Embedded Files
An Eye and a Half for an Eye: Cognitive Approaches to the Selection of Punishment Types and Amounts
An Eye and a Half for an Eye: Cognitive Approaches to the Selection of Punishment Types and Amounts
Daniel J. Brady, Caelan Alexander, Daniel Sznycer, and Eyal Aharon
Department of Psychology, Georgia State University
In a vignette-based survey, we tested our “eye for an eye” hypotheses. Namely, in the absence of modern punishment modalities (e.g., prison and fines), humans prefer punishments to be proportional to offenses in type (H1) and amount (H2; although more serious offenses may receive punishment amounts that exceed offense amounts). Undergraduates (N = 320) read 8 brief descriptions of offenses (hunting bow stealing, forced labor, beating, confinement, shaming, rape, killing, and eye-gouging) that “occurred in a traditional community in a remote part of the world.” For each offense, participants selected which of 10 punishment types (including 8 actions identical to the described offenses plus cutting off ears and gouging out eyes) would most satisfy the participant. Participants then selected how much of the punishment the offender should receive (“0” to “8 or more” except for cutting off ears or gouging out eyes [0-2], cutting off fingers [0-10], and killing). For all offenses other than rape, participants selected punishments of the same type (e.g. beating the offender who beat their victim) significantly more often than all other options combined (M = 70.4%). For all offenses, when “type-matching,” participants on average selected punishment amounts significantly exceeding offense amounts (e.g. an eye and a half for an eye). Exploratory analyses suggested that participants’ self-reported satisfaction with (M = 4.57) and perceived fairness of (M = 4.97; reported on 1-7 scales ) their punishments was moderately high. Lastly, general punishment orientation (Punishment Orientation Questionnaire; Yamamoto, 2019) did not strongly or consistently predict “type-matching” and punishment amount. Our hypotheses were largely supported as participants on average favored punishments of the same type but in amounts exceeding the offense amounts. Implications for existing punishment theories such as “just deserts” and “optimal deterrence” will be discussed."
In a vignette-based survey, we tested our “eye for an eye” hypotheses. Namely, in the absence of modern punishment modalities (e.g., prison and fines), humans prefer punishments to be proportional to offenses in type (H1) and amount (H2; although more serious offenses may receive punishment amounts that exceed offense amounts). Undergraduates (N = 320) read 8 brief descriptions of offenses (hunting bow stealing, forced labor, beating, confinement, shaming, rape, killing, and eye-gouging) that “occurred in a traditional community in a remote part of the world.” For each offense, participants selected which of 10 punishment types (including 8 actions identical to the described offenses plus cutting off ears and gouging out eyes) would most satisfy the participant. Participants then selected how much of the punishment the offender should receive (“0” to “8 or more” except for cutting off ears or gouging out eyes [0-2], cutting off fingers [0-10], and killing). For all offenses other than rape, participants selected punishments of the same type (e.g. beating the offender who beat their victim) significantly more often than all other options combined (M = 70.4%). For all offenses, when “type-matching,” participants on average selected punishment amounts significantly exceeding offense amounts (e.g. an eye and a half for an eye). Exploratory analyses suggested that participants’ self-reported satisfaction with (M = 4.57) and perceived fairness of (M = 4.97; reported on 1-7 scales ) their punishments was moderately high. Lastly, general punishment orientation (Punishment Orientation Questionnaire; Yamamoto, 2019) did not strongly or consistently predict “type-matching” and punishment amount. Our hypotheses were largely supported as participants on average favored punishments of the same type but in amounts exceeding the offense amounts. Implications for existing punishment theories such as “just deserts” and “optimal deterrence” will be discussed."
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse