Retributive Punishment in a Social Context

Leniency for out‐group offenders

“…Moreover, this finding implies further that lenient punishments for out‐group offenders can serve as a means to protect the in‐group and maintain a positive social identity, a function that previous research only ascribed to harsh punishments for out‐group offenders (e.g., Sweeney & Haney, ; van Prooijen & Lam, ). On a broader level, our findings thus corroborate the notion that group dynamics play an important role in punitive contexts (Gollwitzer et al, ).…”

“…The two studies presented here provide first evidence for the notion that out‐group offenders are punished more leniently than are offenders from participants' in‐group or offenders whose group membership was irrelevant. Moreover, the two experiments described here demonstrate that this leniency can be considered strategic and patronizing, in that it serves to protect the in‐group's favorable image and relative status (Gollwitzer et al, ). When participants had been given the opportunity to show that they are not prejudiced and had established moral credentials by expressing their support for Southeast Asians (Study 1) or by writing about a positive experience with a person from East Germany (Study 2), the leniency effect for the out‐group perpetrator disappeared.…”

The patronizing character and status‐preserving function of leniency for outgroup offenders

“…In Study 2, we tested the assumption that patronizing leniency displayed by a high‐status ingroup towards a low‐status outgroup offender can consolidate existing intergroup status differentials by serving the ingroup as an excuse to ignore the outgroup's discrimination claims. In line with previous theorizing (Gollwitzer et al ., ), we found that when participants learned that their ingroup had punished an outgroup offender leniently, they considered an outgroup member who legitimately complained about discrimination more as being a hypersensitive complainer than when they learned that their ingroup had punished the outgroup offender more harshly than or similarly to an ingroup offender.…”

“…In contrast to the benevolent intention of Canadian legislators, we assume that leniency for outgroup offenders can – under certain circumstances – serve ingroup members as a way to preserve the image of their ingroup and provide them with an easy and low‐cost opportunity to maintain a positive social identity (Braun & Gollwitzer, ; Gollwitzer, Keller, & Braun, ). This leniency is therefore referred to as ‘patronizing leniency’ to account for the fact that it can be strategic and reflect ingroup‐serving goals instead of honestly positive intergroup behaviour (Gollwitzer et al ., ). Punishing an outgroup member can threaten the ingroup's image as it entails a risk of appearing prejudiced and discriminatory towards the outgroup.…”

“…In this research, we examine such differential treatment of offenders from disadvantaged groups from a psychological perspective. In contrast to the benevolent intention of Canadian legislators, we assume that leniency for outgroup offenders canunder certain circumstancesserve ingroup members as a way to preserve the image of their ingroup and provide them with an easy and low-cost opportunity to maintain a positive social identity Gollwitzer, Keller, & Braun, 2012). This leniency is therefore referred to as 'patronizing leniency' to account for the fact that it can be strategic and reflect ingroup-serving goals instead of honestly positive intergroup behaviour .…”