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

Abstract

To maintain a positive overall view of their group, people judge likeable ingroup members more favourably and deviant ingroup members more harshly than comparable outgroup members. Research suggests that such derogation of deviant ingroup members aims to restore the image of the group by symbolically excluding so‐called ‘black sheeps’. We hypothesized that information about a harm‐doer's group membership influences observers’ justice‐seeking reactions. Motives for punishment vary based on whether the goal is to punish past harm‐doing (i.e., retributive motives), help harm‐doers recognize the harm inflicted and reintegrate into society (i.e., restorative motives), or control harm‐doer's future behaviour through incapacitating practices and exclusion from society (i.e., utilitarian motives). We hypothesized that immoral behaviours by ingroup rather than outgroup members jeopardize the group's reputation and therefore activate utilitarian (i.e., exclusion‐oriented) motives for punishment. Study 1 (N = 187) confirmed that people displayed more utilitarian motives and less restorative motives when sanctioning an ingroup as opposed to an outgroup harm‐doer. Study 2 (N = 122) manipulated typicality to the ingroup. Participants displayed stronger utilitarian (i.e., exclusion‐oriented) punishment motives when the harm‐doer was presented as a typical ingroup rather than an outgroup member. Study 3 (N = 292) replicated the findings of Studies 1 and 2 and further showed that people displayed stronger utilitarian punishments against an ingroup offender through the experience of increased identity threat. Contrary to our expectations, observers’ ingroup identification did not moderate the effect of group membership or typicality to the ingroup on justice reactions. Yet, ingroup identification influenced both experienced identity threat (i.e., mediator) and utilitarian motives for punishment with high identifiers experiencing higher threat and displaying stronger utilitarian punishment motive. We discuss the results in terms of people's concern for the protection of their group identity.

Punishment Reactions to Powerful Suspects

“…Taken together, the findings of this study replicate the intuitive retributivism hypothesis and show that people assign stronger retributive rather than utilitarian or restorative punishments to suspects of immoralities. These results are in line with prior research (see also Fousiani et al, 2019) and reveal the robustness of the intuitive retributivism effect. However, information about a suspect’s power prompts an observer to assign stronger utilitarian rather than retributive or restorative punishments.…”

“…This research makes at least three novel theoretical contributions. First and foremost, we tested the intuitive retributivism hypothesis (Carlsmith, 2008; Carlsmith et al, 2002; Wenzel & Thielmann, 2006; see also Fousiani et al, 2019) in the context of punishing a suspect of immoralities and we were able to replicate it. Moreover, we extended previous research on people’s motives for punishing immoral-doers by manipulating a suspect’s power.…”

Punishment Reactions to Powerful Suspects

“…Taken together, the findings of this study replicate the intuitive retributivism hypothesis and show that people assign stronger retributive rather than utilitarian or restorative punishments to suspects of immoralities. These results are in line with prior research (see also Fousiani et al, 2019) and reveal the robustness of the intuitive retributivism effect. However, information about a suspect’s power prompts an observer to assign stronger utilitarian rather than retributive or restorative punishments.…”

“…This research makes at least three novel theoretical contributions. First and foremost, we tested the intuitive retributivism hypothesis (Carlsmith, 2008; Carlsmith et al, 2002; Wenzel & Thielmann, 2006; see also Fousiani et al, 2019) in the context of punishing a suspect of immoralities and we were able to replicate it. Moreover, we extended previous research on people’s motives for punishing immoral-doers by manipulating a suspect’s power.…”

Motives for punishing powerful vs. prestigious offenders: The moderating role of group identity

“…More specifically, immoral‐doing triggers harsher reactions towards ingroup than outgroup offenders, because ingroup offenders threaten the reputation of the group (Brambilla et al, 2013; Pagliaro et al, 2013), social cohesion (Tyler, 1997; Vidmar, 2000) and group values (Okimoto & Wenzel, 2010; Rullo et al, 2015; Sankaran et al, 2017; Van der Toorn et al, 2015). Consistent with this theorizing, Fousiani et al (2019) found that observers have stronger incapacitative than restorative or retributive punishment motives towards ingroup as opposed to outgroup offenders. Incapacitative punishment motives aim to send a symbolic message by excluding the offender, thus condemning the offender's actions and publicly validating group values.…”

By Any Means Necessary: Utilitarian Moral Reasoning Amplifies the Connection Between Obsessive Passion and Ideological Violence

“…Research also reveals that emotion suppression can increase the use of utilitarian moral reasoning while decreasing deontological moral reasoning (Lee and Gino 2015). In a similar vein, egodefensiveness-provoked by identity-threatening scenarios-is associated with both utilitarian moral reasoning and aggression (Fousiani et al 2019). Furthermore, utilitarian reasoning for sacrificial moral dilemmas correlate with a greater willingness to harm others (Wiech et al 2013), an increase in psychopathy and Machiavellianism (Bartels and Pizarro 2011) and a greater propensity to endorse the belief that 'the end justifies the means' (Abumere et al 2019;Amit and Greene 2012).…”

