Individual Differences in Third‐Party Interventions: How Justice Sensitivity Shapes Altruistic Punishment

Abstract

Altruistic punishment refers to the phenomenon that humans invest their own resources to redress norm violations without self‐interest involved. We address the question of who will intervene in situations that allow for altruistic punishment. We suggest that individual differences in a genuine concern for justice, as reflected by the personality trait of justice sensitivity, determine the experience of moral emotions in the face of injustice, which in turn trigger altruistic punishment. Results of two studies support the proposed mediation effect for other‐regarding justice sensitivity, even though an opportunity for compensation of the victim (Study 2) was offered as an alternative to punishment (Study 1). Furthermore, the mediation effect was observed when moral outrage was measured by means of quantified open statements (Study 1) and self‐report scales using discrete emotions (Study 2). The findings help to explain the psychological mechanisms underlying engagement in costly social sanctioning of norm violations.

Risk behavior for gain, loss, and mixed prospects

“…Anger is an approach-motivated emotion (Carver and Harmon-Jones 2009) that brings forth an effort to remove the violation of what 'ought' to be (Frijda 1986). Studies have suggested that this approach motivation can take the form of aggressive, punitive, and antagonistic behaviors (e.g., Bougie et al 2003;Darley and Pittman 2003;Fischer and Roseman 2007;Lemay et al 2012;Lotz et al 2011a;Nelissen and Zeelenberg 2009;Pillutla and Murnighan 1996;Rimé 2009;Roseman et al 1994;Coillie and Mechelen 2006;Wetzer et al 2007). Although this classical view of anger clearly dominates the literature, there are mixed findings suggesting positive outcomes as well.…”

Altruistic Norm Enforcement and Decision-Making Format in a Dilemma: Experimental Evidence

“…For instance, it is now known that altruistic third-party punishment is associated with activation of some brain regions, such as reward regions (e.g., Buckholtz et al 2008, Strobel et al 2011Corradi-Dell'Acqua et al 2012). Past research also shows that the intensity of third-party punishment differs by various factor -individual characteristics, such as justice sensitivity (e.g., Lotz et al 2011), population and the size of societies (e.g., Henrich et al 2006, Marlowe et al 2010, group affiliations, i.e., whether norm violators belong to the punisher's group (e.g., Bernhard et al 2006, Lieberman andLinke 2007), and so forth. The third-party punishment behavior is considered to be unique to humans (e.g., Riedl et al 2012).…”

Exploring Individual and Contextual Antecedents of Attitudes Toward the Acceptability of Cheating and Plagiarism

“…High perpetrator sensitivity individuals tend to hold themselves to higher moral standards than they do others and to experience a great sense of guilt when profiting from injustice done to others (Lotz et al, 2011). In this study, high perpetrator sensitivity students deemed cheating and plagiarism as highly objectionable when they were placed in the agents' role but were far more accepting of allowing others to commit dishonest behaviors with impunity.…”

“…Perpetrator sensitivity has been separated from the beneficiary dimension and defined as the extent to which individuals perceive that they are unwittingly profiting from injustice done to others, whereas beneficiary sensitivity is defined as the perception of generally receiving better treatment than others (Lotz, Baumert, Schlösser, Gresser, & Fetchenhauer, 2011). The present study considers the four justice sensitivity dimensions: victim, observer, beneficiary, and perpetrator.…”