comments Cited 880 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies.

Cialdini Robert B., Borden Richard J., Thorne Avril … (1976)

0 comments Cited 410 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Book: not found

Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Third Edition

Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede, Michael Minkov (2010)

The revolutionary study of how the place where we grew up shapes the way we think, feel, and act-- with new dimensions and perspectives Based on research conducted in more than seventy countries over a forty-year span, Cultures and Organizations examines what drives people apart—when cooperation is so clearly in everyone’s interest. With major new contributions from Michael Minkov’s analysis of data from the World Values Survey, as well as an account of the evolution of cultures by Gert Jan Hofstede, this revised and expanded edition: Reveals the “moral circles” from which national societies are built and the unexamined rules by which people think, feel, and act Explores how national cultures differ in the areas of inequality, assertiveness versus modesty, and tolerance for ambiguity Explains how organizational cultures differ from national cultures—and how they can be managed Analyzes stereotyping, differences in language, cultural roots of the 2008 economic crisis, and other intercultural dynamics

0 comments Cited 276 times – based on 0 reviews

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Kyriaki Fousiani

Journal

Journal ID (publisher): zfp

Title: Zeitschrift für Psychologie

Publisher: Hogrefe Publishing

ISSN (Print): 2190-8370

ISSN (Electronic): 2151-2604

Publication date (Electronic): April 1, 2022

Publication date (Print): April 2022

Volume: 230

Issue: 2 , Topical Issue: The Motivational Basis of Punishment: Conceptual Replications of the “Intuitive Retributivism” Hypothesis

Pages: 164-173

Affiliations

[ ¹ ]Department of Organizational Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, The Netherlands

[ ² ]Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Author notes

Kyriaki Fousiani, Department of Organizational Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands k.fousiani@ 123456rug.nl

Article

ApaID ID: zfp_230_2_164

DOI: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000462

SO-VID: 79a26e7d-9fd3-4ac7-9947-65a8e0a58055

History

Date received : March 26, 2020

Date revision received : March 12, 2021

Date accepted : April 23, 2021

Funding

Funding: The authors wish to thank the PsychLab of the ZPID – Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information, Trier, Germany , for funding the data collection of this study.

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.