Monica M. Gerber and - PDF document

Monica M. Gerber and Jonathan Jackson Original citation: Gerber, Monica M. and Jackson, Jonathan (2013) Retribution as revenge and retribution as just desertsSocial Justice Research DOI: 10.1007/s11211012 © 2013 This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/47954/ Available RetributionasRevengeandRetributionasJustDesertsMonicaM.GerberJonathanJacksonPublishedonline:12January2013SpringerScience+BusinessMediaNewYork2013AbstractPublicattitudestowardslaw-breakersshapethetoneandtenorofcrime-controlpolicy,andthedesireforretributionseemstobethemainmotivationunderpinningpunitiveattitudestowardssentencing.Yet,thereissomeconfusionintheresearchliteratureoverwhatretributionreallymeans.Inthispaperwedistin-guishbetweenretributionasrevenge(asthedesiretopunishcriminaloffenderstoretaliateapastwrongbymakingtheoffendersuffer)andretributionasjustdeserts(asthepreferencetorestorejusticethroughproportionalcompensationfromtheoffender).Resultsfromanonlinesurvey(176)provideevidenceoftwodistinctdimensionsofretribution.Butwealsoshowthatthesetwodimensionshavedif-ferentideologicalandmotivationalantecedents,andhavedifferentconsequencesintermsofthetreatmentofcriminaloffender.WeÞndthatretributionasrevengeisassociatedwiththemotivationtoenforcestatusboundarieswithcriminaloffenders,aswellasideologicalpreferencesforpoweranddominance(asexpressedbysocialdominanceorientation)andin-groupconformity(asexpressedbyright-wingauthoritarianism).Endorsementofretributionasrevengealsopredictsthesupportofharshpunishmentandthewillingnesstodenyfairprocedures.Bycontrast,retri-butionasjustdesertsismainlypredictedbyavaluerestorationmotiveandbyright-wingauthoritarianism.Aftercontrollingforrevenge,retributionasjustdesertspredictssupportforproceduraljusticeinthecriminalcourts.Weconcludewiththeideathatbeliefsaboutproportionalityandcompensationworkasabufferagainstthenegativeeffectsofrevenge. M.M.Gerber(DepartmentofMethodology,LondonSchoolofEconomicsandPoliticalScience,HoughtonStreet,LondonWC2A2AE,UKe-mail:m.m.gerber@lse.ac.ukJ.JacksonDepartmentofMethodologyandMannheimCentreforCriminology,LondonSchoolofEconomicsandPoliticalScience,London,UKSocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð80DOI10.1007/s11211-012-0174-7 KeywordsRetributionJustdesertsRight-wingauthoritarianismSocialdominanceorientationWhydopeoplecallfortheharshpunishmentofcriminaloffenders?Theguidingmotivationseemstobeadesireforretribution(e.g.Carlsmith,Darley,&Robinson,),whichisdeÞnedinteraliaasthesupportofpunishmenttorestorejusticeandbalanceinsociety,orasapreferenceforretaliationandanexpressionofvindictiveness.Yet,therehasbeenlittleclarityoverwhatretributionactuallymeans.TheÞrstcontributioninthispaperistoprovideconceptualandmethodologicalreÞnementtothecentralpsychologicalmotivationtopunishlaw-breakers.Goingbacktoanolddistinction(Finckenauer,;VonHirsch,),wearguethattherearetwodimensionstoretribution.Oneisconcernedwithrestoringasenseofjusticethroughproportionalcompensationfromtheoffender(retributionasjustdeserts).Theothercomprisesalessconstructiveuseofpunishmenttogetbackattheoffenderandmakehim/hersuffer(retributionasrevenge).VonHirsch(Þrstproposedtheneedtodistinguishbetweenbothdimensions,butprovidednoevidenceonwhethertheyareindeedempiricallydifferent.Otherstudieshavedistinguishedbetweenavengefuldeservingnessperspectiveandamoreconstruc-tivemoralorjusticerestorationmotive(DeKeijser,VanDerLeeden,&Jackson,;Ho,ForsterLee,ForsterLee,&Crofts,;McKee&Feather,2008),buthavecombinedintheirmeasurementsitemsonthegoalsofpunishmentwiththesentencingprocess(Hoetal.,)andthemessagethatpunishmentseekstocommunicate(DeKeijseretal.,Clarifyingthemeaningofretributionasrevengeandjustdeserts,wedevelopscalestomeasureeachretributiveperspectiveanddisentanglethegoalsofpunishmentfromtheprocessbywhichpunishmentisassigned.Wethenexaminewhetherthesetwodimensionshavedifferentmotivationalantecedentsandwhethertheyrelateindifferentwaystobeliefsabouthowcriminaloffendersshouldbetreated(preferencesforharshpunishmentandthedenialofproceduralfairness).PresentingÞndingsfromanonlinesurvey(176)weprovideevidencethatretributionasrevengeandretributionasjustdesertsarebetterconceptualisedasbeingtwodistinctconcepts.Ontheonehand,retributionasrevengeisfoundtostemfromideologicalpreferencesforgroup-baseddominance(ascapturedbysocialdominanceorien-tation,SDO)andcollectivesecurity(ascapturedbyright-wingauthoritarianism,RWA).HarshtreatmentofcriminaloffendersÑbothintermsoftheprocessofassigningpunishmentandpunishmentitselfÑispositivelyrelatedtothesupportofretributionasrevenge.Ontheotherhand,retributionasjustdesertisfoundtobepredictedonlybyRWA.Aftercontrollingforrevenge,retributionasjustdesertisrelatedtotheendorsementoffairtreatmentofcriminaloffenders.PunishmentGoalsPunishmentgoalsÑi.e.peopleÕsviewsonthepurposeofpunishmentÑaretypicallydividedintoinstrumentalgoalsandretributivegoals(e.g.Carlsmithetal., 62SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð80 Vidmar&Miller,).InstrumentalgoalsjustifypunishmentintermsofthefuturebeneÞtsofreducingthelikelihoodofcrime.Ourconcerninthispaperisonretributivegoals,however,andtheseareconcernedwithretaliatingawrongmorethanpreventingfuturecrimes.RetributionisusuallydeÞnedasthebeliefthatcriminaloffendersdeservetobepunishedfortheviolationofsocietyÕsrules,andthatthispunishmentshouldbeproportionaltothewrongcommitted(Banks,Carlsmith,2006;Carlsmithetal.,;Finckenauer,Punishmentisconsideredanendinitself;itshouldbedeterminedbytheperceivedseriousnessoftheoffenceandtheintentionandresponsibilityoftheoffender(Carlsmith,Vidmar,).Yet,whileretributionseemstorelatetotherepaymentofwrongfulacts,retributionalsocapturesaratherunstructuredrangeofdifferentnon-instrumentalaspectsofpunishment,includingconcernsaboutjustice,proportion-ality,morality,socialcohesion,deservingnessandtheretaliationofwrongdoing.Consistentwiththis,retributionisoftenmeasuredasamixofitemscapturingsomeofthesedimensions(e.g.Okimoto,Wenzel,&Feather,;Orth,;Wenzel,Okimoto,&Cameron,Importantly,however,therehavebeenafewattemptstobringstructuretotheresearchwithinthisÞeld.VonHirsch(;seealsoFinckenauer,;Weiner,Graham,&Reyna,1997)arguesfortwodimensionstoretribution:retributionasjustdesertsandretributionasrevenge.Inretributionasjustdeserts,thecriminaloffenderpaysbackfortheharmdoneandjusticeisrestoredthroughproportionalityandfairprocess.Bypayingadebt,positiveandnegativeexperiencesaredistributedandsocialbalanceisrestored(Weineretal.,1997).Crucially,inretributionasjustdesertsboththeprocesstoallocatepunishmentandtheseverityofthesentenceneedtobefair(Hoetal.,).Inretributionasrevenge,ontheotherhand,peoplewanttopunishnotjusttogeteven(torestorebalance)butalsotoretaliate.Finckenauer)arguesthat,inretributionasrevenge,itissocietythatevensthescorewiththeoffenderandnottheoffenderwhocompensatesforthewrongdone.Vengeanceinvolvestheemotionalpleasureofseeingtheoffendersuffer(NozickinBanks,;Hoetal.,;Weineretal.,);theseriousnessoftheoffencedoesnotnecessarilylimittheharshnessofthepunishment(NozickinBanks,;seealsoStuckless&Goranson,);andbalanceisrestoredevenifthesufferinginßictedbypunishmentexceedstheseverityofthecrime.Thereare,then,someimportantargumentsthatretributioncomprisesatleasttwoseparatedimensions.Empiricalstudiesalsosupportthisclaim.ForexampleDeKeijseretal.()askedDutchjudgestoevaluatearangeofitemsonpunishmentgoals.Usingfactoranalysis,theyfoundtwofactorsforretribution:justdesert(whatweherecallrevenge)andmoralbalance(whatweherecalljustdeserts).TheÞrstoneconsidereditemsondeservingness,sufferingandvengeance,whilethesecondoneincludeditemsonrestoringlegalandmoralorderinsociety,aswellasbeliefsthattheoffendershouldcompensatesocietyfortheharmdone.SimilarlyMcKeeandFeather()distinguishbetweenalegitimatedesireforretributive ThereareparallelsheretoDurkheimÕs()argumentthatpunishmentshouldbeconsideredamoralphenomenon:whilecrimeviolatesthemoralorderinsociety,punishmentservesanexpressiveroleofreafÞrmingsocialbondsanddeÞningtheboundariesofsocialgroups. SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð8063 punishmentandpersonalrevenge,Þndingthatvengeanceattitudesarepositivelyrelatedtoretributionandincapacitationandnegativelytothegoalofrehabilitation.FinallyHoetal.()highlightasmainaspectsofvengeancetheroleofemotionsandtheintensityoftheresponse,whilejusticeismeasuredaspreferencesforafairandlegalresponse.Yet,previousstudieshaveeitherprovidednoempiricalevidenceoftheirdistinction(e.g.Finckenauer,1988;vonHirsch,)orcombinedintheirmeasurementcharacteristicsofpunishmentwiththemessagethatpunishmentseekstocommunicate(DeKeijseretal.,)andtheprocessbywhichsentencesareassigned(Hoetal.,).Inourstudyweseektodisentanglewhatweunderstandasthecorecomponentsofeachretributiveperspective(geteven/suffer;compensation/proportionality)fromthesymbolicmessagepunishmentshouldcommunicatetosociety(symbolicmotivesofpunishment)andthecharacteristicsofthesentencingprocess(harshnessofpunishmentandsentencingdecisions).Crucially,symbolicmotivesofpunishmentandconsequencesofpunishmentmightberelevanttobothtypesofretributionandweseektoexploretheserelationshipsbyseparatingconceptuallyandpracticallybetweenthesedifferentcomponents.ThisResearchTheaimsofthispaperarethreefold.First,weprovidefurtherevidenceintothedistinctionbetweenretributionasrevengeandjustdesertsanddevelopmeasuresthatcapturethecoreaspectsofretribution.Second,weexplorethemotivationalantecedentsofbothdimensionsofretribution;welookattheirrelationshipwithideologicalpreferencesandsymbolicmotivesofpunishment.Third,weexaminetheconsequencesofretributionasrevengeandjustdeserts;weexaminetheirrelationshipwithpreferencesforharshpunishmentandthedenialofproceduralfairness.Wethusbuildonpreviousstudiesbyproposinganencompassingmodelthatdescribesthedifferentmotivesthatliebehindeachretributiondimension,aswellasthedifferentconsequencestheycarryintermsofbeliefsabouthowcriminaloffendersshouldbetreated.TheÞrsthypothesisreferstothedeÞnitionandmeasurementofthetwodimensionsofretribution.Wehypothesisethat:Onedimensionofretributionwillcapturepreferencesforgettingbackattheoffenderandmakinghim/hersuffer(retributionasrevenge)whiletheotherdimensionwillcompriseelementsofproportionalityandcompensation(retributionasjustdeserts).BasedonvonHirschÕs(;seealsoDeKeijseretal.,2002;Finckenauer,)distinction,wedeÞneretributionasrevengeasthedesiretogetevenwith Finckenauer()proposedscalestomeasurebothconceptsandsomeofhisitemsareusedforthecurrentresearch. 64SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð80 criminaloffendersbymakingthemsuffer.WedeÞneretributionasjustdesertsasthedesiretorestorejusticebyallowingtheoffendertocompensatesocietyproportionallytotheharmhehasdone.FollowingvonHirschÕs(VonHirsch,seealsoDeKeijseretal.,;Finckenauer,)pointthatinretributionasjustdesert,theoffenderpaysbackfortheharmhehasdone,wealsoconsideradimensiononpunishmentasawayinwhichtheoffendercompensatesforhiswrongdoing.Wehighlighttwodimensionsofretributionasjustdeserts:propor-tionalityandcompensation.Wealsohypothesisetwolayersofantecedents:symbolicmotivesofpunishment(becausedifferentgoalsofpunishmentmightcommunicatedifferentmessagestothecommunity)andideologicalpositions(becausepeopleÕspreferencesforhowsocietyshouldbestructuredmaydrivehowpeopleperceivecrimeandappropriateinstitutionalresponsetolaw-breaking).Twosymbolicjustice-relatedmotivesofpunishmentareoftennamedintheliterature:theÞrstisstatus/powerandthesecondisvaluerestoration(Okimotoetal.,;Vidmar,;Vidmar&Miller,;Wenzel&Thielmann,First,throughcrime,criminaloffenderstakeadvantage,assumesuperiority,andshowdisrespectforthevictimandsociety(Miller,).HarshpunishmentcandegradetheoffenderÕsstatus,empowerthevictimandsociety,andherebyrestorebalance.Second,crimethreatenscommonrulesandvaluesinsociety.Punishmentsymbolicallylabelstheoffenceaswrong,therebyrestoringpeopleÕsfaithinsharedvalues.Importantly,bothstatus/power(Okimotoetal.,;Wenzel&Thielmann,;Wenzeletal.,)andvalue(Okimotoetal.,;Vidmar,;Wenzeletal.,)restorationmotiveshaveconsistentlybeenfoundtorelatetoretributiveresponsestocrime.Inourstudy,wehypothesisethat:Statusandpowerrestorationwillbepositivelyassociatedtoretributionasrevenge.Valuerestorationwillbepositivelyassociatedtoretributionasjustdeserts.Wearguethatstatus/powerrestorationmotivesareparticularlyrelevanttoarevengeperspectiveonretribution.Retaliatingapastwrongbymakingtheoffendersufferdemeansthestatusoftheoffenderandreturnspowertovictimandsociety.Valuerestoration,incontrast,isarguedtoberelevanttoajustdesertsperspectiveonretribution:moralbalancecanberestoredinsocietybyassigningapunishmentthatallowstheoffendertocompensateinproportiontotheharmthathehasdone. Toavoidcombiningthegoalsofpunishmentwiththeprocessbywhichpunishmentisassigned,wedonotconsidermeasuresontheroleofemotionsinthedecisionprocessorthestrengthoftheresponseaspartofthemeasurementofretributivepunishment.Rather,weconsiderseparatemeasuresonthefairnessofproceduresbywhichcriminaloffendersarepunished(intermsofneutralityandwhetheremotionsshouldplayarole,aswellasrespectingtheoffenderduringthesentencingprocess)andtheharshnessofNote,however,thatwehaveleftoutfromthisdeÞnitiontherestorationofmoralbalanceinsociety.WhilecommunicativetheoriesofpunishmentareoftenclassiÞedaspartofretribution(e.g.DeKeijseretal.,),weconsidertherestorationofmoralbalanceasnotbeingpartofthecoreconceptofjustdeserts,butratherasymbolicmotiveofpunishmentthatcouldberelevanttobothtypesofretribution. SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð8065 