This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Darley, J. M. Articles by Pittman, T. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Darley, J. M. Articles by Pittman, T. S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Psychology of Compensatory and Retributive Justice

Department of Psychology, Princeton University

Thane S. Pittman

Department of Psychology, Gettysburg College

How do observers respond when the actions of one individual inflict harm on another? The primary reaction to carelessly inflicted harm is to seek restitution; the offender is judged to owe compensation to the harmed individual. The primary reaction to harm inflicted intentionally is moral outrage producing a desire for retribution; the harm-doer tust be punished. Reckless conduct, an intermediate case, provokes reactions that involve elements of both careless and intentional harm. The moral outrage felt by those who witness transgressions is a product of both cognitive interpretations of the event and emotional reactions to it. Theory about the exact nature of the emotional reactions is considered, along with suggestions for directions forfuture research.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 7, No. 4, 324-336 (2003)
DOI: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_05


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. E. Plaks, N. K. McNichols, and J. L. Fortune Thoughts Versus Deeds: Distal and Proximal Intent in Lay Judgments of Moral Responsibility Pers Soc Psychol Bull, December 1, 2009; 35(12): 1687 - 1701. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Shteynberg, M. J. Gelfand, and K. Kim Peering into the "Magnum Mysterium" of Culture: The Explanatory Power of Descriptive Norms Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, January 1, 2009; 40(1): 46 - 69. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Krishnan, P. Varma, and V. Pandey Reward and Punishment Allocation in the Indian Culture Psychology Developing Societies, January 1, 2009; 21(1): 79 - 131. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. M. Falomir-Pichastor, C. Staerkle, M.-A. Depuiset, and F. Butera Perceived Legitimacy of Collective Punishment as a Function of Democratic versus Non-Democratic Group Structure Group Processes Intergroup Relations, October 1, 2007; 10(4): 565 - 579. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. G. Okimoto and T. R. Tyler Is Compensation Enough? Relational Concerns in Responding to Unintended Inequity Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2007; 10(3): 399 - 420. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Stouten, D. De Cremer, and E. van Dijk Violating Equality in Social Dilemmas: Emotional and Retributive Reactions as a Function of Trust, Attribution, and Honesty Pers Soc Psychol Bull, July 1, 2006; 32(7): 894 - 906. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. D. Timmerman and W. Harrison The Discretionary Use of Electronic Media: Four Considerations for Bad News Bearers Journal of Business Communication, October 1, 2005; 42(4): 379 - 389. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. J. Crosby and J. L. Franco Connections Between the Ivory Tower and the Multicolored World: Linking Abstract Theories of Social Justice to the Rough and Tumble of Affirmative Action Personality and Social Psychology Review, November 1, 2003; 7(4): 362 - 373. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. A. Schroeder, J. E. Steel, A. J. Woodell, and A. F. Bembenek Justice Within Social Dilemmas Personality and Social Psychology Review, November 1, 2003; 7(4): 374 - 387. [Abstract] [PDF]