Supplementary materials for: Punishment Reactions to Powerful Suspects: Comparing a “Corrupt” versus a “Leniency” Approach of Power
Author(s) / Creator(s)
Fousiani, Kyriaki
Van Prooijen, Jan Willem
Other kind(s) of contributor
University of Groningen
Free University of Amsterdam
Abstract / Description
Although the justice system punishes transgressions predominantly when an articulated rationale is provided, there are situations where people judge actors whose guilt is uncertain. In this research, we investigate how observers assign punishments to suspects depending on the suspects’ power (i.e., one’s capacity to control valuable resources and produce intended outcomes). Power, on the one hand, indicates one’s potential to inflict harm and thus increases observer’s perception of a powerful suspect as guilty (the “power corrupts” approach). On the other hand, people see powerholders in more positive terms (cf., Basking in reflected glory) and disregard negative information about them (the “power leniency” approach). If the “power corrupts” approach holds, observers should perceive powerful, as opposed to powerless suspects or suspects whose power is undefined, as more guilty. Moreover they should display punishment motives that are based on utilitarianism with the aim of incapacitating the highly threatening powerful harm-doers and prevent them from future harm. If the “power leniency” approach is true, observers should perceive powerless suspects and suspects whose power is undefined (as opposed to powerful suspects) as more guilty and should display stronger punishment motives (utilitarian, retributive, or restorative) towards those suspects. Further, in line with both approaches, we predict that observers should follow the intuitive retributivism hypothesis and assign more retributive punishments towards suspects with low or undefined power, as compared with high power suspects, with the aim to make them pay for what they did. Besides, we investigate the mediating role of recidivism and guilt likelihood in the relationship between a suspect’s power and an observer’s punishment motives. Finally, we expect that retribution will be generally assigned to a higher extent than utilitarian or restorative motives for sanctioning. Research question: Do people assign suspects retributive, utilitarian or restorative punishments depending on the suspects' power? Study methods: We will conduct a simple experimental design where we will manipulate the power possession of suspects accused of money embezzlement. Guilt likelihood and recidivism of the suspect, and motives for punishment (retributive, utilitarian, restorative) of the observer will be assessed.
Supplementary materials for: Fousiani, K., & van Prooijen, J.-W. (2022). Punishment reactions to powerful suspects: Comparing a “corrupt” versus a “leniency” approach of power. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 230(2), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000462
Persistent Identifier
Date of first publication
2021-07-01
Publisher
PsychArchives
Is referenced by
Citation
Fousiani, K., & Van Prooijen, J. W. (2021). Supplementary materials for: Punishment Reactions to Powerful Suspects: Comparing a “Corrupt” versus a “Leniency” Approach of Power. PsychArchives. https://doi.org/10.23668/PSYCHARCHIVES.4954
-
Research material - Appendices.pdfAdobe PDF - 138.09KBMD5: 3c53fc406c669b560b97228fec1cb556Description: Appendices (I and II) as online supplementary material
-
There are no other versions of this object.
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Fousiani, Kyriaki
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Van Prooijen, Jan Willem
-
Other kind(s) of contributorUniversity of Groningen
-
Other kind(s) of contributorFree University of Amsterdam
-
PsychArchives acquisition timestamp2021-07-02T14:04:27Z
-
Made available on2021-07-02T14:04:27Z
-
Date of first publication2021-07-01
-
Abstract / DescriptionAlthough the justice system punishes transgressions predominantly when an articulated rationale is provided, there are situations where people judge actors whose guilt is uncertain. In this research, we investigate how observers assign punishments to suspects depending on the suspects’ power (i.e., one’s capacity to control valuable resources and produce intended outcomes). Power, on the one hand, indicates one’s potential to inflict harm and thus increases observer’s perception of a powerful suspect as guilty (the “power corrupts” approach). On the other hand, people see powerholders in more positive terms (cf., Basking in reflected glory) and disregard negative information about them (the “power leniency” approach). If the “power corrupts” approach holds, observers should perceive powerful, as opposed to powerless suspects or suspects whose power is undefined, as more guilty. Moreover they should display punishment motives that are based on utilitarianism with the aim of incapacitating the highly threatening powerful harm-doers and prevent them from future harm. If the “power leniency” approach is true, observers should perceive powerless suspects and suspects whose power is undefined (as opposed to powerful suspects) as more guilty and should display stronger punishment motives (utilitarian, retributive, or restorative) towards those suspects. Further, in line with both approaches, we predict that observers should follow the intuitive retributivism hypothesis and assign more retributive punishments towards suspects with low or undefined power, as compared with high power suspects, with the aim to make them pay for what they did. Besides, we investigate the mediating role of recidivism and guilt likelihood in the relationship between a suspect’s power and an observer’s punishment motives. Finally, we expect that retribution will be generally assigned to a higher extent than utilitarian or restorative motives for sanctioning. Research question: Do people assign suspects retributive, utilitarian or restorative punishments depending on the suspects' power? Study methods: We will conduct a simple experimental design where we will manipulate the power possession of suspects accused of money embezzlement. Guilt likelihood and recidivism of the suspect, and motives for punishment (retributive, utilitarian, restorative) of the observer will be assessed.en
-
Abstract / DescriptionSupplementary materials for: Fousiani, K., & van Prooijen, J.-W. (2022). Punishment reactions to powerful suspects: Comparing a “corrupt” versus a “leniency” approach of power. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 230(2), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000462en
-
CitationFousiani, K., & Van Prooijen, J. W. (2021). Supplementary materials for: Punishment Reactions to Powerful Suspects: Comparing a “Corrupt” versus a “Leniency” Approach of Power. PsychArchives. https://doi.org/10.23668/PSYCHARCHIVES.4954en
-
Persistent Identifierhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/4382
-
Persistent Identifierhttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.4954
-
Language of contenteng
-
PublisherPsychArchivesen
-
Is referenced byhttps://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000462
-
Is related tohttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.3159
-
Is related tohttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.3470
-
Is related tohttps://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000462
-
Dewey Decimal Classification number(s)150
-
TitleSupplementary materials for: Punishment Reactions to Powerful Suspects: Comparing a “Corrupt” versus a “Leniency” Approach of Poweren
-
DRO typeotheren