Individual Differences Underlying Punishment Motivation
The Role of Need for Cognitive Closure
Abstract
Two motivations underlying punishment can be distinguished. On the one hand, the retributive motivation prescribes that punishment should be proportional to the moral offense caused. On the other hand, according the utilitarian perspective, punishment should be aimed at protecting society by reducing the likelihood of similar infractions. Previous research did not examine whether individual differences could lead to a preference for one of the two motivations. We propose that high need for closure could be associated with higher utilitarian motivation because of its general concern for group related consequences of violations. In support of our hypothesis, in Study 1 we found that individuals high in need for closure endorsed to a greater extent a zero-tolerance policy rather than a proportional one. Study 2 further showed that closed-minded individuals sought more information related to the utilitarian, rather than the retributive perspective, when judging a violation. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
References
(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
(1993). Intuitions about penalties and compensation in the context of tort law. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 17–35.
(2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 437–451.
(2008). On justifying punishment: The discrepancy between words and actions. Social Justice Research, 21, 119–137.
(2008). Psychological aspects of retributive justice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 193–236.
(2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 284–299.
(
in press ). Looking forward to justice: Temporal orientation determines punishment. Social Psychological Personality Science.(1987). Sentencing goals, causal attributions, ideology, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 107–118.
(1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In , The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2, (4th ed.). (pp. 151–192). Boston, MD: McGraw-Hill.
(1998). The sentencing goals inventory: Development and validation. Poster session presented at the biennial meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Redondo Beach, CA.
(2000). Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 659–683.
(1999). On the seizing and freezing of negotiator inferences: Need for cognitive closure moderates the use of heuristics in negotiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 348–362.
(1999). Motivated cognition and group interaction: Need for closure affects the contents and processes of collective negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 346–365.
(1996). Motivated social cognition: Need for closure effects on memory and judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 254–270.
(1983). Public opinion and capital punishment: A close examination of the views of abolitionists and retentionists. Crime & Delinquency, 29, 116–169.
(2002). Reactions to mandatory sentences in relation to the ethnic identity and criminal history of the offender. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 417–438.
(2005). The relationship between the need for closure and support for military action against Iraq: Moderating effects of national attachment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 621–632.
(2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY The Guilford Press.
(2010). A closer look at an eye for an eye: Laypersons’ punishment decisions are primarily driven by retributive motives. Social Justice Research, 23, 99–116.
(2004). The social cognition of immigrants’ acculturation: Effects of the need for closure and the reference group at entry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 796–813.
(2004). The psychology of closed mindedness. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
(2009). Three decades of lay epistemics: The why, how, and who of knowledge formation. European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 146–191.
(1983). The freezing and un-freezing of lay inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping and numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 448–468.
(2006). Groups as epistemic providers: need for closure and the unfolding of group-centrism. Psychological Review, 113, 84–100.
(2007). Bisogno di Chiusura Cognitiva e trasmissione di norme sperimentalmente indotte in piccoli gruppi
[Need for cognitive closure and experimentally transmitted norms in small groups] . Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 34, 581–603.(2008). Revenge, retribution, and values: Social attitudes and punitive sentencing. Social Justice Research, 21, 138–163.
(1978). Sentencing strategies and justice: Effects of punishment philosophy on sentencing decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1490–1500.
(1981). The social psychology of punishment reactions. In , The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 145–172). New York, NY: Academic Press.
(2010). Need for closure and the social response to terrorism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 279–290.
(2004). Bisogno di chiusura cognitiva e risposta a violazioni normative di carattere quotidiano
[Need for cognitive closure and reactions to everyday normative violations] . Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 31, 129–140.(
2005 ). Revised Need for Cognitive Closure Scale. Unpublished manuscript. Università di Roma, “La Sapienza.”.(2003). Autocracy bias in informal groups under need for closure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 405–417.
(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.
(2010). Political conservatism, need for cognitive closure, and intergroup hostility. Political Psychology, 31, 521–541.
