Retribution and Revenge

Vidmar, Neil

doi:10.1007/0-306-47379-8_2

Cited by 94 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 98 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This view is consistent with the argument that a renewal of group values is a key driver in justice-seeking (Vidmar 2000). It is consistent with findings that victims appear to see revenge as more effective when the offenders understand why they have been punished (Gollwitzer and Denzler 2009), and that offender remorse and apology have the potential to reduce counter-aggression in victims (Ohbuchi et al 1989) and increase their forgiveness (Fehr et al 2010).…”

Section: Restorative Justicesupporting

confidence: 86%

“…Psychological research has also traditionally researched retributive justice, which entails the sanctioning or punishing of offenders in order to restore a moral balance that was disturbed by their wrongdoing (Hogan and Emler 1981;Vidmar and Miller 1980). Specifically, it has been investigated as a moral psychological concept to understand people's endorsement of punishment or motivation for revenge (Vidmar 2000). Research indicates that punitiveness is indeed better accounted for by a concept of retributive justice, also referred to as ''just deserts'', than a consequentialist notion such as deterrence or incapacitation (Carlsmith 2006;Carlsmith et al 2002).…”

Section: Retributive Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do Retributive and Restorative Justice Processes Address Different Symbolic Concerns?

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In support of a unitary conceptualization of retributive justice (justice through the imposition of punishment) and restorative justice (justice through dialogue aimed at consensus), three studies using hypothetical and recalled experiences of victimization found that people's endorsement of, and satisfaction with, either justice notion depends on the symbolic meaning of the transgression. In Study 1, perceiving the transgression as a status/power violation was uniquely related to the endorsement of retributive justice, whereas perceiving it as a violation of shared values was uniquely related to restorative justice. In Study 2, motivation to restore status/power was related to retributive responses, whereas motivation to restore value consensus with the offender was uniquely related to restorative responses. In Study 3, a scenario experiment, respondents called for greater additional sanction when the applied justice process (retributive vs. restorative) did not fit the salient meaning of the transgressions compared to when it did (status/power vs. values).

show abstract

Section: Restorative Justicesupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Retributive Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Do Retributive and Restorative Justice Processes Address Different Symbolic Concerns?

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first category consists of affective and cognitive reactions toward norm violations. Since norm violations are threatening to the normative cohesion of one's primary community (Vidmar, 2001(Vidmar, , 2002, interdependent self-construal should lead to stronger experiences of anger and moral outrage in response to observed norm violations, and to stronger perceptions that norm violations are harmful to society and are morally reprehensible. An independent self-construal, on the other hand, should not be related to anger and moral outrage following observed norm violations.…”

Section: The Present Studiesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…or concerns for social cohesion and for the social norms that have been violated by the criminal act Vidmar, 2001Vidmar, , 2002. People differ in how morally reprehensible, how threatening, and how severe they consider a particular norm violation to be, and how much responsibility and guilt they ascribe to the harmdoer.…”

Section: ; Cited Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are “We” More Punitive than “Me”? Self-Construal Styles, Justice-Related Attitudes, and Punitive Judgments

Gollwitzer

Bücklein

2007

Soc Just Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross-cultural as well as procedural justice research suggests that an interdependent self-construal is connected to more justice-related concerns, more moral outrage following observed unethical behavior, and a preference for effective but constructive sanctions. Independent self-construal, on the other hand, is expected to be connected to weaker moral reactions toward injustice, but also to preferring punitive over constructive forms of sanctions. Two studies were conducted in which dispositional self-construal was measured. In Study 2, self-construal was also manipulated with a priming procedure. Results show that interdependent self-construal is connected to stronger emotional reactions toward injustice, to social and moral concerns, to preferences for constructive forms, but also to retribution-oriented goals of punitive sanctions. Independent self-construal, on the other hand, goes along with fewer moral concerns, lower punitiveness, but more draconic attitudes.

show abstract

“…Or, they may think that penalties referred to in the letter, and used by the authority as a deterrent, are excessive. These are examples of retributive injustice, that is, the perceived unfairness of responses to rule-breaking (Vidmar, 2001).…”

Section: Forms Of Fairnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Letter from the Tax Office: Compliance Effects of Informational and Interpersonal Justice

Wenzel

2006

Soc Just Res

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been argued that authorities attract greater compliance when they treat people according to principles of interactional and procedural justice. Set in the context of taxation, the present research investigates the effects on behavioral compliance of reminder letters adopting principles of informational and interpersonal fairness compared with a standard reminder notice. Study 1 with 199 students confirmed that both fairness letters were regarded as fairer than the standard letter. In Study 2, a field experiment, 2052 Australian taxpayers who had an obligation to file a tax declaration but failed to file on time were randomly sent one of the three reminder letters. The two fairness letters yielded a significantly greater compliance rate than the control letter.

show abstract

Retribution and Revenge

Cited by 94 publications

References 98 publications

Do Retributive and Restorative Justice Processes Address Different Symbolic Concerns?

Do Retributive and Restorative Justice Processes Address Different Symbolic Concerns?

Are “We” More Punitive than “Me”? Self-Construal Styles, Justice-Related Attitudes, and Punitive Judgments

A Letter from the Tax Office: Compliance Effects of Informational and Interpersonal Justice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About