Two studies explore whether people intuitively approve or rather disapprove of a victim personally retaliating against an offender. Participants in Study 1 were introduced to the case of Ameneh Bahrami, an Iranian woman who had been blinded by a jealous suitor and who was given the opportunity to blind her perpetrator in return. Results show that participants who were instructed to complete a secondary task (cognitive load condition) reacted most positively to Ameneh Bahrami’s decision to retaliate. Participants in Study 2 read vignettes about fictitious offenses. Participants low in need for cognition approved more of the victim retaliating against the offender when they adopted an intuitive (vs. a reflective) mind-set. Together, these findings demonstrate that people intuitively approve of retaliation carried out by victims.
AharoniE.FridlundA. J. (2012). Punishment without reason: Isolating retribution in lay punishment of criminal offenders. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 18, 599–625.
2.
BahramiA. (2012). Auge um Auge [An eye for an eye]. Munich, Germany: Münchner Verlagsgruppe.
3.
BartonC. K. B. (1999). Getting even: Revenge as a form of justice. Peru, IL: Open Court Publishing Company.
4.
BlairI. V.JuddC. M.ChapleauK. M. (2004). The influence of Afrocentric facial features in criminal sentencing. Psychological Science, 15, 674–679.
5.
BlessH.WänkeM.BohnerG.FellhauerR. F.SchwarzN. (1994). Need for cognition: Eine Skala zur Erfassung von Engagement und Freude bei Denkaufgaben [Presentation and validation of a German version of the Need for Cognition scale]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 25, 147–154.
6.
BoonS. D.AlibhaiA. M.DeveauV. L. (2011). Reflections on the costs and benefits of exacting revenge in romantic relationships. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 43, 128–137.
7.
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.
8.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.
9.
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.
10.
ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
11.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
CrombagH.RassinE.HorselenbergR. (2003). On vengeance. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 333–344.
13.
CushmanF. (2013). Action, outcome, and value: A dual-system framework for morality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 273–292.
14.
EvansJ. S. B. T.StanovichK. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 223–241.
15.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
16.
FrenchP. A. (2001). The virtues of vengeance. Lawrence, KS: The University Press of Kansas.
17.
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.
18.
FunkF.McGeerV.GollwitzerM. (2014). Get the message: Punishment is satisfying if the trans-gressor responds to its communicative intent. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 986–997.
19.
GollwitzerM. (2009). Justice and revenge. In OswaldM. E.BieneckS.Hupfeld-HeinemannJ. (Eds.), Social psychology of punishment of crime (pp. 137–156). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
20.
GreeneJ. D.MorelliS. A.LowenbergK.NystromL. E.CohenJ. D. (2008). Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. Cognition, 107, 1144–1154.
21.
GrometD. M. (2009). Psychological perspectives on the place of restorative justice in criminal justice systems. In OswaldM. E.BieneckS.Hupfeld-HeinemannJ. (Eds.), Social psychology of punishment of crime (pp. 39–54). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
22.
GrometD. M.OkimotoT. G.WenzelM.DarleyJ. M. (2012). A victim-centered approach to justice? Victim satisfaction effects on third-party punishments. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 375–389.
23.
HaidtJ. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.
24.
IndermaurD. (2012). Engaging the public in the development of sentencing policy. International Journal for Crime and Justice, 1, 27–37.
25.
LiebermanJ. D. (2002). Head over the heart or heart over the head? Cognitive-experiential self-theory and extra-legal heuristics in juror decision-making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2526–2553.
26.
MillerW. I. (1998). Clint Eastwood and equity: Popular culture’s theory of revenge. In SaratA.KearnsT. R. (Eds.), Law in the domains of culture (pp. 161–202). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
27.
OswaldM. E.StuckiI. (2010). Automatic judgment and reasoning about punishment. Social Justice Research, 23, 290–307.
28.
PettyR. E.DeMarreeK. G.BriñolP.HorcajoJ.StrathmanA. J. (2008). Need for cognition can magnify or attenuate priming effects in social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 900–912.
29.
RandD. G.GreeneJ. D.NowakM. A. (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489, 427–430.
30.
RenklA.GruberH.WeberS.LercheT.SchweizerK. (2003). Cognitive Load beim Lernen aus Lösungsbeispielen [Cognitive load when learning from solution examples]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 17, 93–101.
31.
RobinsonP. H.DarleyJ. M. (1995). Justice, liability, and blame. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
32.
SargentM. J. (2004). Less thought, more punishment: Need for cognition predicts support for punitive responses to crime. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1485–1493.
33.
ShenhavA. S.RandD. G.GreeneJ. D. (2012). Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in God. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 423–428.
34.
SmithE. R.DeCosterJ. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 108–131.
35.
StrangH.ShermanL. W. (2003). Repairing the harm: Victims and restorative justice. Utah Law Review, 1, 15–42.
36.
ThompsonR.HaddockG. (2012). Sometimes stories sell: When are narrative appeals most likely to work?European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 92–102.
37.
TrippT. M.BiesR. J.AquinoK. (2002). Poetic justice or petty jealousy? The aesthetics of revenge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 966–984.
38.
TylerT. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
VidmarN. (2001). Retribution and revenge. In SandersJ.HamiltonV. L. (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law (pp. 31–63). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
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.
