Who may punish how? The influence of punisher status, transgression type, and justice sensitivity on the evaluation of punishment motives in middle childhood
Creators: name: Strauß, Sophie
name: Bondü, Rebecca
Publisher: name: PsychArchives
Year: 2020
Subjects: subject: 150

description: Research has shown that experiencing unfairness from a victim (second party punishment) and an observer perspective (third party punishment) urges individuals to punish the perpetrator. However, the punishment may be inflicted upon the perpetrator for several different motives. Recent research has provided evidence for the so called “intuitive retributivism” hypothesis, indicating that individuals tend to favor retributivist punishment (primarily aiming at punishing the perpetrator) over consequentialist punishment (primarily aiming at preventing future similar adverse behavior by the perpetrator [special preventive] or by a number of individuals [general preventive]) when using indirect measures for the perceived appropriateness of different punishment (Carlsmith, 2008; Carlsmith, Darley, &amp; Robinson, 2002; Darley, Carlsmith, &amp; Robinson, 2000). In the present study, we will try to replicate these findings in a sample of 7- to 12-year-old children. This age group has not often been examined so far, although middle childhood is considered a sensitive phase for moral and justice development (e.g., Daniel, Dys, Buchmann, &amp; Malti, 2014). Children will be asked for their appraisal of different potential responses towards norm transgressions in the school setting. In line with previous research, we will make use of a policy-capturing approach that measures punishment motivation indirectly by asking for appropriateness of given punishment reactions. In addition, we assume that several personal and situational aspects may influence the judgements of the appropriateness of different punishment motives and, therefore, the preference for retributivist or consequentialist punishment motives. Hence, we will take into account a situational aspect (i.e., victim-specific vs. victim unspecific norm transgressions), the status of the punisher (i.e., children themselves [second party punishment] vs. their teachers [third party punishment]), and individual child characteristics (i.e., children’s justice sensitivity) that may further help to explain why and when different punishment motives are considered appropriate. Finally, we will consider not only retributivist and consequentialist motives, but also restorative motives aiming at re-integrating the perpetrator in the moral circle and not concentrating on punishing the perpetrator or preventing future harm in the first place (but with some portions of these aspects). Thus, we further test the possibility that children do not primarily strive for the punishment of a norm transgressions, but rather aim at levelling out harm or imbalance and to re-integrate the perpetrator. This is what we call the “intuitive pacifist” hypothesis. To sum up, we test the “intuitive retributivism” hypothesis in a sample of children in middle childhood against consequentialist or restorative motives, while qualifying the hypothesis via aspects of the situation, the perspective and a moral-related personality trait when investigating the following questions: 1. Does the “intuitive retributivism” hypothesis prevail over the “intuitive consequentialist” and the “intuitive pacifist” hypothesis? 2. Do children differ in their ratings of the appropriateness of punishment reactions against the perpetrator when evaluating situations describing personal norm transgressions that focus on one single victim (i.e., themselves) and situations describing impersonal norm transgressions with multiple victims (including themselves)? 3. Do children differ in their ratings of the appropriateness of punishment reactions shown by themselves (second party punishment) or their teachers (third party punishment)? 4. Is justice sensitivity (JS), a trait measure that reflects stable individual differences in the personal importance of justice norms, related to the assessment of the appropriateness of different punishment reactions? Do these relations differ when the three JS perspectives victim, observer, and perpetrator are considered?
description: Preregistration of: Strauß, S., &amp; Bondü, R. (2022). Who may punish how? The influence of punisher status, transgression type, and justice sensitivity on the assessment of punishment motives in middle childhood. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 230(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000463