Retribution as Revenge and Retribution as Just Deserts

Gerber, Mónica M.; Jackson, Jonathan

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2136237

Cited by 21 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Lastly, the relationship of entitlement to retribution supports our reasoning that entitled people believe that such power and status restoration can be accomplished via retributive punishment. This pattern of results is consistent with others showing that people who value power and status are stronger supporters of retribution (Gerber, 2012;Gerber & Jackson, 2013;McKee & Feather, 2008;Okimoto et al, 2012;Sidanius et al, 2006). They also suggest that retribution may be perceived to provide a means of restoring the balance of power and status subverted by crime.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Power/status restoration motives. We measured power/status restoration as a punishment motive using two items: Punishment should communicate to the offender that people have low regard for him, and punishment should humiliate the offender (Gerber & Jackson, 2013;α = .83). Participants responded on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).…”

Section: Study 2 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous findings lend credence to this reasoning, suggesting that selfenhancing values contribute to retributivism. For example, people higher on the social ladder-who may be higher in both achievement and power values -view justice as requiring more punishment and less rehabilitation (Kraus & Keltner, 2013), and people motivated to enforce status boundaries with criminal offenders more strongly endorse retribution (Gerber & Jackson, 2013). People higher in power are more vengeful (Strelan, Weick, & Vasiljevic, 2014) and punitive (van Prooijen, Coffeng, & Vermeer, 2014), and people higher in power values more strongly support retribution (Okimoto, Wenzel, & Feather, 2012), and are less forgiving (McKee & Feather, 2008;Strelan, Feather, & McKee, 2011).…”

Section: Self-enhancing Values and Justice Orientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Pride and punishment: Entitled people's self‐promoting values motivate hierarchy‐restoring retribution

Redford

Ratliff

2017

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the purpose of punishment? The current research shows that for entitled people—those with inflated self‐worth—justice is about maintaining societal hierarchies. Entitled people more strongly hold self‐enhancing values (power and achievement; Studies 1 and 3). They are also more likely, when thinking about justice for offenders, to adopt a hierarchy‐based justice orientation: Perceptions that crime threatens hierarchies, motives to restore those hierarchies, and support for retribution (Studies 2 and 3). Further, the relationship of entitlement to justice orientation is mediated by self‐enhancing values when entitlement is measured (Study 3) and manipulated (Studies 4, 5 and 6). Together these studies suggest that entitlement—and the resultant preoccupation with one's status—facilitates a view of justice as a hierarchy‐based transaction: one where criminal offenders and their victims exchange power and status. These findings reveal the self‐enhancing and hierarchy‐focused nature of entitlement, as well as the roots of retribution in concerns about status, power, and hierarchies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Study 2 Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Self-enhancing Values and Justice Orientationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pride and punishment: Entitled people's self‐promoting values motivate hierarchy‐restoring retribution

Redford

Ratliff

2017

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are several intersecting avenues by which punishment -and, by extension, justice restoration-empowers victims. First, ensuring that an offender's suffering is equivalent to that of a victim's reasserts a victim's equal worth and standing (Gerber & Jackson, 2013). Second, punishment communicates that the victim is strong enough to stand up to disrespectful behavior (Darley & Pittman, 2003).…”

Section: Punishment Justice Restoration and Empowermentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, when we punish in the name of revenge, we want others to hurt because of the satisfaction we expect to gain from seeing them hurt. As such, revenge is often conceptualized as a particularly personal response, in contrast to justice, which is usually framed as the preserve of the state (for a detailed discussion of the differences between justice and revenge, see Gerber & Jackson, 2013). Thus, in Study 3, we explored the possibility that revenge could also be empowering.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The empowering effect of punishment on forgiveness

Strelan

Fiore

Prooijen³

2017

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the process by which punishment enables forgiveness, testing the proposition that punishment restores a sense of justice to victims, an experience that is empowering. In Study 1 (N = 69), university students received insulting feedback and were given the opportunity (or not) to sanction the offender. In Study 2 (N = 91), participants imagined having the opportunity (or not) to recommend punishment for a person who had vandalized their house. A two‐step mediation model (punishment justice restoration empowerment forgiveness) was supported in these two studies. In Study 3 (N = 227), punishment options were expanded to test the role of victim voice in the context of third‐party and personal retributive and restorative justice responses to workplace bullying, as well as taking into account revenge as an alternative to justice restoration. When victims had voice, empowerment again played a central indirect role in relations between punishment and forgiveness.

show abstract

But how does it develop? Adopting a sociocultural lens to the development of intergroup bias among children

McLoughlin

Corriveau

2019

Behav Brain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that adopting a sociocultural lens to the origins of intergroup bias is important for understanding the nature of attacking and defending behavior at a group level. We specifically propose that the potential divergence in the development of in-group affiliation and out-group derogation supports De Dreu and Gross's framework but does indicate that more emphasis on early sociocultural input is required.

show abstract

Retribution as Revenge and Retribution as Just Deserts

Cited by 21 publications

References 71 publications

Pride and punishment: Entitled people's self‐promoting values motivate hierarchy‐restoring retribution

Pride and punishment: Entitled people's self‐promoting values motivate hierarchy‐restoring retribution

The empowering effect of punishment on forgiveness

But how does it develop? Adopting a sociocultural lens to the development of intergroup bias among children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About