What Motivates Direct and Indirect Punishment? :  Extending the “Intuitive Retributivism” Hypothesis

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. Punishment represents a key mechanism to deter norm violations and is motivated by retribution and/or general deterrence. Retribution-motivated punishment is tailored to offense severity, whereas deterrence-motivated punishment is tailored to different factors, including punishment observability. This study aimed to replicate and extend prior work by testing how offense severity and punishment observability motivate direct, confrontational punishment versus indirect, covert punishment. Participants ( N = 308) read vignettes describing offenses with varying severity (high vs. low) and punishment observability (high vs. low). We then assessed their punishment tendencies – overall, direct, and indirect – and their endorsement of retribution and deterrence motives. Findings supported a “strong version” of intuitive retributivism. Manipulating retribution-relevant information consistently influenced punishment: participants reported stronger overall, direct, and indirect punishment tendencies when severity was high (vs. low). Self-reported deterrence (but not retribution) motives positively related to overall, direct, and indirect punishment tendencies. However, manipulating deterrence-relevant information did not influence punishment.

Related collections

Most cited references 46

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being.

James J Gross, Oliver John (2003)

0 comments Cited 968 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review.

James J Gross (1998)

0 comments Cited 924 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Altruistic punishment in humans.

Ernst Fehr, Simon Gächter (2002)

Human cooperation is an evolutionary puzzle. Unlike other creatures, people frequently cooperate with genetically unrelated strangers, often in large groups, with people they will never meet again, and when reputation gains are small or absent. These patterns of cooperation cannot be explained by the nepotistic motives associated with the evolutionary theory of kin selection and the selfish motives associated with signalling theory or the theory of reciprocal altruism. Here we show experimentally that the altruistic punishment of defectors is a key motive for the explanation of cooperation. Altruistic punishment means that individuals punish, although the punishment is costly for them and yields no material gain. We show that cooperation flourishes if altruistic punishment is possible, and breaks down if it is ruled out. The evidence indicates that negative emotions towards defectors are the proximate mechanism behind altruistic punishment. These results suggest that future study of the evolution of human cooperation should include a strong focus on explaining altruistic punishment.

0 comments Cited 390 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Catherine Molho:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2846-2544

Journal

Journal ID (publisher): zfp

Title: Zeitschrift für Psychologie

Publisher: Hogrefe Publishing

ISSN (Print): 2190-8370

ISSN (Electronic): 2151-2604

Publication date (Electronic): February 25, 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: 84-93

Affiliations

[ ¹ ]Center for Research in Experimental Economics and Political Decision Making (CREED), University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

[ ² ]Department of Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany

[ ³ ]Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Author notes

Catherine Molho, Center for Research in Experimental Economics and Political Decision Making (CREED), University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 11, Postbus 15867, 1001 NJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands c.molho@ 123456uva.nl

Author information

Catherine Molho https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2846-2544

Article

ApaID ID: zfp_230_2_84

DOI: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000455

SO-VID: af9c52f1-fe22-4a1a-91df-91e40dc9cb32

History

Date received : April 11, 2020

Date revision received : April 23, 2021

Date accepted : April 23, 2021

Funding

Funding: Data collection for this study was funded by PsychLab, a service of the Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information (ZPID), Trier, Germany . Catherine Molho acknowledges IAST funding from the French National Research Agency (ANR) under grant ANR-17-EURE-0010 (Investissements d’Avenir program). Mathias Twardawski received support from LMUexcellent, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and the Free State of Bavaria under the Excellence Strategy of the German Federal Government and the Länder .

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.