Results from three studies demonstrate that victims’ justice-related satisfaction with punishment is influenced by the kind of feedback they receive from offenders after punishment. In contrast to previous studies that found a discrepancy between anticipated and experienced satisfaction from punishment (Carlsmith, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2008), participants were able to accurately predict their satisfaction when made aware of the presence or absence of offender feedback acknowledging the victim’s intent to punish. Results also indicate that victims were most satisfied when offender feedback not only acknowledged the victim’s intent to punish but also indicated a positive moral change in the offender’s attitude toward wrongdoing. These findings indicate that punishment per se is neither satisfying nor dissatisfying but that it is crucial to take its communicative functions and its effects on the offender into account. Implications for psychological and philosophical theories on punishment motives as well as implications for justice procedures are discussed.
AharoniE.FridlundA. J. (2012). Punishment without reason: Isolating retribution in lay punishment of criminal offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18, 599-625.
2.
BenthamJ. (1830). The rationale of punishment. London: Robert Heward, Wellington Street.
3.
BiesR. J.TrippT. M. (1998). Revenge in organizations: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In GriffinR. W.O’Leary-KellyA.CollinsJ. (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 49-67). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
4.
BoonS. D.DeveauV. L.AlibhaiA. M. (2009). Payback: The parameters of revenge in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 747-768.
5.
BraithwaiteJ.PettitP. (1990). Not just deserts. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
6.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.
7.
BushmanB. J.BaumeisterR. F.PhillipsC. M. (2001). Do people aggress to improve their mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation opportunity, and aggressive responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 17-32.
8.
CarlsmithK. M. (2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 437-451.
9.
CarlsmithK. M. (2008). On justifying punishment: The discrepancy between words and actions. Social Justice Research, 21, 119-137.
10.
CarlsmithK. M.DarleyJ. M. (2008). Psychological aspects of retributive justice. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 193-236). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
11.
CarlsmithK. M.WilsonT. D.GilbertD. T. (2008). The paradoxical consequences of revenge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1316-1324.
12.
CrombagH.RassinE.HorselenbergR. (2003). On vengeance. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 333-344.
13.
DarleyJ. M. (2002). Just punishments: Research on retributional justice. In RossM.MillerD. T. (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 314-333). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
14.
DarleyJ. M. (2009). Morality in the law: The psychological foundations of citizens’ desires to punish transgressions. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 5, 1-23.
15.
DarleyJ. M.CarlsmithK. M.RobinsonP. H. (2000). Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 659-683.
16.
de QuervainD. J. F.FischbacherU.TreyerV.SchellhammerM.SchnyderU.BuckA.FehrE. (2004). The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science, 305, 1254-1258.
17.
DuffR. A. (2001). Punishment, communication, and community. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
DurkheimÉ. (1964). The division of labor in society. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. (Original work published 1893)
19.
FeatherN. T.BoeckmannR. (2013). Perceived legitimacy of judicial authorities in relation to degree of value discrepancy with public citizens. Social Justice Research, 26, 193-217.
20.
FeinbergJ. (1965). The expressive function of punishment. The Monist, 49, 397-423.
21.
FrijdaN. H. (1994). The lex talionis: On vengeance. In van GoozenS. H. M.van der PollN. E.SergeantJ. A. (Eds.), Emotions: Essays on emotion theory (pp. 263-289). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
GausG. (2011). Retributive justice and social cooperation. In WhiteM. D. (Ed.), Retributivism: Essays on theory and policy (pp. 73-92). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
23.
GerberM. M.JacksonJ. (2013). Retribution as revenge and retribution as just deserts. Social Justice Research, 26, 61-80.
24.
GollwitzerM. (2007). How affective is revenge? Emotional processes involved in vengeful reactions to experienced injustice. In GollwitzerM.SteffgenG. (Eds.), Emotions and aggressive behavior (pp. 115-129). Ashland, OH: Hogrefe & Huber.
25.
GollwitzerM.BushmanB. J. (2012). Do victims of injustice punish to improve their mood?Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 572-580.
26.
