From wrongdoing to imprisonment: Test of a causal–moral model

Abstract

The authors tested a causalemoral model of punishment in which (a) causal attribution and moral responsibility are distinct precursors of punishment, and (b) dispositional attribution leads to blame which, in turn, determines imprisonment. Specifically, whereas severity of outcome impacts punishment directly, circumstances of the crime and the culture of the observers impact punishment through causal attribution and blame, respectively. In an experiment, Singaporeans and Americans read about a crime that (a) was committed intentionally or under an extenuating circumstance and (b) had low or severe outcome for the victim. They made dispositional attribution to, assigned blame to, and recommended imprisonment for the offender. Results supported the hypotheses and the causalemoral path model that specified a direct effect of severity of outcome, an indirect effect of country via blame, and the indirect effects of circumstance via dispositional attribution to blame on imprisonment. Production and hosting by Elseviera v a i l a b l e a t w w w . s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / i i m b Production and hosting by Elsevier IIMB Management Review (2012) 24, 73e78 0970-3896 ª

Association, Culture, and Collective Imprisonment: Tests of a Two-Route Causal-Moral Model

“…In the absence of measures of punishment goals, therefore, the causal-moral model predicts a direct effect of severity of outcome on the imprisonment recommended for the offender. Supporting this prediction, Singh et al (2012) also found a main effect of severity of outcome on imprisonment for the offender but not on dispositional attribution or blame to him. Given this evidence, Models 1 and 2 of Figure 1 predict only a direct effect of severity of outcome on collective imprisonment.…”

“…Even when East Asians do not see an individual person as less causally involved in what he or she did, they are more willing than Westerners to extend blame to his or her group . Thus, the effect of culture on the collective imprisonment should be mediated by collective blame, not dispositional attribution (Singh et al, 2012).…”

“…However, they view punishment for the individual offender and his group differently. Model 1 implies that the effects of the three independent variables (IVs) on collective imprisonment should mirror those previoulsy obtained for imprisonment for an individual offender (Singh et al, 2012). In contrast, Model 2 suggests two separate routes from the group's association with the individual offender to collective punishment.…”

“…In general, people would like the burglar to The paths from the independent variables (IVs) of the group's association, culture of the participants, and severity of outcome to the dependent variable (DV) of collective imprisonment via the mediating variables (MVs) of dispositional attribution to the group and collective blame. Model 1 of the top posits a sequential dependency of collective blame on dispositional attribution to the group as in the causal-moral model for individual imprisonment (Singh et al, 2012); Model 2 of the bottom, in contrast, regards dispositional attribution and blame to the group as separate routes to collective imprisonment.…”

“…In the original version of Model 1 (Singh et al, 2012), the omission and commission levels of the group's association were equivalent to crimes committed by the individual offender intentionally and under an extenuating circumstance, respectively. The dispositional attribution and blame responses to the offender were thus higher when he committed the crime intentionally than under an extenuating circumstance.…”