Ideologicalattitudesarealsorelevanttopunishmentgoals,inthattheyarelinkedtodifferentviewpointsaboutthecausesofcrimeandthewaysinwhichsocietyshoulddealwithit(Carroll,Perkowitz,Lurigio,&Weaver,1987).Twoideologicaldispositionshaveconsistentlybeenfoundtopredictattitudestowardsthepunishmentofcriminaloffenders:right-wingauthoritarianism(RWA,Altemeyer,)andsocialdominanceorientation(SDO;Sidanius,Mitchell,&Navarrete,).Butinlinewithadual-motivationalmodel(Duckitt,)ÑandgiventhatRWAandSDOhavedifferentmotivationalantecedentsÑtheyshouldpredictpunitiveattitudesfordifferentreasonsandunderdifferentcircumstances.Right-wingauthoritarianismhasbeendeÞnedasthecovariationofthreeattitudinalclusters:authoritariansubmission,authoritarianaggressionandconven-tionalism(Altemeyer,).Capturingthemotivationalgoalofcollectivesecurity,RWAisthoughttoberootedinapersonalityhighinsocialconformityandmadesalientbyadangerousworldview.Linkedtothesupportofharshpunishment(e.g.Altemeyer,;Colemont,VanHiel,&Cornelis,;McKee&Feather,)andtoretributivereactionstocriminaloffences(Carrolletal.,;Feather,),RWAisalsoassociatedwithmoralbalance,socialconstructivenessmontetal.,),deterrenceandincapacitation,butnotwithpersonalvengeance(McKee&Feather,).Overall,peoplehighinRWAseemtobemorelikelytosupportpunishmentifitisconductedbylegalauthorities,butnotifthevictimseekspersonalrevenge(McKee&Feather,).WehypothesisethatpeoplehighinRWAwillbemorelikelytoendorseretributionasrevengetotheextentthatitissanctionedbyalegalprocess.RWAshouldthusbepositivelyassociatedtobothdimensionsofretribution.Furthermore,highRWAindividualsseektomaintainin-groupconformity(Thomsen,Green,&Sidanius,)andtheyshouldfavourharshpunishmenttorestorepeopleÕsfaithinsharedvalues.TheeffectofRWAonpunitivenessshouldbemediatedbyasymbolicmotivetorestorevalues.Wehypothesisethat:RWAwillbepositivelyrelatedtoretributionasjustdesertsandrevenge,anditseffectwillbemediatedbyavaluerestorationmotiveSocialdominanceorientationhasbeendeÞnedasapreferenceforhierarchicalrelationsbetweensocialgroupsaswellasforin-groupdominationoverout-groups(Pratto,Sidanius,Stallworth,&Malle,).SDOcapturesthemotivationalgoalofgroupdominance,powerandsuperiority.SDOispredisposedbyatough-mindedpersonalityandmadesalientbyacompetitiveworldview(Duckitt,).SDOcapturestwodimensions:ageneralpreferenceforinequality,expressedbythesubscaleofoppositiontoequality(OEQ),andapreferenceforoneÕsin-groupdominatingoverout-groups,expressedbygroup-baseddominance(GBD,Jost&Thompson,).PeoplehighinSDOhavebeenshowntoendorseattitudesthatallowreinforcingstatusboundaries(Thomsenetal.,)andarepredictedtosupportpunitiveattitudestotakeawaypowerandstatusfromcriminaloffenders Whileitisalsopossibletoevaluatetheseparateroleofthesub-dimensionsofRWA(conventionalismandsubmissiontoauthorities),preliminaryanalysesofourdatasuggestthattheyrelateinsimilarwaystopunitiveattitudesandwethusconsiderthemtogether. 66SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð80 (statusandpowerrestorationmotive).Infact,SDOhasbeenlinkedtothesupportforharshcriminalsanctions(Sidaniusetal.,),retribution(Prattoetal.,andpersonalvengeance(McKee&Feather,).However,Okimotoetal.(foundthatonlyGBDÑandnotOEQÑwasrelatedtoretributionandconcludedthatpeoplehighinGBDcompetewithcriminaloffendersforstatusandpower.KnowingthatGBDpredictspreferencesforpersonalrevenge,weevaluatewhetheritalsopredictsstate-sponsoredrevengeincaseswherethereisnopersonalinvolvement.InlinewithMcKeeandFeatherÕs()Þndingonpersonalrevenge,weexpectGBDtobeespeciallyrelevanttoretributionasrevengebecausebothseekthegoalofpoweranddominanceoverothers.Group-basedcompetitionforpowerandstatusislikelytoleadtoavengefulresponsetocrimebecauserevengeisespeciallydemeaningtocriminaloffendersandmighthelptoreinforcestatusboundaries.Ajustdesertsresponse,ontheotherhand,impliesaminimumrespectfortheoffenderandwillnothelprestoringpowerandstatusrelationships.Thus,wedonotexpectGBDtobearelevantpredictorofjustdeserts.Wehypothesisethat:GBDwillbepositivelyrelatedtoretributionasrevengeanditseffectwillbemediatedbyastatusandpowerrestorationmotive.Whataresomeoftheconsequencesofdifferentretributionbeliefs?Weexaminetherelationshipbetweenretributivedimensionsandthebeliefspeopleholdabouthowcriminaloffendersshouldbetreated,bothdoingcourtproceedingsandinthesentencing.Previousresearchhasshownacloserelationshipbetweenretributiveperspectivesofpunishment,harshpunitiveresponses(Oswald,Hupfeld,Klug,&Gabriel,)andthedenialofvoiceandrespecttocriminaloffenders(Okimotoetal.,).Yet,weexpectdifferentpreferencesforthetreatmentofcriminaloffendersdependingonpeopleÕsbeliefsaboutthegoalsofpunishment.Werelyonproceduraljusticetheorytoprovideanexplanationontherelationshipbetweentheoriesofpunishment,symbolicmotivesofpunishmentandthetreatmentofcriminaloffenders.Proceduraljusticehighlightstheimportanceoftheprocessbywhichoutcomesaredetermined,morethantheoutcomesthemselves(Lind&Tyler,;Tyler,).Accordingtothegroupvaluetheory(Lind&Tyler,),peoplederiveinformationontheirsocialidentitiesandwhethertheyarerespectedwithinthegroupbasedonthewaysinwhichtheyaretreated.Itfollowsthatdenyingproceduralfairnesstocriminaloffenderscommu-nicatesthattheyarenotconsideredasmembersofthein-group(Boeckmann&)andclariÞesstatusboundaries.Harshtreatmentofcriminaloffendersandthedenialofproceduralfairnesstopeoplebeingprosecutedforacrimearethuslikelytogohandinhandwiththemotivationtogetevenandrestorestatusandpowerrelationshipsinsociety.Itisthusarguedthatthosewhofavourretributiontoachieverevengewillbemorelikelytosupportharshpunishmentanddenyproceduralfairnesstocriminaloffenders. Nonetheless,twostudiesthatcontrolledforRWAfoundnorelationshipbetweenSDOandpunitiveattitudes(Colemontetal.,;McKee&Feather,).TheseinconsistentÞndingsmightbeduetotheconfoundingofdifferentpunishmentgoals,thefactthattheycontrolledforRWAandauthoritarianaggression(whichusuallyincludesitemsontheharshpunishmentofcriminaloffenders)andthefactthattheyhaveconsideredSDOasawhole,whileonlyGBDhasbeenfoundtopredictpunitiveattitudes. SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð8067 