Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Retributive Punishment in a Social Context

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Justice and Conflicts

  • 2246 Accesses

Abstract

In the present chapter, the authors discuss to what extent laypersons’ punitive attitudes and their preferences for different sanctions are shaped by the social context in which a transgression has occurred. First, recent developments in the psychological literature on punishment principles, forms, goals, and attitudes are reviewed. Second, parameters of the social context in which retribution takes place are discussed. These parameters include the offender’s social category, group-level status and power, and the normative implication of the offense, among others. Finally, some thoughts are spent on possible intergroup dynamics underlying the decision to treat outgroup offenders more leniently than ingroup offenders. The authors argue that such leniency can sometimes be detrimental in that it fosters intergroup conflicts rather than reducing them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Swiss_teen_confesses_in_Munich_rampage_case.html?cid=28549808.

  2. 2.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/teresa-lewis-supreme-court-mentally-disabled_n_734081.html.

  3. 3.

    http://www.trc-cvr.ca/.

  4. 4.

    http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/.

References

  • Abrams, D., Marques, J. M., Bown, N. J., & Henson, M. (2000). Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 906–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abrams, D., Marques, J. M., Randsley de Moura, G., Hutchison, P., & Bown, N. J. (2004). The maintenance of entitativity: A subjective group dynamics model. In V. Y. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 361–380). Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazemore, G. (1998). Restorative justice and earned redemption. American Behavioral Scientist, 41(6), 768–813.

    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).

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J., & Strang, H. (2001). Introduction: Restorative justice and civil society. In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice and civil society (pp. 1–13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444.

    Article  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., 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  Google Scholar 

  • Cehajic, S., Brown, R., & Castano, E. (2008). Forgive and forget? Antecedents and consequences of intergroup forgiveness in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Political Psychology, 29(3), 351–367.

    Article  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 

  • David, R., & Choi, S. Y. P. (2006). Getting equal without getting even: Retributive desires and transitional justice in the Czech Republic. Political Psychology, 31(2), 161–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dienstbier, R. A. (1970). Positive and negative prejudice. Interactions of prejudice with race and social desirability. Journal of Personality, 38, 198–215.

    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: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff, R. A. (2001). Punishment, communication, and communitiy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, D. G. (1971). Reactions of restaurateurs to blacks and whites violating restaurant dress requirements. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 3, 298–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, D. G. (1973). Reverse discrimination: The relationship of amount of perceived discrimination toward a minority group on the behaviour of majority group members. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 5, 34–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feather, N. T., & Oberdan, D. (2000). Reactions to penalties for an offence in relation to ethnic identity, responsibility, and authoritarianism. Australian Journal of Psychology, 52, 9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feather, N. T., & Souter, J. (2002). Reactions to mandatory sentences in relation to the ethnic identity and criminal history of the offender. Law and Human Behavior, 26(4), 417–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, J., & Sassenberg, K. (2009). Intended and unintended consequences of internal motivation to behave nonprejudiced – the case of benevolent discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 1093–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, M., & Bücklein, K. (2007). Are “we” more punitive than “me”? Self-construal styles, justice-related attitudes, and punitive judgments. Social Justice Research, 20, 457–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gollwitzer, M., & Keller, L. (2010). What you did only matters if you are one of us: Offenders’ group membership moderates the effect of criminal history on punishment severity. Social Psychology, 41(1), 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R. A. (1993). The effect of strong versus weak evidence on the assessment of race stereotypic and race nonstereotypic crimes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 734–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R. A., Bindrim, T. A., McNicholas, M. L., & Walden, T. L. (1988). Perceptions of blue-collar and white-collar crime: The effect of defendant race on simulated juror decisions. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 191–197.

    Article  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 

  • Gromet, D. M., & Darley, J. (2009a). Retributive and restorative justice: Importance of crime severity and shared identity in people’s justice responses. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61, 50–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gromet, D. M., & Darley, J. (2009b). Punishment and beyond: Achieving justice through the satisfaction of multiple goals. Law and Society, 43, 1–38.

