nach oben

Social Justice Research

Erschienen in:

01.12.2007

Are “We” More Punitive than “Me”? Self-Construal Styles, Justice-Related Attitudes, and Punitive Judgments

verfasst von: Mario Gollwitzer, Katrin Bücklein

Erschienen in: Social Justice Research | Ausgabe 4/2007

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Cross-cultural as well as procedural justice research suggests that an interdependent self-construal is connected to more justice-related concerns, more moral outrage following observed unethical behavior, and a preference for effective but constructive sanctions. Independent self-construal, on the other hand, is expected to be connected to weaker moral reactions toward injustice, but also to preferring punitive over constructive forms of sanctions. Two studies were conducted in which dispositional self-construal was measured. In Study 2, self-construal was also manipulated with a priming procedure. Results show that interdependent self-construal is connected to stronger emotional reactions toward injustice, to social and moral concerns, to preferences for constructive forms, but also to retribution-oriented goals of punitive sanctions. Independent self-construal, on the other hand, goes along with fewer moral concerns, lower punitiveness, but more draconic attitudes.

Vorheriger Artikel The Consequences of Victim Physical Attractiveness on Reactions to Injustice: The Role of Observers’ Belief in a Just World

Nächster Artikel Predicting Customer Service Employees’ Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions: The Roles of Customer Interactional Injustice and Interdependent Self-Construal

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Aiken, L., & West, S. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London: Sage.

Berkowitz, L., & Daniels, L. R. (1963). Responsibility and dependency. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 429–436.CrossRef

Bierhoff, H. W. (2000). Skala der sozialen Verantwortung nach Berkowitz und Daniels: Entwicklung und Validierung [Social Responsibility Scale by Berkowitz and Daniels: Development and Validation]. Diagnostica, 46, 18–28.CrossRef

Bobocel, R., & Holmvall, C. (2002). Self-construals and the fair-process effect. Paper presented at the IXth international social justice conference, Skövde, Sweden.

Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brockner, J., De Cremer, D., Van den Bos, K., & Chen, Y. (2005). The influence of interdependent self-construal on procedural fairness effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96, 155–167.CrossRef

Brockner, J., Chen, Y.-R., Mannix, E. A., Leung, K., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2000). Culture and procedural fairness: When the effects of what you do depend on how you do it. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 138–159.CrossRef

Carlsmith, K. M. (2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 437–451.CrossRef

Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 284–299.PubMedCrossRef

Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. (1998). Situational salience and cultural difference in the correspondence bias and actor-observer bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 949–960.CrossRef

Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5–37.PubMedCrossRef

Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self-construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791–808.PubMed

Darley, J. M. (2002). Just punishments: Research on retributional justice. In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 314–333). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Darley, J. M., & Pittman, T. S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 324–336.PubMedCrossRef

Darley, J. M., Carlsmith, K. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2000). Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 659–683.PubMedCrossRef

De Keijser, J. W., van der Leeden, R., & Jackson, J. L. (2002). From moral theory to penal attitudes and back: A theoretically integrated modeling approach. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20, 317–335.PubMedCrossRef

Derlega, V. J., Cukur, C. S., Kuang, J. C., & Forsyth, D. R. (2002). Interdependent construal of self and the endorsement of conflict resolution strategies in interpersonal, intergroup and international disputes. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 33, 610–625.CrossRef

Feather, N. T. (1996). Reactions to penalties for an offense in relation to Authoritarianism, values, perceived responsibility, perceived seriousness, and deservingness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 571–587.PubMedCrossRef

Feather, N. T. (1999). Values, achievement and justice: Studies in the psychology of deservingness. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Fetchenhauer, D., & Huang, X. (2004). Justice sensitivity and behavior in experimental games. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1015–1031.CrossRef

Gardner, W. L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A. Y. (1999). “I” value freedom, but “we” value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cultural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10, 321–326.CrossRef

Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goldberg, J. H., Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Rage and reason: The psychology of the intuitive prosecutor. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 781–795.CrossRef

Gollwitzer, M. (2004). Do normative transgressions affect punitive judgments? An empirical test of the psychoanalytic scapegoat hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1650–1660.PubMedCrossRef

Gollwitzer, M., & Bücklein, K. (2006). Are “we” more punitive than “me”? Self-construal styles, justice-related attitudes, punitive judgments, and sanctioning goals. Paper presented at the XIth international social justice conference, Berlin, Germany.

Gollwitzer, M., & Jäger, J. A. (2006). How do we punish a “black sheep”? Punitive reactions toward norm-violations in an intergroup context. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Gollwitzer, M., Schmitt, M., Schalke, R., Maes, J., & Baer, A. (2005). Asymmetrical effects of Justice Sensitivity perspectives on prosocial and antisocial behavior. Social Justice Research, 18, 183–201.CrossRef

Hamilton, V. L., & Sanders, J. (1983). Universals in judging wrongdoing: Japanese and Americans compared. American Sociological Review, 48, 199–211.CrossRef

Hamilton, V. L., & Sanders, J. (1988). Punishment and the individual in the United States and Japan. Law and Society Review, 22, 301–328.CrossRef

Hamilton, V. L., & Sanders, J. (1992). Everyday justice: Responsibility and the individual in Japan and the United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Han, G.-S. (1995). Understanding social psychology. Seoul, Korea: Hak-Ji.

Hannover, B. (1997). Das dynamische Selbst. Die Kontextabhängigkeit selbstbezogenen Wissens [The dynamic self: The context-dependence of self-directed knowledge]. Berne, Switzerland: Huber.

