Retributive Motives Research Articles

How retributive motives shape the emergence of third-party punishment across intergroup contexts.

This study examines how retributive motives-the desire to punish for the purpose of inflicting harm in the absence of future benefits-shape third-party punishment behavior across intergroup contexts. Six- to nine-year-olds (N = 151, Mage = 8.00, SDage = 1.15; 54% White, 18% mixed ethnicities, 17% Asian American; 46% female; from the USA) could punish ingroup, outgroup, or non-group transgressors by removing positive resources and allocating negative ones. Both punishments were described as retributive, yet allocating negative resources was perceived as more retributive than removing positive ones. We predicted that children would punish outgroups more so than ingroups and that this effect would be especially pronounced when punishment is perceived as particularly retributive. The results did not align with this prediction; instead, children similarly punished all agents.

Who May Punish How?

Abstract. According to the intuitive retributivism hypothesis, individuals favor retributivist (getting even) over consequentialist (prevention of norm transgressions) motives when asked to rate the appropriateness of punishment responses representing these motives. This hypothesis has rarely been tested in children; restorative motives (norm clarification, settlement) and potentially influencing variables have rarely been considered. We had 170 elementary school children ( M = 9.26, SD = 1.01) rate the appropriateness of six punishment responses by themselves and teachers for two types of norm transgression as well as their justice sensitivity. Children rated punishment responses thought to represent restorative motives as most appropriate, followed by special preventive and other retributive motives, revenge, general preventive motives, and doing nothing for both themselves and their teachers. Transgression type did not influence appropriateness ratings. Justice sensitivity was related to a stronger tendency to punish. Findings favor intuitive pacifism over intuitive retributivism, indicate children’s preference for target-specific, communicative punishment, and show only small influences by other variables.

Children favor punishment over restoration.

Why do people punish selfish behavior? Are they motivated to punish perpetrators of selfishness (retribution) or to compensate the victims of selfishness (restoration)? Developmental data can provide important insight into these questions by revealing whether punishment of selfishness is more retributive or restorative when it first emerges. Across two studies, we examined costly third-party intervention in 6- to 9-year-olds. In Study 1, children learned about a selfish actor who refused to share with a recipient. Children then chose to (1) punish the selfish actor by rejecting their payoff (retribution); (2) compensate the victim of selfishness by equalizing payoffs between the perpetrator and victim (restoration); or (3) do nothing. We found that children were more likely to punish than compensate in response to selfishness, suggesting that intervention in this context is more retributive than restorative. In Study 2, we tested third-party intervention in the face of generosity which, like selfishness, can lead to unequal outcomes. As in Study 1, children in this context could reject unequal payoffs, thereby depriving the recipient of the advantageous payoff but having no effect on the actor. Children could also use compensation in this context, equalizing the payoffs between actor and recipient. We found that children did not punish inequality that stemmed from generosity, suggesting that the retributive punishment in Study 1 was specifically targeting selfishness rather than inequality more generally. These results contribute to the debate on the function of third-party punishment in humans, suggesting that retributive motives toward selfish transgressors are privileged during ontogeny.

Attitudes toward the Punishment of Juvenile and Adult Sexual Offenders in Canada: The Roles of Sentencing Goals and Criminal Justice Motivations

ABSTRACT There has long been concern among academics and those in criminal justice professions regarding the public’s seemingly enthusiastic support for punitive responses to sexual offenders, such as long sentences, residency restrictions, registration, and community notification. Yet there has been little research to date on what motives may be driving the endorsement of these policies, particularly registration. Our understanding is further muddled by conflicting research on punitive attitudes in general, with some suggesting that retributive motives are behind such attitudes while others report the efficacy of utilitarian motives. Using a sample of 376 university students, the current study sought to determine whether retributive, utilitarian, or other motives drove support for longer sentences and registration for juvenile and adult sexual offenders. Results indicated that motives largely differed between the two sanctions as well as the two age groups of offenders. Both retributive and utilitarian motives contributed to support for policies, suggesting that these motives work in congruence with one another. This has clear implications for policy discussions, as advocates for criminal justice reform should be appealing to both motives to change societal attitudes.

Children punish third parties to satisfy both consequentialist and retributive motives.

Adults punish moral transgressions to satisfy both retributive motives (such as wanting antisocial others to receive their 'just deserts') and consequentialist motives (such as teaching transgressors that their behaviour is inappropriate). Here, we investigated whether retributive and consequentialist motives for punishment are present in children approximately between the ages of five and seven. In two preregistered studies (N = 251), children were given the opportunity to punish a transgressor at a cost to themselves. Punishment either exclusively satisfied retributive motives by only inflicting harm on the transgressor, or additionally satisfied consequentialist motives by teaching the transgressor a lesson. We found that children punished when doing so satisfied only retributive motives, and punished considerably more when doing so also satisfied consequentialist motives. Together, these findings provide evidence for the presence of both retributive and consequentialist motives in young children.