Punishment Reactions to Powerful Suspects

“…Taken together, the findings of this study replicate the intuitive retributivism hypothesis and show that people assign stronger retributive rather than utilitarian or restorative punishments to suspects of immoralities. These results are in line with prior research (see also Fousiani et al, 2019) and reveal the robustness of the intuitive retributivism effect. However, information about a suspect’s power prompts an observer to assign stronger utilitarian rather than retributive or restorative punishments.…”

“…This research makes at least three novel theoretical contributions. First and foremost, we tested the intuitive retributivism hypothesis (Carlsmith, 2008; Carlsmith et al, 2002; Wenzel & Thielmann, 2006; see also Fousiani et al, 2019) in the context of punishing a suspect of immoralities and we were able to replicate it. Moreover, we extended previous research on people’s motives for punishing immoral-doers by manipulating a suspect’s power.…”

Motives for punishing powerful vs. prestigious offenders: The moderating role of group identity

“…More specifically, immoral‐doing triggers harsher reactions towards ingroup than outgroup offenders, because ingroup offenders threaten the reputation of the group (Brambilla et al, 2013; Pagliaro et al, 2013), social cohesion (Tyler, 1997; Vidmar, 2000) and group values (Okimoto & Wenzel, 2010; Rullo et al, 2015; Sankaran et al, 2017; Van der Toorn et al, 2015). Consistent with this theorizing, Fousiani et al (2019) found that observers have stronger incapacitative than restorative or retributive punishment motives towards ingroup as opposed to outgroup offenders. Incapacitative punishment motives aim to send a symbolic message by excluding the offender, thus condemning the offender's actions and publicly validating group values.…”

By Any Means Necessary: Utilitarian Moral Reasoning Amplifies the Connection Between Obsessive Passion and Ideological Violence

“…Research also reveals that emotion suppression can increase the use of utilitarian moral reasoning while decreasing deontological moral reasoning (Lee and Gino 2015). In a similar vein, egodefensiveness-provoked by identity-threatening scenarios-is associated with both utilitarian moral reasoning and aggression (Fousiani et al 2019). Furthermore, utilitarian reasoning for sacrificial moral dilemmas correlate with a greater willingness to harm others (Wiech et al 2013), an increase in psychopathy and Machiavellianism (Bartels and Pizarro 2011) and a greater propensity to endorse the belief that 'the end justifies the means' (Abumere et al 2019;Amit and Greene 2012).…”

Punishment Reactions to Powerful Suspects

“…Taken together, the findings of this study replicate the intuitive retributivism hypothesis and show that people assign stronger retributive rather than utilitarian or restorative punishments to suspects of immoralities. These results are in line with prior research (see also Fousiani et al, 2019) and reveal the robustness of the intuitive retributivism effect. However, information about a suspect’s power prompts an observer to assign stronger utilitarian rather than retributive or restorative punishments.…”

“…This research makes at least three novel theoretical contributions. First and foremost, we tested the intuitive retributivism hypothesis (Carlsmith, 2008; Carlsmith et al, 2002; Wenzel & Thielmann, 2006; see also Fousiani et al, 2019) in the context of punishing a suspect of immoralities and we were able to replicate it. Moreover, we extended previous research on people’s motives for punishing immoral-doers by manipulating a suspect’s power.…”

Motives for punishing powerful vs. prestigious offenders: The moderating role of group identity

“…More specifically, immoral‐doing triggers harsher reactions towards ingroup than outgroup offenders, because ingroup offenders threaten the reputation of the group (Brambilla et al, 2013; Pagliaro et al, 2013), social cohesion (Tyler, 1997; Vidmar, 2000) and group values (Okimoto & Wenzel, 2010; Rullo et al, 2015; Sankaran et al, 2017; Van der Toorn et al, 2015). Consistent with this theorizing, Fousiani et al (2019) found that observers have stronger incapacitative than restorative or retributive punishment motives towards ingroup as opposed to outgroup offenders. Incapacitative punishment motives aim to send a symbolic message by excluding the offender, thus condemning the offender's actions and publicly validating group values.…”

By Any Means Necessary: Utilitarian Moral Reasoning Amplifies the Connection Between Obsessive Passion and Ideological Violence

“…Research also reveals that emotion suppression can increase the use of utilitarian moral reasoning while decreasing deontological moral reasoning (Lee and Gino 2015). In a similar vein, egodefensiveness-provoked by identity-threatening scenarios-is associated with both utilitarian moral reasoning and aggression (Fousiani et al 2019). Furthermore, utilitarian reasoning for sacrificial moral dilemmas correlate with a greater willingness to harm others (Wiech et al 2013), an increase in psychopathy and Machiavellianism (Bartels and Pizarro 2011) and a greater propensity to endorse the belief that 'the end justifies the means' (Abumere et al 2019;Amit and Greene 2012).…”