The present research investigated event-related, contextual, demographic, and dispositional predictors of the desire to punish perpetrators of immoral deeds in daily life, as well as connections among the desire to punish, moral emotions, and momentary well-being. The desire to punish was reliably predicted by linear gradients of social closeness to both the perpetrator (negative relationship) and the victim (positive relationship). Older rather than younger adults, conservatives rather than people with other political orientations, and individuals high rather than low in moral identity desired to punish perpetrators more harshly. The desire to punish was related to state anger, disgust, and embarrassment, and these were linked to lower momentary well-being. However, the negative effect of these emotions on well-being was partially compensated by a positive indirect pathway via heightened feelings of moral self-worth. Implications of the present field data for moral punishment research and the connection between morality and well-being are discussed.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
2.
AquinoK.ReedA. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423-1440.
3.
ArmitageC. J.ConnerM. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
4.
BalafoutasL.NikiforakisN.RockenbachB. (2014). Direct and indirect punishment among strangers in the field. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 15924-15927.
5.
BalafoutasL.NikiforakisN.RockenbachB. (2016). Altruistic punishment does not increase with the severity of norm violations in the field. Nature Communications, 7, Article 13327.
6.
BekkersR. (2007). Measuring altruistic behavior in surveys: The all-or-nothing dictator game. Survey Research Methods, 1, 139-144.
7.
BernhardH.FischbacherU.FehrE. (2006). Parochial altruism in humans. Nature, 442, 912-915.
8.
BleidornW.DenissenJ. J. (2015). Virtues in action–the new look of character traits. British Journal of Psychology, 106, 700-723.
9.
BoneJ. E.RaihaniN. J. (2015). Human punishment is motivated by both a desire for revenge and a desire for equality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36, 323-330.
10.
BrandtM.CrawfordJ.Van TongerenD. (in press). Worldview conflict in daily life. Social Psychological & Personality Science.
11.
BrauerM.ChekrounP. (2005). The relationship between perceived violation of social norms and social control: Situational factors influencing the reaction to deviance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1519-1539.
12.
CarlsmithK. M.DarleyJ. M.RobinsonP. H. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 284-299.
13.
CarrollJ. S.PerkowitzW. T.LurigioA. J.WeaverF. M. (1987). Sentencing goals, causal attributions, ideology, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 107-118.
14.
ChekrounP.BrauerM. (2002). The bystander effect and social control behavior: The effect of the presence of others on people’s reactions to norm violations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 853-867.
15.
ConroyS. J.EmersonT. L. (2004). Business ethics and religion: Religiosity as a predictor of ethical awareness among students. Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 383-396.
16.
CsikszentmihalyiM.LarsenR. E. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 526-536.
17.
DarleyJ. M.CarlsmithK. M.RobinsonP. H. (2000). Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 659-683.
18.
DawkinsR. (2006). The God delusion. New York, NY: Bantam.
19.
De QuervainD. J.FischbacherU.TreyerV.SchellhammerM. (2004). The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science, 305, 1254-1258.
20.
EisenbergN.CumberlandA.GuthrieI. K.MurphyB. C.ShepardS. A. (2005). Age changes in prosocial responding and moral reasoning in adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 235-260.
21.
EmmonsR. A.McCulloughM. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377-389.
22.
EndersC. K.TofighiD. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121-138.
23.
EnglichB.MussweilerT.StrackF. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 188-200.
24.
EverettJ. A.HaqueO. S.RandD. G. (2016). How good is the Samaritan, and why? An experimental investigation of the extent and nature of religious prosociality using economic games. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 7, 248-255.
25.
FehrE.FischbacherU. (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 63-87.
26.
FehrE.GächterS. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137-140.
27.
FehrE.RockenbachB. (2004). Human altruism: Economic, neural, and evolutionary perspectives. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14, 784-790.
28.
FunkeF. (2005). The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: Lessons from the dilemma between theory and measurement. Political Psychology, 26, 195-218.
29.
GattikerU. E.KelleyH. (1999). Morality and computers: Attitudes and differences in moral judgments. Information Systems Research, 10, 233-254.
30.
GeldhofG. J.PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19, 72-91.
31.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.KolevaS.MotylM.IyerR.WojcikS. P.DittoP. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55-130.
32.
GrahamJ.NosekB. A.HaidtJ.IyerR.KolevaS.DittoP. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366-385.
33.
HaidtJ. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgement. Psychological Review, 108, 814-834.
34.
HaidtJ.KollerS. H.DiasM. G. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613-628.
35.
HenrichJ.EnsmingerJ.McElreathR.BarrA.BarrettC.BolyanatzA.. . . HenrichN. (2010). Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fairness and punishment. Science, 327, 1480-1484.
36.
HofmannW.BaumertA. (2010). Immediate affect as a basis for moral judgment: An adaptation of the affect misattribution procedure. Cognition & Emotion, 24, 522-535.
37.
HofmannW.WisneskiD. C.BrandtM. J.SkitkaL. J. (2014). Morality in everyday life. Science, 345, 1340-1343.
38.
JacobsD.CarmichaelJ. T. (2004). Ideology, social threat, and the death sentence: Capital sentences across time and space. Social Forces, 83, 249-278.
39.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.
40.