The role of prior punishment in preventive detention decisions

ABSTRACTPreventive detention legislation allows for ongoing detention or supervision following completion of an offender’s sentence. Consideration of public protection should drive the administration of preventive detention, however research has indicated retributive concerns also drive decision making. Two studies were conducted to examine the motives driving preventive detention decisions, and how contextual variables affected the balance between retributive and public protection motives. In Study 1, participants were presented with information about an offender’s remorse, prior punishment, and risk of re-offence. In Study 2, participants were presented with information about an offender’s prior punishment and offence type, and the relative strength of various potential mediators was tested, to determine factors driving effects of prior punishment information. Overall, results demonstrated participants were driven by both retributive and public protection motives, as well as personal characteristics (e.g. political orientation, prejudice against offenders) when making preventive detention decisions. Findings are discussed in terms of their implications for preventive detention legislation.

Call for Papers: “What Drives Second- and Third-Party Punishment? Conceptual Replications of the ‘Intuitive Retributivism’ Hypothesis”

Call for Papers: “What Drives Second- and Third-Party Punishment? Conceptual Replications of the ‘Intuitive Retributivism’ Hypothesis”

Justice reactions to deviant ingroup members: Ingroup identity threat motivates utilitarian punishments.

To maintain a positive overall view of their group, people judge likeable ingroup members more favourably and deviant ingroup members more harshly than comparable outgroup members. Research suggests that such derogation of deviant ingroup members aims to restore the image of the group by symbolically excluding so‐called ‘black sheeps’. We hypothesized that information about a harm‐doer's group membership influences observers’ justice‐seeking reactions. Motives for punishment vary based on whether the goal is to punish past harm‐doing (i.e., retributive motives), help harm‐doers recognize the harm inflicted and reintegrate into society (i.e., restorative motives), or control harm‐doer's future behaviour through incapacitating practices and exclusion from society (i.e., utilitarian motives). We hypothesized that immoral behaviours by ingroup rather than outgroup members jeopardize the group's reputation and therefore activate utilitarian (i.e., exclusion‐oriented) motives for punishment. Study 1 (N = 187) confirmed that people displayed more utilitarian motives and less restorative motives when sanctioning an ingroup as opposed to an outgroup harm‐doer. Study 2 (N = 122) manipulated typicality to the ingroup. Participants displayed stronger utilitarian (i.e., exclusion‐oriented) punishment motives when the harm‐doer was presented as a typical ingroup rather than an outgroup member. Study 3 (N = 292) replicated the findings of Studies 1 and 2 and further showed that people displayed stronger utilitarian punishments against an ingroup offender through the experience of increased identity threat. Contrary to our expectations, observers’ ingroup identification did not moderate the effect of group membership or typicality to the ingroup on justice reactions. Yet, ingroup identification influenced both experienced identity threat (i.e., mediator) and utilitarian motives for punishment with high identifiers experiencing higher threat and displaying stronger utilitarian punishment motive. We discuss the results in terms of people's concern for the protection of their group identity.

A Psychological Perspective on Preventive Detention Decisions

Preventive-detention legislation has been introduced in various forms in legal systems around the world to allow for the ongoing detention or community supervision of sex offenders following the completion of their custodial sentences. The stated purpose of these laws is utilitarian: they are intended to protect the community and allow for the ongoing rehabilitation of the offender. However, judges and legal scholars have expressed concern that retributive, rather than utilitarian, motives might drive decisions regarding the ongoing management of sex offenders. These concerns align with psychological research on procedural and distributive justice. In this article, we review the relevant psychological literature, which shows that notions of morality and deservingness are key motives underlying justice reasoning and sentencing decisions. We discuss the ways in which retributive and utilitarian motives may impact upon preventive detention decisions, and how this psychological research can inform legal scholarship on the issues surrounding preventive detention.

The value of vengeance and the demand for deterrence.

Humans will incur costs to punish others who violate social norms. Theories of justice highlight 2 motives for punishment: a forward-looking deterrence of future norm violations and a backward-looking retributive desire to harm. Previous studies of costly punishment have not isolated how much people are willing to pay for retribution alone, because typically punishment both inflicts damage (satisfying the retributive motive) and communicates a norm violation (satisfying the deterrence motive). Here, we isolated retributive motives by examining how much people will invest in punishment when the punished individual will never learn about the punishment. Such “hidden” punishment cannot deter future norm violations but was nevertheless frequently used by both 2nd-party victims and 3rd-party observers of norm violations, indicating that retributive motives drive punishment decisions independently from deterrence goals. While self-reports of deterrence motives correlated with deterrence-related punishment behavior, self-reports of retributive motives did not correlate with retributive punishment behavior. Our findings reveal a preference for pure retribution that can lead to punishment without any social benefits.

Give the kid a break—but only if he’s straight: Retributive motives drive biases against gay youth in ambiguous punishment contexts.