Ajustdesertsperspective,ontheotherhand,assumessomelevelofcommitmentwithlegalandfairprocessesandshouldthusbenegativelyrelatedtothedenialofproceduralfairness.Wehypothesisethat:ThesupportforharshpunishmentwillbepositivelyrelatedtoretributionasrevengeDenialofproceduralfairnesswillbepositivelyrelatedtoretributionasrevengeandnegativelyrelatedtoretributionasjustdesertsMethodParticipants211personsfromtheUSparticipatedinanonlinestudypostedonAmazonÕsMechanicalTurk.35participants(17%)wereexcludedforfailingtorespondcorrectlytoatleastoneoutoftwovalidationquestionsembeddedinthestudy.Thereportedresultscorrespondto176participants.Thesamplewasdiverseintermsofgender(50%female),age(13.3),occupa-tion(52%worked,22%students,14%unemployed)andideology(56%leaningtotheleft,21%centre,24%leaningtotheright);althoughlessdiverseintermsofethnicity(86%white).ProcedureParticipantswereinvitedtotakepartinastudyoncrimeandpunishment.Theywerepaid0.50USdollarsfortheirparticipationandrequestedtogiveinformedconsent.Beforetakingpartinthestudy,aninstructionalmanipulationcheck(Oppenheimer,Meyvis,&Davidenko,)wasusedtomakesurethatparticipantswerereadingtheinstructions.Participantswererequestedtoskipratherthanansweraquestionandonlyparticipantswhodidnotanswerthequestionwereabletoparticipateinthestudy.Thismanipulationwasusedtoscreenoutpeoplewhodorandomclickingandtoincreaseattentionoftheremainingparticipants(Oppenheimeretal.,).Participantswerethenaskedtoansweraquestionnairemeasuringbackgroundsocio-demographicquestions,RWA,SDO,punishmentgoals,symbolicmotivesofpunishmentandattitudestowardsdueprocess.Finally,respondentswereaskedtoprovideinformationonthetypeofcrimetheyhadinmindwhencompletingthesurvey,anddebriefed. Givenitsfocusonproportionality,theextenttowhichajustdesertsperspectiverelatestopreferencesforharshpunishmentshoulddependontheseverityofthecrime.Sincewearemeasuringpunishmentgoalsingeneral,wedonotspecifyahypothesisabouttherelationshipbetweenjustdesertsandharshStudiesontheuseofAmazonÕsMechanicalTurktocollectdatahaveconcludedthatnotonlyisthedataasreliableasdatacollectedthroughothermeans,butparticipantsarealsomorediverseintermsofsocio-demographicvariables(e.g.Buhrmester,Kwang,&Gosling, 68SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð80 MeasuresRetributionScalesofretributionwerereviewed(DeKeijseretal.,;Finckenauer,Hoetal.,;Okimotoetal.,)anditemswereadaptedtomeasureretributionasrevengeandretributionasjustdeserts.RetributionasrevengehasbeendeÞnedastheuseofharshpunishmenttogetevenwiththeoffender,andishypothesisedtogohandinhandwiththethoughtthatpunishmentshouldmaketheoffendersuffer.Twosubscalesweredesignedtocaptureretributionasrevenge:sufferingandgettingeven.Retributionasjustdeserts,ontheotherhand,hasbeendeÞnedasadesiretorestorejusticebyallowingtheoffendertocompensatetosocietyproportionallytotheharmhehasdone.Itwasmeasuredusingtwosubscales:proportionalityandcompensation.displaystheitemsofeachsubscaleanddescriptivestatistics.Respondentswereinstructedtoreporthowimportanttheythoughteachofthesegoalswas.7-pointlikertscaleswereusedfortheseandallothermeasuresinthesurvey.IdeologicalAttitudesRWAwasmeasuredusing12itemsfromDuckitt,Bizumic,Krauss,andHeledÕs)adaptationofAltemeyerÕs()items.Sixitemsmeasuredconventionalismandsixitemsmeasuredauthoritariansubmission.Halfoftheitemsofeachscalewere Table1ItemsonretributionasrevengeandretributionasjustdesertsRetributionasrevengeInßictionofsufferingshouldbeanexplicitelementineverysanction3.381.63Punishmentwithoutanelementofsufferingisnopunishment4.131.60Punishmentisdeservedsuffering4.301.64GetevenWeshouldpunishtogetevenwiththeoffender3.001.63Societyshouldpunishtogetbackatcriminaloffenders3.501.72Societyhastherighttotakerevengeoncriminaloffenders3.521.75RetributionasjustdesertsProportionalityTheseverityofthepunishmentshouldbeproportionaltotheharmdone5.691.10Criminalsshouldbepunishedproportionallytotheharmdonetosociety5.531.18TheseverityofthepunishmentshouldÞttheseverityofthecrime5.721.18Byundergoingpunishment,acriminalpaysoffhisdebttosociety4.761.54Justiceisrestoredwhenanoffenderpaysbackfortheharmhehascaused4.861.46Bymeansofpunishmentthecriminaloffendercompensatesfortheharmhecausedto4.731.55 SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð8069 reversecodedtocontrolforacquiescenceresponsebias.Authoritarianaggressionitemsusuallyrefertocrimeandpunishmentissueseitherexplicitly(e.g.ÔBeingkindtoloafersorcriminalswillonlyencouragethemtotakeadvantageofyourweakness,soitÕsbesttouseaÞrm,toughhandwhendealingwiththemÕ,Duckittetal.,)orimplicitly(e.g.ÔWeshouldsmashallthenegativeelementsthatarecausingtroubleinoursocietyÕ,Duckittetal.,).Whiletheseitemsmightbeusefulinpredictingprejudiceandotherintergroupattitudes,includingtheminourstudywouldleadtotautologicalconclusionsofaggressionagainstcriminaloffenderspredictingthesupportfortheirharshpunishment.Inourstudywethusexcludeditemsonauthoritarianaggression.SDOwasmeasuredusing12itemsfromSidaniusandPratto),sixforgroup-baseddominanceandsixforoppositiontoequality.SymbolicMotivesofPunishmentValuerestorationwasmeasuredusingtwoitemsadaptedfromOkimotoetal.Õs)other-valuerestorationscale:ÔPunishmentshouldreinforceforothersthevaluesthattheoffenderÕsbehaviorunderminedÕandÔPunishmentshouldexpresstoothersthattheoffenderÕsbehaviorviolatedthevaluesweshouldallshareÕ.andpowerrestorationmotivewasmeasuredusingtwoitems.OneitemwasadaptedfromOkimotoetal.Õs()status/powerreductiongoalscale:ÔPunishmentshouldcommunicatetotheoffenderthatpeoplehavelowregardforhimÕ.Theseconditemwasdesignedforthisstudy:ÔPunishmentshouldhumiliatetheoffenderÕ.TreatmentofCriminalOffendersTwoscalesweredevelopedtomeasurepeopleÕsbeliefsabouthowcriminaloffendersshouldbetreated:harshpunishmentanddenialofproceduralfairness(seeAppendix).FouritemsÑtwopositivelyphrasedandtwonegativelyphrasedÑmeasuredthesupportforharshpunitivemeasures(e.g.