Retributive reactions to suspected offenders: The importance of social categorizations and guilt probability

In the current research, the author investigates the influence of social categorizations on retributive emotions (e.g., anger) and punishment intentions when people evaluate suspected offenders as independent observers. It is argued that information that guilt is certain or uncertain (i.e., guilt probability) has different consequences for retributive reactions to ingroup and outgroup suspects. In correspondence with predictions, results of four experiments showed that people reacted more negatively to ingroup than outgroup suspects when guilt was certain but that people reacted more negatively to outgroup than ingroup suspects when guilt was uncertain. It is concluded that guilt probability moderates the influence of social categorizations on people's retributive reactions to suspected offenders. © 2006 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc

Voters on the extreme left and right are far more likely to believe in conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories are a feature of political discourse across the United States and Europe, but are some types of voters more likely to believe in conspiracy theories than others? Jan-Willem van Prooijen presents findings from a study of belief in conspiracy theories among individuals in the Netherlands and the U.S. He writes that those on the extreme left and right of the political spectrum, together with those who are more likely to have faith in there being simple solutions to complex political problems, are substantially more likely to also believe in conspiracy theories

The application of self-affirmation theory to the psychology of climate change

Research has shown that self-affirmation often leads to more adaptive responses to messages that focus on behaviour-specific, individual threats. However, little is known about the effects of self-affirmation in the context of a multifaceted collective threat, such as climate change. In the current thesis I apply self-affirmation theory to the psychology of climate change. More specifically, I propose that differentially polarized environmental orientations can have an impact on self-affirmation effects. In Chapter 1, I provide a general integration of the self-affirmation literature, the literature on sceptical responses to climate change, and the findings reported in the current thesis. The results from six empirical studies are presented in the following four chapters. In Chapter 2, I present findings that indicated that sceptical responses to climate change information are not always reduced through self-affirmation, but are instead strongly dependent on people’s initial levels of rejection of environmental problems. In Chapter 3, I suggest that in the absence of a persuasive threatening message, self-affirmation can serve to validate a person’s initial worldviews about environmental issues. In line with this suggestion, results demonstrated that self-affirmation led to more pro-environmental motives among participants with positive ecological worldviews but led to less pro-environmental motives among participants with negative ecological worldviews. In Chapter 4, I examine self-affirmation effects on the acceptance of climate change information. Results showed that self-affirmation promoted perceptions of greater climate change consequences and more self-efficacy among initially sceptical participants. Additionally, self-affirmation reduced pessimism among less sceptical participants. In Chapter 5, I present evidence that showed that self-affirmation resulted in more acceptance of information portraying the UK’s contribution to climate change problems among participants with high national identification, while group-affirmation resulted in more information acceptance among participants with low national identification. These effects were only apparent among participants with negative ecological worldviews

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

Confirmatory analysis of exploratively obtained factor structures

Factor structures obtained by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) often turn out to fit poorly in confirmative follow-up studies. In the present study, the authors assessed the extent to which results obtained in EFA studies can be replicated by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in the same sample. More specifically, the authors used CFA to test three different factor models on several correlation matrices of exploratively obtained factor structures that were reported in the literature. The factor models varied with respect to the role of the smaller factor pattern coefficients. Results showed that confirmatory factor models in which all low EFA pattern coefficients were fixed to zero fitted especially poorly. The authors conclude that it may be justified to use a less constrained model when testing a factor model by allowing some correlation among the factors and some of the lower factor pattern coefficients to differ from zero

Punishment Reactions to Powerful Suspects:Comparing a “Corrupt” Versus a “Leniency” Approach of Power

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

Motives for punishing powerful vs. powerless offenders:The mediating role of demonization

In the present research, we examine how power and group membership of an offender influence observers’ motives for punishment. As compared to powerless offenders, powerful offenders should elicit a stronger motivation of an observer to incapacitate them and protect society (i.e., utilitarian punishment motivation). Moreover, demonization of the offender (e.g., perceiving the offender as evil) should mediate the effect of power on punishing motives. Finally, we investigated whether group membership of an offender would moderate the effects of power on punishing motives. In three studies, wemanipulated an offender’s power (high, low) and group membership (ingroup, outgroup, and – in Study 1 – ambiguous). Supporting our hypotheses, all three studies revealed that powerful offenders triggered stronger utilitarian punishment motivation as opposed to powerless offenders, while demonization of the offender mediated this effect. Moreover, Studies 1 and 2 showed that powerless offenders triggered stronger restorative punishment motivation as opposed to powerful offenders while low demonization of the offender mediatedthis effect. Contrary to our expectations, however, group membershipdid not moderate the effect of power on observer’s punishing motives.Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed

The competitive advantage of European nations

This article uses as its starting point Michael Porter's model of the national ‘diamond’ to explain the role of the national environment in the competitive position of industries and firms. The authors believe, however, that the influence of national culture on the competitive advantage of nations is given too little attention in this model. In particular, strong or weak uncertainty avoidance behaviour in nations and their masculine/feminine characteristics are neglected. The national diamond rests on the base of national culture, and the latter is exogenous to the firm. In a European context, managing the different diamonds that exist itself generates competitive advantage

Motives for Punishing Powerful vs. Prestigious Offenders:The Moderating Role of Group Identity

Status can be seen as power over valued resources or as prestige that lies in the eyes of the beholder. In the present research, we examine how power versus prestige influence observers’ punishing motives. Possession of power implies the capacity to harm and elicits threat and therefore should trigger stronger incapacitative motives for punishing an offender. In contrast, prestige signals the observer's admiration of the target and therefore should elicit a strong motivation to help an offender reintegrate into society. Studies 1 and 2 manipulated an offender's status (power vs. prestige vs. control) and group identity (ingroup vs. outgroup). Supporting our hypotheses, both studies revealed that observers had stronger incapacitative motivations towards powerful as opposed to prestigious offenders, particularly when the offender came from the ingroup. Study 2 also showed that observers had stronger restorative motives towards a prestigious as opposed to powerful offender. Contrary to expectations, group identity did not moderate the effect of status on observer's restorative motives. Study 3 manipulated power and prestige separately and showed that power elicits stronger incapacitative motives through ingroup threat and perceived capacity to harm. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings

On the psychology of procedural justice: Reactions to procedures of ingroup vs outgroup authorities

Theorizing on procedural justice has assumed that people's reactions to outgroup authorities are to a large extent based on instrumental concerns. Therefore, attention is primarily directed to outcomes rather than procedures in encounters with outgroup authorities. In the current article we propose that in order for people dealing with outgroup authorities to be strongly affected by procedural fairness, the available outcome information should be ambiguous. Furthermore, we argue that people confronted with an outgroup authority react particularly negatively to unfair procedures that give them negative outcome expectancies. These patterns are not expected in encounters with ingroup authorities. Two experiments support our line of reasoning. The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for the integration of theoretical perspectives on procedural justice. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd