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

“…Restorative justice emphasizes the need to help harm-doers recognize the harm they have caused, stimulate an apology to the victim and repair the relationship between the harm-doer and the victim, and alter the harm-doer’s future behavior by means of adequate treatment (Zehr, 1997). Although restorative motives for punishment could be subsumed by utilitarian motives, we perceive them as qualitatively different given their inclusionary (i.e., help an offender reintegrate to society) rather than exclusionary (i.e., expel an offender from the society) approach towards offenders (Fousiani et al, 2019).…”

“…We used the 16-item motives for punishment scale (Fousiani & Demoulin, 2019; Fousiani & Van Prooijen, 2019; Fousiani & Van Prooijen, in press; Fousiani et al, 2019) to assess the various motives for punishment, including (a) utilitarian motives and its sub-dimensions (private deterrence, public deterrence, and incapacitation) ( a = .94), (b) retributive motives ( a = .92), and (c) restorative motives ( a = .85) for punishment (1 = absolutely disagree , 7 = absolutely agree ). The literature distinguishes between deterrent private, deterrent public, and incapacitative motives for punishment.…”

“…Accordingly, one would speculate that observer’s punitive reactions towards a powerful suspect should be driven by various motives, including retributive and utilitarian motives. However, prior research reveals that when people experience an offense as highly dangerous or threatening to society, they tend to assign strong utilitarian rather than retributive or restorative punishments to the offender (Fousiani et al, 2019). This happens because utilitarian, as opposed to alternative forms of punishment, have a protective role to the society (i.e., the offender is excluded from society) and communicate the message that immoralities are not acceptable.…”

Reactions to offenders: Psychological differences between beliefs versus punishment

“…This scale was based on Carlsmith () and Kugler et al . () while a similar version of this scale was recently used in Fousiani and Demoulin (in press) and in Fousiani, Yzerbyt, Kteily, and Demoulin (). Cronbach's alpha was .91 for utilitarian motives, and .90 for retributive motives for punishment.…”

“…We developed a 16-item scale to assess the various motives for punishment, including (1) utilitarian motives and its sub-dimensions, namely, deterrence (e.g., 'a very severe punishment should be assigned to the entrepreneur so that he doesn't repeat this behavior in the future'), incapacitation (e.g., 'we must protect society from tax evasion; the entrepreneur must be imposed several financial restrictions'), and restorative/rehabilitative motives for punishment (e.g., 'the best way to address this sort of behavior is to offer the entrepreneur the chance to learn from his mistakes and reintegrate into society'); and (2) retributive motives (e.g., 'the entrepreneur should be assigned a punishment equivalent to the magnitude of his transgression'). This scale was based on Carlsmith (2008) and Kugler et al (2013) while a similar version of this scale was recently used in Fousiani and Demoulin (in press) and in Fousiani, Yzerbyt, Kteily, and Demoulin (2019). Cronbach's alpha was .91 for utilitarian motives, and .90 for retributive motives for punishment.…”