JuradoM. B.RosselliM. (2007). The elusive nature of executive functions: A review of our current understanding. Neuropsychology Review, 17, 213-233.
41.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
42.
KnochD.GianottiL. R.BaumgartnerT.FehrE. (2010). A neural marker of costly punishment behavior. Psychological Science, 21, 337-342.
43.
KohlbergL. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive developmental approach. In LickonaT. (Ed.), Moral development and behavior (pp. 31-53). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
44.
KutateladzeB.CrossmanA. M. (2009). An exploratory analysis of gender differences in punitiveness in two countries. International Criminal Justice Review, 19, 322-343.
45.
LaurinK.ShariffA. F.HenrichJ.KayA. C. (2012). Outsourcing punishment to God: Beliefs in divine control reduce earthly punishment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279, 3272-3281.
46.
LeibbrandtA.López-PérezR. (2012). An exploration of third and second party punishment in ten simple games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 84, 753-766.
47.
LiebermanD.LinkeL. (2007). The effect of social category on third party punishment. Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 289-305. doi:10.1177/147470490700500203
48.
LinkeL. H. (2012). Social closeness and decision making: Moral, attributive and emotional reactions to third party transgressions. Current Psychology, 31, 291-312.
49.
MackeyD. A.CourtrightK. E. (2000). Assessing punitiveness among college students: A comparison of criminal justice majors with other majors. Criminal Justice Studies, 12, 423-441.
50.
McCorkleR. C. (1993). Research note: Punish and rehabilitate? Public attitudes toward six common crimes. Crime & Delinquency, 39, 240-252.
51.
McCulloughM. E.KurzbanR.TabakB. A. (2013). Putting revenge and forgiveness in an evolutionary context. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 36, 41-58.
52.
McKayR.EffersonC.WhitehouseH.FehrE. (2011). Wrath of God: Religious primes and punishment. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 278, 1858-1863.
53.
MillerD. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 527-553.
54.
MoisucA.BrauerM.FonsecaA.ChaurandN.GreitemeyerT. (in press). Individual differences in social control: Who “speaks up” when witnessing uncivil, discriminatory, and immoral behaviours?British Journal of Social Psychology.
55.
MolenberghsP.BosworthR.NottZ.LouisW. R.SmithJ. R.AmiotC. E.. . . DecetyJ. (2014). The influence of group membership and individual differences in psychopathy and perspective taking on neural responses when punishing and rewarding others. Human Brain Mapping, 35, 4989-4999.
56.
PiazzaJ.SousaP. (2014). Religiosity, political orientation, and consequentialist moral thinking. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 5, 334-342.
57.
PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J.ZhangZ. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209-233.
58.
ReedA.IIAquinoK. F. (2003). Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1270-1286.
59.
RockenbachB.MilinskiM. (2006). The efficient interaction of indirect reciprocity and costly punishment. Nature, 444, 718-723.
60.
RockwoodN. J.HayesA. F. (2017, May). MLmed: An SPSS macro for multilevel mediation and conditional process analysis. Paper presented at the Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Psychological Science (APS), Boston, MA.
61.
RozinP.LoweryL.ImadaS.HaidtJ. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 574-586.
62.
SalernoJ. M.Peter-HageneL. C. (2013). The interactive effect of anger and disgust on moral outrage and judgments. Psychological Science, 24, 2069-2078.
63.
SargentM. J.BradfieldA. L. (2004). Race and information processing in criminal trials: Does the defendant’s race affect how the facts are evaluated?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 995-1008.
64.
ScheinC.GrayK. (2017). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22, 32-70.
65.
SchillerB.BaumgartnerT.KnochD. (2014). Intergroup bias in third-party punishment stems from both ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 169-175.
66.
SchlenkerB. R.ChambersJ. R.LeB. M. (2012). Conservatives are happier than liberals, but why? Political ideology, personality, and life satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 127-146.
67.
SchmittM.GollwitzerM.MaesJ.ArbachD. (2005). Justice sensitivity: Assessment and location in the personality space. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 202-211.
68.
ShaoR.AquinoK.FreemanD. (2008). Beyond moral reasoning: A review of moral identity research and its implications for business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18, 513-540.
69.
ShariffA. F.NorenzayanA. (2007). God is watching you—Priming god concepts increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game. Psychological Science, 18, 803-809.
70.
SkitkaL. J. (2010). The psychology of moral conviction. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 267-281.
71.
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W.SargisE. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 895-917.
72.
SkitkaL. J.MorganG. S. (2014). The social and political implications of moral conviction. Political Psychology, 35, 95-110.
73.
SkitkaL. J.WashburnA. N.CarselT. S. (2015). The psychological foundations and consequences of moral conviction. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 41-44.
74.
SommersS. R.EllsworthP. C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: Perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1367-1379.
75.
StrimlingP.ErikssonK. (2014). Regulating the regulation: Norms about punishment. In Van LangeP. A. M.RockenbachB.YamagishiT. (Eds.), Series in human cooperation. Reward and punishment in social dilemmas (pp. 52-69). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
76.
WeinerB.OsborneD.RudolphU. (2011). An attributional analysis of reactions to poverty: The political ideology of the giver and the perceived morality of the receiver. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 199-213.
77.
ZhangZ.ZyphurM. J.PreacherK. J. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 695-719.
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.