GollwitzerM.DenzlerM. (2009). What makes revenge sweet: Seeing the offender suffer or delivering a message?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 840-844.
27.
GollwitzerM.KellerL.BraunJ. (2012). Retributive punishment in a social context. In KalsE.MaesJ. (Eds.), Justice and conflicts: Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 169-196). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
28.
GollwitzerM.MederM.SchmittM. (2011). What gives victims satisfaction when they seek revenge?European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 364-374.
29.
GreeneJ.CohenJ. (2004). For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 359, 1775-1785.
30.
GrometD. M.DarleyJ. M. (2009). Punishment and beyond: Achieving justice through the satisfaction of multiple goals. Law & Society Review, 43, 1-38.
31.
HamptonJ. (1984). The moral education theory of punishment. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 13, 208-238.
32.
HannaN. (2008). Say what? A critique of expressive retributivism. Law and Philosophy, 27, 123-150.
33.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
34.
KantI. (1968). Die Metaphysik der Sitten [The metaphysics of conventions]. In Kants Werke (Akademie Textausgabe, Vol. VI). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. (Original work published 1797)
35.
KellerL.OswaldM.StuckiI.GollwitzerM. (2010). A closer look at an eye for an eye: Laypersons’ punishment decisions are primarily driven by retributive motives. Social Justice Research, 23, 99-116.
36.
LernerM. J.ClaytonS. (2011). Justice and self-interest: Two fundamental motives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
MarkelD. (2011). What might retributive justice be? An argument for the confrontational conception of retributivism. In WhiteM. D. (Ed.), Retributivism: Essays on theory and policy (pp. 49-72). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
38.
McCulloughM. E.KurzbanR.TabakB. A. (2013). Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 1-15.
39.
McGeerV. (2013). Civilizing blame. In CoatesJ. D.TognazziniN. A. (Eds.), Blame: Its nature and norms (pp. 162-188). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
40.
McKeeI. R.FeatherN. T. (2008). Revenge, retribution, and values: Social attitudes and punitive sentencing. Social Justice Research, 21, 138-163.
41.
MillerD. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 527-553.
42.
MooreM. S. (1987). The moral worth of retribution. In SchoemanF. (Ed.), Responsibility, character, and the emotions (pp. 179-219). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
43.
MorrisH. (1981). A paternalistic theory of punishment. American Philosophical Quarterly, 18, 263-271.
44.
NadelhofferT.HeshmatiS.KaplanD.NicholsS. (2013). Folk retributivism and the communication confound. Economics & Philosophy, 29, 235-261.
45.
NicholsS. (2013). Brute retributivism. In NadelhofferT. (Ed.), The future of punishment (pp. 25-46). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
46.
NozickR. (1981). Philosophical explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
OkimotoT. G.WenzelM. (2009). Punishment as restoration of group and offender values following a transgression: Value consensus through symbolic labelling and offender reform. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 346-367.
48.
OrthU. (2003). Punishment goals of crime victims. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 173-186.
49.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ.IpeirotisP. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411-419.
50.
RobinsonP. H.DarleyJ. M. (1995). Justice, liability, and blame: Community views and the criminal law. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
51.
SchumannK.RossM. (2010). The benefits, costs, and paradox of revenge. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 1193-1205.
52.
SkitkaL.MullenE. (2002). Understanding judgments of fairness in a real-world political context: A test of the Value Protection Model of Justice Reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1419-1429.
53.
SmithA. (1869). A theory of moral sentiments. London, England: Ball & Daldy. (Original work published 1759)
54.
VidmarN. (2001). Retribution and revenge. In HamiltonV. L. (Ed.), Handbook of justice research in law (pp. 31-63). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
55.
WenzelM.OkimotoT. G.FeatherN. T.PlatowM. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 375-389.
56.
WenzelM.ThielmannI. (2006). Why we punish in the name of justice: Just desert versus value restoration and the role of social identity. Social Justice Research, 19, 450-470.
57.
ZdaniukA.BobocelD. R. (2012). Vertical individualism and injustice: The self-restorative function of revenge. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 640-651.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
