Retributive justice and social categorizations: The perceived fairness of punishment depends on intergroup status

In the current research, the authors investigate the influence of intergroup status and social categorizations on retributive justice judgments, that is, the extent to which observers perceive punishment as fair. Building on social identity theory and the model of subjective group dynamics, it is predicted that when the ingroup has higher status than the outgroup, people are relatively less concerned about punishment of an outgroup offender than when the ingroup has lower status than the outgroup. Two experiments revealed that participants are more punitive towards an ingroup than an outgroup offender when ingroup status is high but not when ingroup status is low. Furthermore, in correspondence with our line of reasoning, this finding emerged because participants were less punitive towards outgroup offenders when ingroup status is high than when ingroup status was low. It is concluded that the perceived fairness of punishment depends on the offender's social categorization and intergroup status. Copyright ©2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Strategic exploitation by higher-status people incurs harsher third-party punishment

It is widely documented that third parties punish norm violations, even at a substantial cost to themselves. However, little is known about how third-party punishment occurs in groups consisting of members who differ in status. Having a higher-status member promotes norm enforcement and group efficiency but also poses threats to collective goods when they strategically exploit people’s trust to maximize self-interest. Two preregistered studies consistently revealed a punitive mechanism contingent on target status and strategic exploitation. Third-party observers generated harsher punishment when high- but not low-status targets transgressed after publicly endorsing cooperation (Study 1) or procedural fairness (Study 2). The findings elucidate third-party punishment as a feasible mechanism to counteract exploitation and maintain social norms in interactions with status asymmetry

Calculating Hypocrites Effect: Moral judgments of word-deed contradictory transgressions depend on targets' competence

People often say one thing while doing another, and are therefore criticized as hypocrites. Despite the widespread criticism of hypocrites, relatively less is known about factors that influence moral judgment of hypocrisy. In particular, why are some word-deed inconsistencies condemned more harshly than others? The current research focuses on word-deed inconsistency as a common manifestation of hypocrisy, and examines targets' competence as one important factor that influences moral judgment of hypocrisy. We propose and test a Calculating Hypocrites Effect that people perceive hypocrites as less moral than non-hypocrites (i.e., who transgress with vs. without inconsistent claims), particularly when the targets are high rather than low on competence. Across four studies where competence was either measured (Study 1) or manipulated as expertise (Study 2), occupational status (Study 3) and skills (Study 4), we found support for the presumed Calculating Hypocrites Effect. When the targets were high (vs. low) on competence, people interpreted their misaligned words with deeds as more intentional (Study 2) and self-interested (Study 4), which in turn accounted for their severity of moral judgment. Moreover, the Calculating Hypocrites Effect applied even when the targets were competent in domains unrelated to their hypocritical deeds (Study 3). We conclude that perception of competence is an important factor that determines when, and for whom, hypocrisy incurs moral outrage

Culture, status, and hypocrisy: High-status people who don't practice what they preach are viewed as worse in the United States than China

Status holders across societies often take moral initiatives to navigate group practices toward collective goods; however, little is known about how different societies (e.g., the United States vs. China) evaluate high- (vs. low-) status holders’ transgressions of preached morals. Two preregistered studies (total N = 1,374) examined how status information (occupational rank in Study 1 and social prestige in Study 2) influences moral judgments of norm violations, as a function of word–deed contradiction and cultural independence/interdependence. Both studies revealed that high- (vs. low-) status targets’ word–deed contradictions (vs. noncontradictions) were condemned more harshly in the United States but not China. Mediation analyses suggested that Americans attributed more, but Chinese attributed less, selfish motives to higher status targets’ word–deed contradictions. Cultural in(ter)dependence influences not only whom to confer status as norm enforcers but also whom to (not) blame as norm violators

Assessing the deterrent effect of symbolic guardianship through neighbourhood watch signs and police signs: a virtual reality study

This study examines the deterrent effects of neighbourhood watch signs and police signs as measures of symbolic guardianship on burglars versus non-offenders. In a virtual reality experiment, 181 burglars and 172 non-offenders scouted a virtual neighbourhood and were exposed to neighbourhood watch signs and/or signs suggesting police surveillance in the area. With neighbourhood watch signs present, both burglars and non-offenders perceived the neighbourhood residents as more likely to intervene. Burglars were also more likely to select a target closer to the exit than non-offenders when neighbourhood watch signs were present. The presence of police signs reduced the time spent scouting and the distance travelled for both burglars and non-offenders. Furthermore, as compared to non-offenders burglars selected houses with easier access, travelled less distance, and reported higher anticipation of neighbourhood resident intervention. Symbolic guardianship through neighbourhood watch or police sign seems to elicit only small effects in deterring burglars. They should not immediately be discounted as preventive measures, however, as small-effect interventions may be valuable as additions to well-established interventions

Perceiving pure evil: The influence of cognitive load and prototypical evilness on demonizing

The present research sought to investigate the psychological dynamics underlying demonizing, that is, the tendency to see others as personifications of pure evilness. Building on an integrative theoretical framework, it is hypothesized that the extent to which a perpetrator matches prototypical expectations of evilness shapes demonizing responses to offenders particularly when cognitive resources are impaired. In two experiments, participants were asked to memorize either a difficult or an easy telephone number (cognitive load vs. control), and were then asked to evaluate a perpetrator who murdered a young woman (Experiment 1) or who kidnapped a child (Experiment 2). Results revealed that the extent to which the description of the perpetrator was consistent with a prototypical evilness scheme influenced demonizing particularly under conditions of cognitive load. It is concluded that impairment of cognitive resources increases the influence of prototypical evilness on demonizin

Who do we inform? The role of status and target in intergroup whistle-blowing

In two experiments (n = 87 and n = 90), we showed that strongly identifying members of a low status group are more likely to actively inform the ingroup rather than the outgroup about an outgroup transgression, and consider it as more loyal to the ingroup to do so. Moreover, strongly identifying members of a high status group are more likely to actively inform the outgroup rather than the ingroup about an outgroup transgression, and consider this to be more loyal to the ingroup. The results are in support of the notion that, depending on a group's existing status position, negative outgroup information can be used to enhance or confirm the ingroup's standing, affecting whether the ingroup or the outgroup will initially be informed about an outgroup transgression. Copyright © The Author(s), 2009