ÔPeoplewhobreakthelawshouldbegivenharshersentencesÕ).Basedonproceduralfairnessliterature(e.g.)twodimensionswereconsideredtomeasuredenialofproceduralfairness:whetherthecriminaloffendershouldbetreatedwithrespect(3items)andwhetherthesentencingprocessshouldbeneutralorallowemotionalsentencing(6items).DescriptivestatisticsandcorrelationsarepresentedinTableTypeofCrimeFinally,weaskedrespondentstoreportthetypeofcrimetheyhadprimarilyinmindwhencompletingthesurvey.Weaddedthiscontrolmeasuresincerespondentsmayfavourdifferenttypesofretributiondependinguponthetypeofcrime.Theoptionswere:propertycrimes(e.g.theftorburglary),violentcrime(e.g.assaultormurder),sexualcrime(e.g.rape),drugoffences,fraud,vandalismandother.Mostrespondentschoseviolentcrime(64.2%),followedbypropertycrimes(11.9%) Tosimplify,intheremainingofthispaperwerefertoright-wingauthoritarianismeventhoughitonlyconsidersmeasuresonauthoritariansubmissionandconventionalism. 70SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð80 anddrugoffences(11.4%).Thismeasurewasrecodedintoadummyvariable,with1correspondingtoviolentorsexualcrimeand0totherest.AnalysisTheÞrstaimofthispaperwastoevaluatewhetherretributionasvengeanceandretributionasjustdesertsinfactmeasuredtwodifferentconcepts.ConÞrmatoryfactoranalysiswithMPLUSwascarriedouttomodelthedimensionsspeciÞedabove(suffer,gettingeven,proportionalityandcompensation).Amodelwherealldimensionsloadedononehigherorderfactorwascomparedtoamodelwheresufferingandgettingevenloadedononehigherorderfactor(ÔretributionasrevengeÕ)andproportionalityandcompensationloadedonasecondhigherorderfactor(ÔretributionasjustdesertsÕ).Fitstatisticswerethenusedtocomparetheadequacyofbothmodels.Inasecondstagestructuralequationmodellingwasusedtoexaminetherelationshipbetweenretribution,ideology,symbolicmotivesofpunishmentandattitudestowardsthetreatmentofcriminaloffenders.ResultsTheDimensionalityofRetributionConÞrmatoryfactoranalysiswasconductedtocomparetheÞtofaone-factorandatwo-factormodelofretribution.Model1predictsthatthefoursub-dimensions Table2Descriptivestatisticsandcorrelationsbetweenretributionasrevenge,retributionasjustdeserts,ideologicaldispositionsandthetreatmentofcriminaloffenders123456789101.Retributionas2.Retributionasjustdeserts.70**Ð3.RWA.46**.41**Ð4.SDOGBD.32**.13.23**Ð5.SDOOEQ.18*.03.25**.59**Ð6.Value.35**.43**.37**.07.02Ð7.Status.64**.45**.27**.41**.27**.38**Ð8.Harsh.59**.51**.60**.23**.17*.35**.45**Ð9.Denyfair.54**.20**.28**.39**.26**.07.50**.54**Ð10.Violent.27**.21**.16*.11.13.04.26**.37**.29**ÐMean0.000.003.612.622.445.523.643.872.930.671.100.861.281.211.171.141.581.410.890.470.870.800.930.890.910.870.780.870.83Ð SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð8071 (gettingeven,suffer,proportionalityandcompensation)arepartofasecond-orderfactorcalledretribution.Model2,ontheotherhand,predictsthattwodimensionscapturetherelationshipbetweenthesub-dimensions:retributionasrevenge(gettingevenandmakingtheoffendersuffer)andretributionasjustdeserts(proportionalityandcompensation).Second-orderfactorswereusedgiventhatdifferentdimensionsarehypothesisedtounderliebothretributiontypes.Thetwo-factormodelshowedaverygoodÞt(Model2:.025;CFI0.98;RMSEA0.05).TheÞtoftheone-factormodelwasslightlyworse(Model1:.001;CFI0.96;RMSEAalthoughitsÞtwasstillclosetoconventionallevels.Whileonecouldreasonablyargueinfavourofbothmodels,weexplorethetwo-factoroptionasitprovidesaslightlybetterÞt.Itisalsooftheoreticalinteresttoevaluatewhetherthesetwodimensionsofretributionaredifferentiallyrelatedtoideologicalpreferencesandthetreatmentofcriminaloffenders.FigurepresentsthefactorloadingsforModel2.IdeologicalandMotivationalAntecedentsofRetributionasRevengeandJustWestartbyexploringtherelationshipbetweenretributionasrevenge,justdeserts,ideologicaldispositionsandsymbolicmotivesofpunishment.Tablepresentsthebivariatecorrelationsbetweenallvariablesinthestudy.FactorscoresderivedfromModel2(Fig.)wereusedforretributionasrevengeandjustdeserts.Meanswereusedforallothervariables.RetributionasrevengewaspositivelyandsigniÞcantlycorrelatedwithRWA,GBD,valuerestoration((.32,p\.01),andparticularlywithstatusandpowerrestoration(.01),harshpunishment(.01)andthedenialoffairprocess(.01).Thecorrelationwithoppositiontoequalitywasverymodest(.05).Retributionasjustdeserts,ontheotherhand,waspositivelyandsigniÞcantlycorrelatedwithRWA,valuesandstatusrestoration,harshpunishment((.41,.01),butnotwiththesubscalesofSDO((.05).TheassociationwiththedenialoffairprocesswaspositivebutrathersmallStructuralequationmodellingwasthenusedtomodeltherelationshipbetweenretribution,treatmentofcriminaloffenders,ideologicaldispositionsandsymbolicmotivesofpunishment.Giventhatoppositiontoequalityshowedonlyamodeststatisticaleffectonbothretributionasrevengeandjustdeserts,wedecidedtoexcludeitfromthestructuralequationmodel.Toavoidcomplicatingthemodelbyusingsecondorderfactors,derivedfactorscoreswereusedforthesub-dimensions NotethatwhileatwofactormodelÞtsthedatabetter,retributionasrevengeandjustdesertsarestillhighlycorrelated(.01)andspecialcautionwasplacedintheremaininganalysestoruleoutmulticollinearityissues.Forthefollowinganalyses,varianceinßationfactors(VIF)wereallbelow3.1,whichsuggeststhatdespitethehighcorrelation,multicollinearityproblemswereonlymoderate.Alsonotethatwedonotuselikelihood-ratiotesttoassessrelativemodelÞtbecausealikelihood-ratiotestisnotappropriateinthecontext.Thenullhypothesisinthiscase(thatthecorrelationbetweenthetwofactorsis1)impliesaparameterthatisontheboundaryoftheparameterspace,sotheasymptoticChisquaredistribution(thatisnormallyusedforlikelihood-ratiotests)isnotappropriate. 72SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð80 ofretribution.ParcelswerealsousedtomeasureRWA,GBDandthedenialofproceduralfairness.TomaintainthedimensionsofRWA,oneparcelwasconstructedtomeasureauthoritariansubmissionandtheotheronetomeasureconventionalism.InrelationtoGBD,itemswererandomlyassignedtooneoftwoparcels.Finally,twodimensionswereusedasparcelsforthedenialofproceduralfairness:respectandneutralityofprocedures.First,amodelwasÞttedwhereGBDandRWApredictedsymbolicmotivesofpunishmentandthese,inturn,predictedvengeanceanddeserts.Vengeanceanddeserts,ontheotherhand,weremodelledtopredictharshpunishmentanddenialof Fig.1ConÞrmatoryfactoranalysisofatwo-factormodelofretribution.StandardisedcoefÞcientsareshown.ForallcoefÞcients ParcelsÑi.e.indicatorsthataggregatetwoormoreitemsbyusingasumoraverage-areoftenusedinstructuralequationmodelling(Little,Cunningham,Shahar,&Widaman,).Whenusingparcelsrandomandsystematicerrorofsingleitemsarenotincorporatedintothemodel,andmodelÞtandstabilityarethusimproved.Whilesomearguethatamodelshouldrepresentthesourcesofvarianceofallitems,parcelingisrecommendedforstudiesÑsuchasthisÑwheretheaimistoexplorerelationshipsbetweenlatentvariablesandnotfactorstructures. SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð8073 proceduralfairness.Thismodel,however,didnotÞtthedataverywell.ModiÞcationindicesrecommendedaddingdirecteffectsfromRWAtoretributionasrevengeandjustdeserts,aswellasharshpunishmentanddueprocess.Also,adirecteffectfromstatus/powerrestorationtodenyingdueprocesswasadded.displaystheÞnalmodel,whichhadagoodoverallÞt:1.55;CFI0.97;RMSEATheÞndingsshowedthatstatusandpowerrestorationwaspredictedbyGBD.42,.01)andtoalesserdegreebyRWA(.05).Themodelpredicted30.9%ofthevarianceofstatusrestoration.Valuerestoration,ontheotherhand,waspositivelypredictedbyRWA(.01)andnegativelypredictedbyGBD(.01).23.3%ofthevarianceinvaluerestorationwasaccountedbyRWAandGBD.Statusandpowerrestorationwasthemainpredictorofretributionasrevenge.62,.01),followedbyRWA(.27,.01).Interestingly,bothGBD.26,.01)and,toalesserdegree,RWA(.05)hadindirecteffectsonrevengemediatedbytherestorationofstatusandpower.Themodelexplained57.7%ofthevarianceinretributionasrevenge.Retributionasjustdeserts,ontheotherhand,waspredictedbyvaluerestoration(.01),statusrestoration(.01)andRWA(.01).RWAhadalsoindirecteffectsviavaluerestoration(.01).GBD,ontheotherhand,hadbothapositiveindirecteffectonjustdesertsmediatedbystatusrestoration(.05)andanegativeindirecteffectmediatedbyvaluerestoration(.05).However,thetotaleffectofGBDonjustdesertswasnon-signiÞcant.Thismodelpredicted39.5%ofthevarianceofretributionasjustdeserts.Itshouldbenotedthatthepresentedmodelcontrolledforthetypeofcrimerespondentswerethinkingaboutwhencompletingthesurvey.Adummyfortypeofcrime(1violent)wasaddedasapredictorofsymbolicmotivesofpunishment,retributionandthetreatmentofcriminaloffenders.Onlystatusrestoration(.01)andharshpunishment(.01)wereaffectedbythetypeofcrime:respondentswhohadviolentorsexualcrimeinmindwhencompletingthesurveyweremorelikelytoseekpunishmenttorestorestatusandpowerrelationshipsinsocietyandweremoresupportiveofapplyingharshpunitivemeasures.Finally,harshpunishmentwaspredictedbyretributionasrevenge(.01)andRWA(.01).AftercontrollingforrevengeandRWA,justdesertshadnoeffectonthesupportforstiffsentences.Thesevariablesexplained62.8%ofthevarianceinharshpunishment.Denialofproceduralfairness,ontheotherhand,wasstronglyandpositivelypredictedbyrevenge(statusrestoration(.01)andRWA(.23,.05).Aftercontrollingforthesevariables,justdesertsbecameanegativepredictorofdenyingprocedural Weshouldnote,however,thatwedonotwishtoimplyacausalpathfromideologicaldispositionstosymbolicmotivesofpunishment,retributivejusticeandthetreatmentofcriminaloffenders.Ouruseofstructuralequationmodelseekstoorganiseanddisentanglevariablesandtheirrelationshipsmorethanproposingthatsomevariablesaretemporarilypriortoothers.WhileitmaybepossibletoarguethatRWAandSDOarepriortoattitudestowardspunishmentandcriminaloffenders,respondentsarelikelytothinkofsymbolicmotives,retributionandthetreatmentofcriminaloffendersasdimensionsofthesame 74SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð80 Fig.2Structuralequationmodelofretribution,ideologicaldispositions,symbolicmotivesandthetreatmentofcriminaloffenders.StandardisedcoefÞcientsareshown.AllfactorloadingsaresigniÞcant(.62.01).ModelÞt:196.74,1.55;CFI0.97;RMSEA0.06.Errorcovariancebetweenstatusandvaluerestoration(.01)andbetweendesertsandrevenge(.01)wereaddedbutarenotshowninthemodel.Themodelcontrolsforthetypeofcrimerespondentswerethinkingaboutwhencompletingthesurvey(1violentorsexualcrime,0other).TypeofcrimewasonlyasigniÞcantpredictorofstatusrestoration(.01)andharshpunishment( SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð8075 fairness(.01),andsodidvaluerestoration(Takentogetherthesevariablesexplained75.3%ofthevarianceinproceduralfairness.ItisalsoworthnotingthatRWAhadbothpositiveandnegativeindirecteffectsonthedenialofproceduralfairness.Ontheonehand,ithadpositiveindirecteffectsthroughrevenge(.01)andstatusrestoration(.09,.10).Ontheotherhand,ithadnegativeindirecteffectsthroughjustdeserts(.05)andvaluerestoration(.05).Thisis,peoplehighinRWAseektoavengecrimestorestorestatusrelationships,buttheyarealsoconcernedaboutvaluesandproportionality.Overall,theseindirecteffectscancelledeachotheroutandtheonlysigniÞcanteffectwasitspositivedirecteffectonthedenialofproceduralfairness(.05).GBD,ontheotherhand,hadapositiveindirecteffectonthedenialofproceduralfairness,throughthedesiretorestorestatusrelationships(.01).BothRWA(.01)andGBD.09,.01)hadpositiveindirecteffectsonharshpunishment,mediatedbyrevengeandstatusrestoration.DiscussionInthispaperwehavesoughttoprovidefurtherevidenceintothedistinctionbetweentwotypesofretribution:namely,retributionasrevengeandretributionasjustdeserts.WehavearguedthatthesetwodimensionsarebetterconceptualisedasbeingtwodistinctÑalbeitempiricallyassociatedÑconcepts.Aspredicted(Htwo-factormodelofretributionshowedabetterÞtthanaone-factormodel.Onedimension(retributionasrevenge)involveddimensionsofgettingevenandmakingtheoffendersuffer,whiletheseconddimension(retributionasjustdeserts)compriseddimensionsofcompensationandproportionality.Ontheonehand,retributionasrevengewasdeÞnedasadesiretogetevenwiththeoffenderbymakinghim/hersuffer.Ontheotherhand,retributionasjustdesertswasdeÞnedasthedesiretorestorejusticebyallowingtheperpetratortocompensateproportionallytotheharmdone.Second,andperhapsmostinterestingly,retributionasrevengeandjustdesertsdifferedintheirmotivationalantecedentsandpreferencesforthetreatmentofcriminaloffenders.OurÞndingssuggestthatthedesirestogetevenandmaketheoffendersufferarerootedinthemotivationtoendorsestatusboundarieswithcriminaloffenders:bothastatusrestorationmotive(H)andthedesiretodominateoverout-groups(asexpressedbyGBD,H)predictedretributionasrevenge.Also,aspredicted(H),thosehighinRWA(heremeasuredasconventionalismandsubmissiontoauthorities)weremorelikelytoendorserevenge,arguablybecauseinourresearchrevengewasnotphrasedasapersonalmatterbutastheproductofthelegalapplicationofthelaw.Consistentwiththemotivationtocommunicatelowstatustocriminaloffenders,revengepredictedthesupportforharshpunitivemeasures(H)aswellasthedenialofproceduralfairness(H).Thatis,revenge,harshpunishmentandthedenialofproceduralfairnessseemtobethepreferred 76SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð80 meanstore-establishapositionofdominanceovercriminaloffendersandcommunicatethatpeoplehavelowregardforthem.Retributionasjustdeserts,ontheotherhand,wasrootedinright-wingauthoritarianism(H),andthemotivationstorestorevalues(H)and,contrarytowhatwaspredicted,statusandpower.Thatis,unlikerevenge,justdesertswasalsomotivatedbyamoreconstructivedesiretocommunicategoodmoralvaluestosociety.Intermsofitsrelationshipwiththetreatmentofcriminaloffenders,justdesertshadpositivecorrelationswithharshpunishmentandthedenialofproceduralfairness(althoughthelatterwasverysmall).However,oncerevengewascontrolledfor,theeffectofjustdesertsonharshpunishmentbecamenon-signiÞcantandtheeffectonthedenialofproceduralfairnessbecamenegative(H).Thehighcorrelationbetweenjustdesertsandrevengeshowsthatpeoplewhosupportpunishmenttoachievejustdesertstendtosupportpunishmenttoachieverevengeaswell.However,atanygivenlevelofvengefulness,concernsaboutproportionalityandcompensationmayactuallyreducepeopleÕsdesirestodenydueprocessandrespecttocriminaloffenders.ThepresentresearchalsoprovidesinterestinginformationonthedifferentialreasonswhypeoplehighinSDOandRWAsupportpunitivepolicies.Consistentwithastatusboundaryenforcementhypothesis(Thomsenetal.,),theeffectofGBDonrevengewasmediatedbythemotivationtorestorestatusandpowerrelationshipswithcriminaloffenders(H).PastresearchshowedthatGBDpredictspersonalrevenge(McKee&Feather,).ThepresentstudyprovidesevidencethathighGBDindividualswillalsosupportstate-sponsoredpunishmenttogetevenwiththeoffender,evenifthereisnopersonalinvolvement.TheeffectofRWAwasmorewidespread.Consistentwithanin-groupconformityhypothesis(Thomsenetal.,2008),highRWAindividualssoughttorestorevaluesinsocietyandthelattermediatedtheirpreferencesforretributionasjustdeserts(H).However,RWAalsopredictedstatusandpowerrestorationmotivesandrevenge.ThisresultisinconsistentwithÞndingsonthelackofrelationshipbetweenRWAandpersonalvengeance(McKee&Feather,).Overall,peoplehighinRWAseemtosupportpunishmenttotheextentthatitisundertakenfollowinglegitimisedprocedures,butnotwhenanindividualseekspersonalrevenge.RevengeandjustdesertsmightcorrespondtotwodifferentstrategiesusedbyhighRWAindividualstorestorein-groupconformity:reformingthecriminaloffenderandincludinghim/herbackintosociety(whichmightbeachievedbyrestoringvalues,compensationandaproportionalpunishment)orexcludingtheoffenderfromsocietyandprotecttheidentityofthegroup(whichmightbeachievedthroughstatusrestorationandvengeance).Thepreferenceforoneortheotherstrategymightdependonwhetherthecriminaloffenderisperceivedtobepartofthein-grouportobelongtoanout-group(Boeckmann&Tyler,).PeoplearelikelytochooserevengeandtheexclusionofthecriminaloffenderwhentheydonotfeelidentiÞedwiththeoffenderandwhenheisperceivedtobepartofanout-group.Inthiscase,exclusioncanhelpprotecttheidentityofthegroup.Thisisalsoconsistentwithanegativebiastowardsout-groupmembers,asproposedbysocialidentitytheory(Feather&Souter,;seealsoBoeckmann&Tyler,researchondenyingproceduralfairness).Ontheotherhand,peoplearelikelyto SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð8077 showapositivebiastowardsin-groupmembersandfavourjustdesertsandtherestorationofvalueswhentheyidentifywiththecriminaloffender.Consistentwiththisargument,previousresearch(Wenzel&Thielmann,;seealsoOkimoto&Wenzel,)hasfoundthatjustdesertswasastrongerpredictorofpunitivedecisionswhenrespondentshadlowidentiÞcationwiththenation,whilealternativepunishmentandthedesiretorestorevalueswasrelevantwhenrespondentswerehighlyidentiÞed.However,theoppositemightalsobetrue:accordingtotheÔblacksheepeffectÕdevaluingtheoffendermighthelptoprotecttheidentityofthegroup(Okimoto&Wenzel,).Indeed,Marques()showedthatreactionstonormviolationstendtobestrongerwhentheoffenderispartofthein-group.Weshouldnote,inclosing,thatthedistinctionbetweenretributionasrevengeandjustdesertsisjustoneofanumberofpossibledimensionsofpunishmentgoals.ForexampleVidmarandMiller(VidmarandMiller,;seealsoOrth,Oswaldetal.,)differentiatepunishmentgoalsregardingwhethertheyfocusonamicro(offenderandvictim)ormacro(society)perspective;itcanbearguedthatretributionasrevengeisconcernedwiththerelationshipbetweenvictimandoffenderwhilejustdesertsreferstoconcernsaboutrestoringbalanceinsocietyasawhole.Moreresearchisrequiredtoevaluatehowdifferentdimensionsofretributionrelatetotheobjectsofpunishment.Nevertheless,wehopethatthisstudyhasprovidedcleartheoreticalandmethodologicaltoolstoexplorepeopleÕsattitudestowardspunishment,whilealsoshowingsomeimportantantecedentsandconse-quencesofpeopleÕsmotivationstopunishrule-breakers.AppendixHarshPunishmentÐPeoplewhobreakthelawshouldbegivenharshersentences.ÐTheuseofharshpunishmentshouldbeavoidedwheneverpossible.ÐWeshouldmakesentencesmoresevereforallcrimes.ÐIfprisonhastobeused,itshouldbeusedsparinglyandonlyasalastoption.ProceduralJustice:RespectÐAftercommittinganoffence,criminaloffenderslosetherighttobetreatedwithrespect.ÐDespitewhathashappened,criminaloffendersareentitledtotreatmentwithrespectandpoliteness.ÐCriminaloffendersdeservetobetreatedwithdignityandrespect.ProceduralJustice:NeutralSentencing.ÐWhendecidingontheappropriatepunishment,criminaloffendersdonotdeservetobetreatedaccordingtofairrulesandprocedures. 78SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð80 ÐItisessentialtoensurefairnessandconsistencywhendecidingontheappropriatepunishmentofcriminaloffenders.ÐIndecidingacriminalcase,itisimportanttobeobjectivewhenconsideringtheevidence.ÐIndecidingacriminalcase,itisokaytoallowemotionstoinßuencejudgements.ÐIndecidingacriminalcase,itisalrighttoallowangertowardsthedefendanttoplayapartinthedecision.ÐIndecidingacriminalcase,thedecisionshouldbebasedinpart,onsubjective,personalfeelings.ReferencesAltemeyer,B.(1981).Right-wingauthoritarianism.Winnipeg:UniversityofManitobaPress.Altemeyer,B.(1988).Enemiesoffreedom:Understandingright-wingauthoritarianism(1sted.).SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.Banks,C.(2008).Criminaljusticeethics:Theoryandpractice.ThousandOaks;London:Sage.Boeckmann,R.J.,&Tyler,T.R.(1997).Commonsensejusticeandinclusionwithinthemoralcommunity:Whendopeoplereceiveproceduralprotectionsfromothers?Psychology,PublicPolicy,andLaw,3(2Ð3),362Ð380.Buhrmester,M.,Kwang,T.,&Gosling,S.D.(2011).AmazonÕsmechanicalTurkanewsourceofinexpensive,yethigh-quality,data?PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience,6(1),3Ð5.Carlsmith,K.M.(2006).Therolesofretributionandutilityindeterminingpunishment.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,42(4),437Ð451.Carlsmith,K.M.,Darley,J.M.,&Robinson,P.H.(2002).Whydowepunish?:Deterrenceandjustdesertsasmotivesforpunishment.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,83(2),284Ð299.Carroll,J.S.,Perkowitz,W.T.,Lurigio,A.J.,&Weaver,F.M.(1987).Sentencinggoals,causalattributions,ideology,andpersonality.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,52mont,A.,VanHiel,A.,&Cornelis,I.(2011).Five-factormodelpersonalitydimensionsandright-wingattitudes:Psychologicalbasesofpunitiveattitudes?PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,(4),486Ð491.DeKeijser,J.W.,VanDerLeeden,R.,&Jackson,J.L.(2002).Frommoraltheorytopenalattitudesandback:Atheoreticallyintegratedmodelingapproach.BehavioralSciencesandtheLaw,20Duckitt,J.(2001).Adual-processcognitive-motivationaltheoryofideologyandprejudice.InM.P.Zanna(Ed.),Advancesinexperimentalsocialpsychology(Vol.33,pp.41Ð113).Amsterdam:AcademicPress/Elsevier.Duckitt,J.,Bizumic,B.,Krauss,S.W.,&Heled,E.(2010).Atripartiteapproachtoright-wingauthoritarianism:Theauthoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalismmodel.PoliticalPsychology,(5),685Ð715.Durkheim,E.(1964).Thedivisionoflaborinsociety(trans:Simpson,G.).NewYork;London:FreePress,CollierMacmillan.(Originalworkpublished1893).Durkheim,E.(1973).Moraleducation:Astudyinthetheoryandapplicationofthesociologyof(trans:Wilson,E.,Schnurer,H.).NewYork:FreePress(Originalworkpublished1925).Feather,N.T.(1998).Reactionstopenaltiesforoffensescommittedbythepoliceandpubliccitizens:TestingasocialÐcognitiveprocessmodelofretributivejustice.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,75(2),528Ð544.Feather,N.T.,&Souter,J.(2002).Reactionstomandatorysentencesinrelationtotheethnicidentityandcriminalhistoryoftheoffender.LawandHumanBehavior,26(4),417Ð438. SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð8079 Finckenauer,J.O.(1988).Publicsupportforthedeathpenalty:RetributionasjustdesertsorretributionasJusticeQuarterly,5(1),81Ð100.Ho,R.,ForsterLee,L.,ForsterLee,R.,&Crofts,N.(2002).Justiceversusvengeance:Motivesunderlyingpunitivejudgements.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,33(3),365Ð377.Jost,J.T.,&Thompson,E.P.(2000).Group-baseddominanceandoppositiontoequalityasindependentpredictorsofself-esteem,ethnocentrism,andsocialpolicyattitudesamongAfricanAmericansandEuropeanAmericans.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,36(3),209Ð232.Lind,E.A.,&Tyler,T.R.(1988).Thesocialpsychologyofproceduraljustice.NewYork;London:Little,T.D.,Cunningham,W.A.,Shahar,G.,&Widaman,K.F.(2002).Toparcelornottoparcel:Exploringthequestion,weighingthemerits.StructuralEquationModeling:AMultidisciplinaryJournal,9(2),151Ð173.Marques,D.(1990).Theblacksheep-effect:Out-grouphomogeneityinsocialcomparisonsettings.InD.Abrams&M.A.Hogg(Eds.),Socialidentitytheory:Constructiveandcriticaladvances131Ð151).London:HarvesterWheatsheaf.McKee,I.,&Feather,N.(2008).Revenge,retribution,andvalues:SocialattitudesandpunitiveSocialJusticeResearch,21(2),138Ð163.Miller,D.T.(2001).Disrespectandtheexperienceofinjustice.AnnualReviewofPsychology,52Okimoto,T.G.,&Wenzel,M.(2010).Thesymbolicidentityimplicationsofinterandintra-grouptransgressions.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,40(3),552Ð562.Okimoto,T.G.,Wenzel,M.,&Feather,N.T.(2011).Retributionandrestorationasgeneralorientationstowardsjustice.EuropeanJournalofPersonality,26(3),255Ð275.Oppenheimer,D.M.,Meyvis,T.,&Davidenko,N.(2009).Instructionalmanipulationchecks:DetectingsatisÞcingtoincreasestatisticalpower.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,45(4),867Ð872.Orth,U.(2003).Punishmentgoalsofcrimevictims.LawandHumanBehavior,27(2),173Ð186.Oswald,M.E.,Hupfeld,J.,Klug,S.C.,&Gabriel,U.(2002).Lay-perspectivesoncriminaldeviance,goalsofpunishment,andpunitivity.SocialJusticeResearch,15(2),85Ð98.Pratto,F.,Sidanius,J.,Stallworth,L.M.,&Malle,B.F.(1994).Socialdominanceorientation:Apersonalityvariablepredictingsocialandpoliticalattitudes.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,67(4),741Ð763.Sidanius,J.,Mitchell,M.,&Navarrete,N.(2006).Supportforharshcriminalsanctionsandcriminaljusticebeliefs:Asocialdominanceperspective.SocialJusticeResearch,19(4),433Ð449.Sidanius,J.,&Pratto,F.(2001).Socialdominance:Anintergrouptheoryofsocialhierarchyand.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Stuckless,N.,&Goranson,R.(1992).Thevengeancescale:Developmentofameasureofattitudestowardrevenge.JournalofSocialBehavior&Personality,7(1),25Ð42.Thomsen,L.,Green,E.G.T.,&Sidanius,J.(2008).Wewillhuntthemdown:Howsocialdominanceorientationandright-wingauthoritarianismfuelethnicpersecutionofimmigrantsinfundamentallydifferentways.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,44(6),1455Ð1464.Tyler,T.R.(1990).Whypeopleobeythelaw.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.Vidmar,N.(2000).Retributionandrevenge.InJ.Sanders&V.L.Hamilton(Eds.),Handbookofjusticeresearchinlaw(Vol.2,pp.31Ð63).NewYork:Kluwer/Plenum.Vidmar,N.,&Miller,D.T.(1980).SocialpsychologicalprocessesunderlyingattitudestowardlegalLaw&SocietyReview,14,565Ð602.VonHirsch,A.(1976).Doingjustice:thechoiceofpunishments:ReportoftheCommitteefortheStudyofIncarceration.NewYork:HillandWang.Weiner,B.,Graham,S.,&Reyna,C.(1997).Anattributionalexaminationofretributiveversusutilitarianphilosophiesofpunishment.SocialJusticeResearch,10(4),431Ð452.Wenzel,M.,Okimoto,T.,&Cameron,K.(2012).Doretributiveandrestorativejusticeprocessesaddressdifferentsymbolicconcerns?CriticalCriminology,20(1),25Ð44.Wenzel,M.,&Thielmann,I.(2006).Whywepunishinthenameofjustice:Justdesertversusvaluerestorationandtheroleofsocialidentity.SocialJusticeResearch,19(4),450Ð470. 80SocJustRes(2013)26:61Ð80