Retributive Justice

Wenzel, Michael; Okimoto, Tyler G.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_13

Cited by 39 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 123 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Apologies are considered an important means for moral repair after wrongdoing, promoting a sense of justice, reaffirming shared values, and facilitating reconciliation and forgiveness (Lazare, ; Smith, ; Tavuchis, ). From the perpetrator group's perspective, there are instrumental payoffs for this in terms of reducing punitive/retributive actions from victim group members that are costly for the offenders (see Wenzel & Okimoto, ). As a consequence, apologies may invite suspicion as to whether they are true reflections of the offenders' views or strategic moves to avoid punishments and costs.…”

Section: Sincerity and Delayed Apologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Long Time Coming: Delays in Collective Apologies and Their Effects on Sincerity and Forgiveness

Wenzel

Lawrence‐Wood

Okimoto

et al. 2017

Political Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political apologies by one group to another often occur a significant period of time after the original transgression. What effect does such a delay have on perceptions of sincerity and forgiveness? A delayed apology could reflect the offender group's reluctance to apologize, or, alternatively, it could represent time and consideration spent on developing an appropriate response. In the latter case, the delayed apology would represent a sincere acknowledgment of the harm done, whereas in the former case it would not. In two studies, we found that a verbal collective apology, when delayed, was perceived to be less sincere than when offered more immediately following a transgression, and this translated to less forgiveness. However, in Study 2, the negative effects of time delay on sincerity and forgiveness were mitigated or reversed when the apology was in the form of commemoration. The commemorative apology, in particular when delayed, gave rise to favorable attributions (including representativeness of apologizing group, commitment to remember, and giving voice to victims), which mediated the effects on sincerity. The results suggest that collective apologies that are offered with considerable delay appear less meaningful and less deserving of a forgiving response, unless the apologizing group is able to express consideration and thoughtfulness through the apology process.

show abstract

Section: Sincerity and Delayed Apologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Long Time Coming: Delays in Collective Apologies and Their Effects on Sincerity and Forgiveness

Wenzel

Lawrence‐Wood

Okimoto

et al. 2017

Political Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More specifically, research on this issue does not appear to point to the simple conclusion that high power motivates harsher punishment. Rather, the contrary seems to be the case: Low-power groups appear more motivated to punish deviance instead (Scheepers, Branscombe, Spears, & Doosje, 2002;Van Prooijen & Lam, 2007;Wenzel & Okimoto, 2016). However, it must be noted that the notion of a simple stronger preference for harsher punishment by low-power groups or individuals does not provide a reliable picture of the complex effects on punishment of power and status, because these effects could take opposite directions 4…”

Section: Levels Of Power and Punishmentmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Organizational studies have tackled the dynamics of punishment from the perspective of organizational efficiency, the role of management effectiveness in administering rewards and punishments, and the dynamics of manager-employee relationships and perceptions (Podsakoff et al, 2006). Research on justice has investigated the roles of moral emotions and other motives (retribution vs. utilitarianism or retribution vs. restoration) in determining punishment (e.g., Carlsmith & Darley, 2008;Wenzel & Okimoto, 2016). It should be noted that both organizational and justice-related research on punishment share a favorable functional evaluation of punishment systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power Moderates the Effects of Social Dominance Orientation on Punishment: An Experimental Analysis

Heering

Leone

2018

Psychol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, it was hypothesized that experimentally manipulated levels of power would moderate the association of dispositional social dominance orientation (SDO) with preferences for harsh punishment. In particular, we expected to detect a stronger effect for dispositional SDO in the low-power condition, relying on the notion that low power enhances sensitivity to threats to the status quo, and that high SDO individuals are particularly motivated to enforce hierarchy-enhancing measures as punishment. SDO scores were measured two months prior to the experiment, and then immediately after the experimental session. As expected, preexperimental SDO interacted with the power manipulation. We found stronger preexperimental SDO effects on punishment among low-power participants. We also anticipated and found that individuals high in SDO increased further their postexperimental SDO scores if assigned to a high-power condition. The discussion focuses on the importance of SDO effects among low-status groups and on how situational roles shape dispositional self-descriptions.

show abstract

“…This can be achieved through a variety of potential responses. A common response from both victims and third parties is to punish transgressors for their wrongdoing (Darley & Pittman, 2003;Fehr & G€ achter, 2002;Van Prooijen, 2010;Vidmar, 2000;Wenzel & Okimoto, 2016), because punishment is thought to address both dimensions of symbolic concerns. First, punishment derogates the transgressor's status/ power through humiliation and deprivation-constituting the retaliatory logic that underlies retributive modes of punishment (Darley, 2002;Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, & Platow, 2008).…”

Section: How Punishment Addresses Symbolic Justice Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐punishment promotes reconciliation with third parties by addressing the symbolic implications of wrongdoing

Vel-Palumbo

Wenzel

Woodyatt

2019

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self‐punishment is a highly costly—and potentially harmful—way transgressors can respond to a wrongdoing. In this research, we propose that people might punish themselves in part because it has a communicative social function. Three studies using hypothetical vignettes showed that self‐punishment facilitates reconciliation with third party observers by addressing the symbolic implications of wrongdoing. Specifically, self‐punishment establishes a moral value consensus and/or diminishes offender status/power, and through this, increases third party perceptions of justice and transgressor remorse, and the third party's willingness to reconcile. This effect was robust to manipulations designed to make third parties question the sincerity of the self‐punisher's intention. Self‐punishment thus serves a beneficial interpersonal function by repairing social bonds between transgressors and their peers.

show abstract

Retributive Justice

Cited by 39 publications

References 123 publications

A Long Time Coming: Delays in Collective Apologies and Their Effects on Sincerity and Forgiveness

A Long Time Coming: Delays in Collective Apologies and Their Effects on Sincerity and Forgiveness

Power Moderates the Effects of Social Dominance Orientation on Punishment: An Experimental Analysis

Self‐punishment promotes reconciliation with third parties by addressing the symbolic implications of wrongdoing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About