On the assignment of punishment: The impact of general-societal threat and the moderating role of severity

Derek D. Rucker*, Mark Polifroni, Philip E. Tetlock, Amanda L. Scott

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

68 Scopus citations

Abstract

This article reports experiments assessing how general threats to social order and severity of a crime can influence punitiveness. Results consistently showed that when participants feel that the social order is threatened, they behave more punitively toward a crime perpetrator, but only when severity associated with a crime was relatively moderate. Evidence is presented to suggest that people can correct - at least to a degree - for the "biasing" influence of these inductions. Finally, threats to social order appear to increase punitiveness by arousing a retributive desire to see individuals pay for what they have done, as opposed to apurely utilitarian desire to deter future wrongdoing. The authors suggest that individuals sometimes act as intuitive prosecutors when ascribing punishment to an individual transgressor based on their perception of general societal control efficacy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)673-684
Number of pages12
JournalPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Volume30
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2004

Keywords

  • Attribution
  • Punishment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'On the assignment of punishment: The impact of general-societal threat and the moderating role of severity'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this