Abstract
In both narrative theory and evolutionary psychology, equitable-retribution—or the idea that punishments for committing a moral transgression should be equivalent to the transgression itself—is a centerpiece of discussion. This article reports results from a blocked within-subjects experiment that examined speed of cognitive processing and subjective rating of three types of narrative retribution: equitable-retribution; under-retribution, where punishment is absent for a transgression; and over-retribution, where punishment exceeds the severity of the transgression. Results suggest that narrative endings depicting equitable-retribution are processed more quickly and liked more than endings with under-retribution and over-retribution. In addition, liking seems to correspond with enjoyment for equitable-retribution and over-retribution; for under-retribution, liking seems to correspond with appreciation. Discussion focuses on implications for theory and extending the current experimental paradigm.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