Two studies addressed how people punish juvenile sex offenders in ambiguous punishment contexts. Sex offender registry laws now make voluntary sexual activity between juveniles a registration-worthy offense in the U.S. Using contemporary prejudice theories as a theoretical framework, we tested whether the ambiguity surrounding the application of these laws to juveniles provides a context for expression of prejudice against gay youth. In the ambiguous context of 2 juveniles having consensual sex, people supported sex offender registration more for gay, versus heterosexual, offenders. This punishment discrimination did not emerge, however, in the societally less ambiguous context of an adult having sex with a juvenile. Study 2 revealed that punishment discrimination again emerged against gay male juveniles but not lesbian juveniles. Across both studies, punishment discrimination against gay juveniles was consistently mediated by retributive motives (moral outrage), but less consistently by utilitarian motives (concern about protecting society)—the stated legislative purpose of registration.

Punishment.

Retributivism is a deontological theory of punishment that calls for the deserved punishment of a guilty offender in proportion with his moral blameworthiness for a past offense. It is often referred to as punishment based on 'just deserts', and it contrasts with consequentialist theories that ground punishment in its potentially beneficial future consequences. Rich philosophical debate surrounds the appropriateness of retributivism. From a psychological perspective, the key question concerns whether retributivism underlies ordinary individuals' desire for the legal punishment of wrongdoers. Past research in social psychology has answered this question in the affirmative. However, much of this existing evidence requires a new look, because it is premised on a fundamental ambiguity. We review alternative evidence for the existence of retributive motives from lesser-known correlational studies, and from studies of the punishment of companies and animals. We also explore the links between retributivism and restorative justice-an alternative justice approach that focuses on repairing the harms caused by an offense. Although often cast as diametrically opposed to one another, retributive and restorative justice in fact share more in common than is often supposed. Both are premised on notions of deservingness, and their goals can be achieved by the same action (i.e., retributive punishment can restore victims). In all areas of the research we review, more work is needed to better understand: retributivism directed at human offenders, the commonalities and discontinuities between retributive and restorative justice, and how the notion of desert structures moral life and thought more generally. WIREs Cogn Sci 2014, 5:561-572. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1301 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article.

Punishment without reason: Isolating retribution in lay punishment of criminal offenders.

Research has suggested that criminal punishment decisions are driven primarily by retribution and that retributive judgments are achieved by a process of abstract moral reasoning. However, problems with construct validity limit confidence in these conclusions. Study 1 (N 254) used experimentally manipulated vignettes to isolate retributive motives. Participants’ sentencing recommendations were strongly provoked by indices of retribution (criminal intent) even when the most common consequentialist reasons for punishment (offender dangerousness and publicity of punishment) were minimized. In an exploratory fashion, Study 2 (N 49) used a semistructured interview to examine whether participants would persist in punishing a hypothetical offender without explicit reasons. Participants persisted in their original punishment judgments even when unable to justify the reasons for these judgments. These results increase confidence that lay punishment is motivated by retribution, but also suggest that this motive may be better explained by fallible, heuristic processes than by abstract moral reasoning. Implications for legal policy are discussed.

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

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.

The fine line between interrogation and retribution

The use of harsh interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects is typically justified on utilitarian grounds. The present research suggests, however, that those who support such techniques are fuelled by retributive motives. An experimental study conducted with a broad national sample of US residents found that the desire for harsh interrogation is largely isomorphic with the desire to punish, and that both effects are mediated by the perceived moral status of the target, but not the perceived effectiveness of the interrogation. Results are discussed with regard to retributive justice and the national policy on interrogation and torture.

No skin off my back: retribution deficits in psychopathic motives for punishment

When deciding a criminal's punishment, people typically exhibit both retributive and consequentialist motives in their decision making, though retribution's role may be stronger. This study aimed to discern possible functions of retribution by examining a population predicted to be deficient in retributive drive. Participants who rated either high or low in psychopathic traits read stories about a homicide. These stories were designed to evoke both retribution and the consequentialist motive of behavior control by varying, respectively, criminal intent and likelihood of recidivism. The participants then recommended a length of confinement for the offender. Individuals high in psychopathic traits were uniquely insensitive to retributive cues, and they were particularly consequentialist in their punishment of criminal offenders. These results clarify aspects of psychopathic aggression and corroborate the hypothesis that retribution may stabilize cooperative behavior.

Retribution and Revenge

Retribution and revenge, two highly related concepts, are arguably the oldest, most basic and most pervasive justice reactions associated with human social life. While scholarship about retribution and revenge has tended to focus on criminal justice, empirical evidence indicates that retribution is important in other matters related to law. For example, medical malpractice, discrimination, and a panoply of civil lawsuits can be primarily fueled by a desire for retribution. Retributive motives can appear at the core of intractable business disputes and other commercial disagreements. In this article, Professor Vidmar develops a conceptual framework to study retribution as a psychological and social phenomenon. He explores a number of conceptual issues, including how a social science approach differs from legal and philosophical approaches. His discussion explores the sociological and psychological functions that punishment serves. Separate sections of the article discuss the cognitive dynamics of retribution and its emotional/behavioral aspects as well. The article raises important questions about retribution. Are reactions different if the justice is dispensed by the victim, by neutral authorities, or by "acts of fate" (or God)? What are the consequences when nothing happens to the perpetrator? How does excessive punishment of the offender or remorse affect retributive reactions? The author's insight raises important implications for legal and other settings in which punishment is administered.