Retribution or restoration? Anglo–Australian's views towards domestic violence involving Muslim and Anglo–Australian victims and offenders

Abstract

The current study explored how gender, group membership and different emotional reactions to the crime of domestic violence predict attitudes and endorsement of restorative or retributive justice practices. The experiment consisted of a 2 (victim group membership: Muslim-or AngloÁAustralian))2 (offender group membership: Muslim-or AngloÁAustralian) )2 (Sex of participant) between-participants factorial design. AngloÁAustralian participants (43 men; 50 women) were randomly assigned to one of the four manipulated conditions, and completed an online questionnaire that involved viewing a short video clip of a woman describing her experience as a domestic violence victim. Results revealed strong preferences for restorative justice in dealing with domestic violence, with women supporting this practice more than men. The crime was perceived as most severe and retribution was endorsed most strongly when the victim was AngloÁAustralian (i.e. an in-group member). Intra-group violence was also perceived to be a greater breach of shared Australian values than inter-group (i.e. cross-cultural) domestic violence. Emotional reactions further predicted participants' responses, with hatred predicting stronger support of retributive ideals and sympathy for the victim predicting greater endorsement of restoration.

Reflexive intergroup bias in third-party punishment.

“…Some work suggests there may be theoretical and physiological distinctions between these behaviors; for instance, costly punishment draws more heavily on brain regions such as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and medial orbitofrontal cortex (de Quervain et al, 2004). However, there is also extensive work examining costly punishment behavior on its own (e.g., Buckholtz et al, 2008; Carlsmith, Darley, Robinson, 2002; De Castella, Platow, Wenzel, Okimoto, & Feather, 2011; Roos, Gelfand, Nau, & Carr, 2014; Whitson, Wang, See, Baker, & Murnighan, 2015), demonstrating the theoretical merit of examining this behavior. Indeed, many instances of punishment behavior, including those administered by juries, are costless.…”

Justice reactions to deviant ingroup members: Ingroup identity threat motivates utilitarian punishments

“…Indeed, morality is a major source of group pride (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, ; Leach et al ., ) and immoral doing is experienced as aversive (Branscombe, Doosje, & McGarty, ). For instance, immorality, when displayed by ingroup as compared to outgroup members, is associated with ingroup‐directed hostility through collective shame (Piff, Martinez, & Keltner, ), psychological distress, and experience of threat to shared values (De Castella, Platow, Wenzel, Okimoto, & Feather, ; Okimoto & Wenzel, ; Rullo, Presaghi, & Livi, ; Sankaran, Sekerdej, & Von Hecker, ; Van der Toorn, Ellemers, & Doosje, ). Additionally, immorality is viewed as the greatest ‘threat to the image’ of one's group (Brambilla, Sacchi, Pagliaro, & Ellemers, ; Pagliaro, Brambilla, Sacchi, D'Angelo, & Ellemers, ).…”

Refusing to apologize can have psychological benefits (and we issue no mea culpa for this research finding)

“…Through their violation, harm‐doers undermine a shared understanding that exists between harm‐doer and victim, the (often unspoken) agreement about what constitutes acceptable behavior (Rousseau, ). Transgressions exhibit the harm‐doer's disdain for or lack of agreement with the norms/values defining that behavior as unacceptable, undermining the validity of those supposedly shared values (De Castella, Platow, Wenzel, Okimoto, & Feather, ; Durkheim, ; Tyler & Boeckmann, ; Vidmar, ). Such value threats elicit in the victim a desire to restore a perceived consensus surrounding those values, to see a renewed agreement about the importance of shared values in that relationship (Okimoto & Wenzel, ; Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, & Platow, , ).…”