    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 

  • Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 223–255). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D. M. (1996). What do alternative sanctions mean? University of Chicago Law Review, 63, 591–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, L., & Gollwitzer, M. (2011). Punishing in the name of justice: People prefer retributive sanctions when group values are threatened. Manuscript submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, L., Oswald, M., Stucki, I., & Gollwitzer, M. (2010). A closer look at an eye for an eye: Laypersons’ punishment decisions are primarily driven by retributive motives. Social Justice Research, 23, 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemmelmeier, M. (2005). The effects of race and social dominance orientation in simulated juror decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1030–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., Hymes, R., Anderson, A. B., & Weathers, J. (1995). Juror-defendant similarity and juror judgments. Law & Human Behavior, 19, 545–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, D., & Linke, L. (2007). The effect of social category on third party punishment. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 289–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., & Serôdio, R. G. (2001). Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 436–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marques, J. M., & Páez, D. (1994). The ‘Black Sheep Effect’: Social categorization, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 41–68). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J.-P. (1988). The “Black Sheep Effect”: Extremity of judgment towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 527–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. T., & Vidmar, N. (1981). The social psychology of punishment reactions. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 145–172). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, E., Hewstone, M., & Cairns, E. (2009). Impact of conflict on mental health in Northern Ireland: The mediating role of intergroup forgiveness and collective guilt. Political Psychology, 30(2), 269–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelissen, R. M. A., & Zeelenberg, M. (2009). When guilt evokes self-punishment: Evidence for the existence of a Dobby effect. Emotion, 9(1), 118–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noor, M., Brown, R., Gonzalez, R., Manzi, J., & Lewis, C. A. (2008). On positive psychological outcomes: What helps groups with a history of conflict to forgive and reconcile with each other? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 819–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okimoto, T. G., Wenzel, M., & Feather, N. T. (2009). Beyond retribution: Conceptualizing restorative justice and its determinants. Social Justice Research, 22(1), 156–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okimoto, T. G., Wenzel, M., & Platow, M. J. (2010). Restorative justice: Seeking a shared identity in dynamic intragroup contexts. In M. A. Neale, E. Mannix, & E. Mullen (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (Vol. 13: Fairness and groups; pp. 201–238). Bingley, UK: Emerald Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orth, U. (2003). Punishment goals of crime victims. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 173–186.

    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 

  • Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Chapman, B., Dignan, J., Howes, J., et al. (2007). Restorative justice: the views of victims and offenders (Ministry of Justice Research Series 3/07). London: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinada, M., Yamagishi, T., & Ohmura, Y. (2004). False friends are worse than bitter enemies. Altruistic punishment of in-group members. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 379–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: Perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1367–1379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staub, E., & Pearlman, L. A. (2006). Promoting reconciliation and forgiveness after mass violence: Rwanda and other settings. In American Psychological Association (Ed.), Forgiveness: A sampling of research results [Brochure]. Washington, DC: Office of International Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of threat in intergroup relations. In D. M. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions (pp. 191–207). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strang, H. (2002). Repair or revenge: Victims and restorative justice. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., Cairns, E., Marinetti, C., Geddes, L., et al. (2008). Postconflict reconciliation: Intergroup forgiveness and implicit biases in Northern Ireland. Journal of Social Issues, 64(2), 303–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, T. S., & Hosch, H. M. (2004). An examination of jury verdicts for evidence of a similarity-leniency effect, an out-group punitiveness effect, or a black sheep effect. Law & Human Behavior, 28, 587–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C. (1987). The analysis of social influence. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 68–88). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Boeckmann, R. J. (1997). Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers. Law & Society Review, 31, 237–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Prooijen, J.-W. (2006). Retributive reactions to suspected offenders: The importance of social categorizations and guilt probability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 715–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Lam, J. (2007). Retributive justice and social categorizations: The perceived fairness of punishment depends on intergroup status. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1286–1297.

    Article  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 

  • Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behavior, 32(5), 375–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2010). Justice through consensus: Shared identity and the preference for a restorative notion of justice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 909–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M., & Thielmann, I. (2006). Why we punish in the name of justice: Just desert versus value restoration and the role of social identity. Social Justice Research, 19, 450–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohl, M. J. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2005). Forgiveness and collective guilt assignment to historical perpetrator groups depends on level of social category inclusiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 288–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Philipps-University Marburg, Marburg, Germany

    Mario Gollwitzer, Livia Keller & Judith Braun

Authors
  1. Mario Gollwitzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Livia Keller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Judith Braun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Gollwitzer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Professur Psychologie III, Katholische Universität, Ostenstrasse 25, Ingolstadt, 85072, Germany

    Elisabeth Kals

  2. Fakultät für Pädagogik, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Werner-Heisenberg-Weg 39, Neubiberg, 85577, Germany

    Jürgen Maes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gollwitzer, M., Keller, L., Braun, J. (2011). Retributive Punishment in a Social Context. In: Kals, E., Maes, J. (eds) Justice and Conflicts. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19035-3_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19035-3_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-19034-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-19035-3

  • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation