Punitive Reactions to Completed Crimes Versus Accidentally Uncompleted Crimes

Oswald, Margit; Orth, Ulrich R.; Aeberhard, Marianne; Schneider, Eliane

doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02143.x

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With regard to how they manage children’s morally-relevant violations, then, parents show a marked sensitivity to the distinction between moral and conventional transgressions, whereas the distinction between intentional and accidental moral transgressions is much less pronounced. The present data from parents of 3–10-year-olds fit with recent studies showing that adults exhibit an ‘outcome bias’ in some situations when assessing how wrongdoers should be treated (e.g., Cushman, Dreber, Wang, & Costa, 2009; Oswald, Orth, Aeberhard, & Schneider, 2005). …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

When and why parents prompt their children to apologize: the roles of transgression type and parenting style

Smith

Noh

Rizzo

et al. 2016

Journal of Family Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Young children are sensitive to the importance of apologies, yet little is known about when and why parents prompt apologies from children. We examined these issues with parents of 3-10-year-old children (N = 483). Parents judged it to be important for children to apologize following both intentional and accidental morally-relevant transgressions, and they anticipated prompting apologies in both contexts, showing an ‘outcome bias’ (i.e., a concern for the outcomes of children’s transgressions rather than for their underlying intentions). Parents viewed apologies as less important after children’s breaches of social convention; parents recognized differences between social domains in their responses to children’s transgressions. Irrespective of parenting style, parents were influenced in similar fashion by particular combinations of transgressions and victims, though permissive parents were least likely to anticipate prompting apologies. Parents endorsed different reasons for prompting apologies as a function of transgression type, suggesting that they attend to key features of their children’s transgressions when deciding when to prompt apologies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

When and why parents prompt their children to apologize: the roles of transgression type and parenting style

Smith

Noh

Rizzo

et al. 2016

Journal of Family Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the predictions are consistent with attribution theory, it is important to note that the demand for punishment has been found even when the harm was accidental (Greene & Darley, 1998). However, more recent evidence (Oswald, Orth, Aeberhard, & Schneider, 2006) has indicated that relationship between harm and punishment was not mediated by perceived blame. Therefore, in the present research the comparison between the intentional and accidental conditions for the triggerman will be a test of these conflicting views.…”

Section: The Present Studiesmentioning

confidence: 71%

Community sentiment and the juvenile offender: should juveniles charged with felony murder be waived into the adult criminal justice system?

Garberg

Libkuman

2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Juveniles are more likely than adult offenders to commit crimes in groups. This tendency makes the juvenile offender more susceptible to the felony murder rule. In three experiments we tested the notion that juveniles arrested and charged under the felony murder rule would be transferred into the adult criminal justice system based on an equalistic (i.e. the application of the felony murder rule) or a proportional (i.e. the just deserts philosophy) rule. Participants read case descriptions of an armed robbery (no death, accidental death, or intentional death) in which defendants had different levels of involvement in the crime (getaway driver, lookout, sidekick, or triggerman). Involvement was manipulated within subjects in Experiment 1 (i.e., participants rendered judgments for each defendant) and between subjects in Experiment 2 (i.e., each participant judged one of the defendants). The participants in Experiments 1 and 2 were undergraduate psychology students selected from a public university located in the mid-west. The purpose of Experiment 3 was to determine whether the results of the first two experiments could be generalized to a community sample. The community sample was randomly selected from the rural and urban areas in the same geographical region as the university samples. The results indicated that the community participants were more likely to transfer the defendants to adult court than the student participants. However, the same pattern of results emerged for all of the samples, indicating that the triggerman was more likely to be transferred to adult court than the other defendants, especially if an intentional or accidental death occurred. These results support the conclusion that the defendants were transferred based on their involvement in the crime, thus supporting the proportional rule or the just deserts philosophy.

show abstract

“…One might postulate that, as Alicke (2000) suggested for outcome bias, the harm caused by an offense could provoke this same will to punish and thus produce similar experimental results. Certain results from a very recent work by Oswald, Orth, Aeberhard, and Schneider (2005) follow this hypothesis. In their research, in which they varied the degree of objective consequences (rape or attempted rape), they showed through responsibility-punishment assessment (normal order), that punishment was very weakly correlated with responsibility.…”

mentioning

confidence: 75%

“…The research of Oswald et al (2005) suggests that in case of severe outcomes, when responsibility is presented first (normal order), there is not necessarily a link between responsibility and punishment. This conforms with Fauconnet's (1920) analyses and the results obtained by Oberlé and Gosling (2004) for stigmatized targets, in normal order, when a justification model is activated (where punishment is initially independent and not function of responsibility).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rational model and justification model in ‘outcome bias’

Tostain

Lebreuilly

2006

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors of this study suggest that the harm-punishment link ('outcome bias') can be explained by the activation of different judgment processes depending on the outcome severity of an offense: (1) a rational model for mild outcomes in which punishment is necessarily linked to responsibility of the perpetrator; (2) a justification model for severe outcomes in which punishment and responsibility are linked only when assessment order allows the latter to rationalize the former. Participants (126 university students) considered an unintentional road accident with mild or severe outcomes and made judgments of responsibility, punishment, and perceived seriousness of the offense. The results support the authors' hypothesis. In the discussion, the authors suggest different motives of punishment (preventive or compensative justice) which explain why responsibility and punishment are not necessarily linked.The aim of this article is to examine the links between responsibility and punishment in the case of reprehensible actions leading to objective outcomes of greater or lesser severity. It attempts to demonstrate that according to the severity of the consequences of an offense, two types of judgment models are activated: a rational model in cases of mild outcomes and a justification model in cases of severe outcomes. In a rational model, the attribution of punishment to the perpetrator of an offense is the result of a series of decision stages (Fincham & Jaspars, 1980;Shaver, 1985;Weiner, 1995). In this model, the first stage is to verify the causal link between the offense and the noted effects. Second, the motive of the perpetrator is evaluated in order to establish his or her degree of responsibility. Finally, punishment is attributed according to the degree of responsibility. In this perspective, the a priori contributions of the perpetrator (causality and intentionality) should direct the judgment of responsibility and the attribution of punishment, and this evaluation should not be influenced by the a posteriori involuntary or unforeseen outcomes of the action.Certain influential factors cannot be well integrated into this rational schema, notably the 'outcome bias effect.' This bias, which different studies have confirmed (Burger

show abstract

Punitive Reactions to Completed Crimes Versus Accidentally Uncompleted Crimes

Cited by 18 publications

References 34 publications

When and why parents prompt their children to apologize: the roles of transgression type and parenting style

When and why parents prompt their children to apologize: the roles of transgression type and parenting style

Community sentiment and the juvenile offender: should juveniles charged with felony murder be waived into the adult criminal justice system?

Rational model and justification model in ‘outcome bias’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About