Who May Punish How?

Abstract

Abstract. According to the intuitive retributivism hypothesis, individuals favor retributivist (getting even) over consequentialist (prevention of norm transgressions) motives when asked to rate the appropriateness of punishment responses representing these motives. This hypothesis has rarely been tested in children; restorative motives (norm clarification, settlement) and potentially influencing variables have rarely been considered. We had 170 elementary school children ( M = 9.26, SD = 1.01) rate the appropriateness of six punishment responses by themselves and teachers for two types of norm transgression as well as their justice sensitivity. Children rated punishment responses thought to represent restorative motives as most appropriate, followed by special preventive and other retributive motives, revenge, general preventive motives, and doing nothing for both themselves and their teachers. Transgression type did not influence appropriateness ratings. Justice sensitivity was related to a stronger tendency to punish. Findings favor intuitive pacifism over intuitive retributivism, indicate children’s preference for target-specific, communicative punishment, and show only small influences by other variables.

Retribution and utilitarianism as motives for children’s third-party punishment: An information-seeking approach.

“…These patterns persisted regardless of whether the misbehavior was committed by a child or an adult. These findings challenge recent literature suggesting that children are equally motivated by retribution and special prevention (Strauß & Bondü, 2022). Rather, despite children’s relatively more optimistic views on the positive effects of punishment (Dunlea & Heiphetz, 2021), our findings suggest a stronger inclination toward retribution, similar to adults (Carlsmith, 2006).…”

“…Second, both retribution and prevention may be comparably important for children's punishment. This would add to recent literature suggesting that children's punishment is equally motivated by retribution and (special) prevention (Strauß & Bondü, 2022). Third, children may prioritize information related to utilitarian motives, reflecting their optimism about punishment's positive effects (Dunlea & Heiphetz, 2021).…”

“…These studies provided initial evidence that children’s third-party punishment is motivated by both retribution and (special and general) prevention (Marshall et al, 2021; Twardawski & Hilbig, 2020). Moreover, Strauß and Bondü (2022) asked children to respond to misbehavior by choosing from a set of punishment reactions that were designed to primarily achieve one punishment motive. This research revealed that children equally favor retributive and special preventive reactions over other options (e.g., general prevention).…”