Hannover, B. (2000). Self and culture. Effects on social information processing. In H. Metz-Göckel, B. Hannover, & S. Leffelsend (Eds.), Self, motivation und emotion (pp. 107–117). Berlin, Germany: Logos.

Hannover, B., & Kühnen, U. (2004). Culture, context, and cognition: The Semantic procedural interface model of the self. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 297–333.CrossRef

Hannover, B., Kühnen, U., & Birkner, N. (2000). Independentes und interdependentes Selbstwissen als Determinante von Assimilation und Kontrast bei kontextuellem Priming [Independent and interdependent self-knowledge as a determinant of assimilation versus contrast in contextual priming]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 31, 44–56.CrossRef

Hupfeld, J. (in press). Men’s and women’s theories about the causes of crime: The influence of severity and type of the offence on intentions to punish. In H.-J. Albrecht, T. Serassis, & H. Kania (Eds.), Images of crime III. Berlin, Germany: Duncker & Humblot.

Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. (1969). National character: The study of modal personality and sociocultural systems. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vol. IV (pp. 418–506). New York: McGraw-Hill. (Original work published 1954).

Karremans, J. C., Van Lange, P. A. M., & Holland, R. W. (2005). Forgiveness and its associations with prosocial thinking, feeling, and doing beyond the relationship with the offender. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1315–1326.PubMedCrossRef

Kühnen, U., Hannover, B., & Schubert, B. (2001). The semantic-procedural interface model of the self: The role of self-knowledge for context-dependent versus context-independent modes of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 397–409.PubMedCrossRef

Lerner, J. S., Goldberg, J. H., & Tetlock, P. E. (1998). Sober second thought: The effects of accountability, anger, and authoritarianism on attributions of responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 563–574.CrossRef

Leung, K., & Morris, M. W. (2001). Justice through the lens of culture and ethnicity. In J. Sanders & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law (pp. 343–378). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Maes, J. (1994). Drakonität als Personmerkmal: Entwicklung und erste Erprobung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung von Urteilsstrenge (Drakonität) versus Milde [Draconity as a personality trait: Development and first testing of a questionnaire measuring harshness of judgments (Draconity) versus mildness] (Reports on Responsibility, Justice, and Morality No. 78). Trier, Germany: University of Trier, Fachbereich I—Psychologie.

Maes, J., Schmitt, M., & Schmal, A. (1995). Gerechtigkeit als innerdeutsches Problem: Werthaltungen, Kontrollüberzeugungen, Freiheitsüberzeugungen, Drakonität, Soziale Einstellungen, Empathie und Protestantische Arbeitsethik als Kovariate [Justice as an intra-German problem: Value orientations, control beliefs, freedom beliefs, Draconity, social attitudes, empathy, and protestant work ethics as covariate] (Reports on Responsibility, Justice, and Morality No. 85). Trier, Germany: University of Trier, Fachbereich I—Psychologie.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.CrossRef

Marques, J. M., Páez, D., & Abrams, D. (1998). Social identity and intragroup differentation as subjective social control. In S. Worchel, J. F. Morales, D. Páez, & J.-C. Deschamps (Eds.), Social identity (pp. 124–141). London: Sage.

Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J.-P. (1988). The “Black Sheep Effect”: Extremity of judgment towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1–16.CrossRef

Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. N. (1997). A developmental perspective of self-construals and sex differences: Comment on Cross and Madson (1997). Psychological Bulletin, 122, 45–50.PubMedCrossRef

Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 961–978.PubMedCrossRef

Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949–971.CrossRef

Na, E.-Y., & Loftus, E. F. (1998). Attitudes toward law and prisoners, conservative authoritarianism, attribution, and internal-external locus of control. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 595–615.CrossRef

Oetzel, J. G. (1998). Explaining individual communication processes in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups through individualism-collectivism and self-construal. Human Communication Research, 25, 204–224.CrossRef

Oswald, M. (2001). Reagieren Männer und Frauen unterschiedlich hart auf normabweichendes Verhalten? [Do men and women react differently toward norm-deviant behavior?] In A. Godenzi (Ed.), Frieden, Kultur und Geschlecht (pp. 161–189). Freiburg, Switzerland: Universitätsverlag.

Roach, K. (2000). Changing punishment at the turn of the century: Restorative justice on the rise. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 249–280.

Roeder, U.-R., & Hannover, B. (2002). Kontextabhangigkeit als Dimension der Selbstkonstruktion: Entwicklung und Validierung der Dortmunder Kontextabhangigskeits-Skala (DKS) [The measurement of context-dependency of self-construals]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 23, 339–352.CrossRef

Rogosa, D. (1995). Myths and methods: Myths about longitudinal research plus supplemental questions. In J. M. Gottman (Ed.), The analysis of change (pp. 3–65). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rucker, D. D., Polifroni, M., Tetlock, P. E., & Scott, A. L. (2004). On the assignment of punishment: The impact of general-societal threat and the moderating role of severity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 673–684.PubMedCrossRef

Sargent, M. J. (2004). Less thought, more punishment: Need for cognition predicts support for punitive responses to crime. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1485–1493.PubMedCrossRef

Schmitt, M., Eid, M., & Maes, J. (2003). Synergistic person × situation interaction in distributive justice behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 141–147.PubMedCrossRef

Schmitt, M., Gollwitzer, M., Maes, J., & Arbach, D. (2005). Justice sensitivity: Assessment and location in the personality space. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21, 202–211.CrossRef

Schubert, B. (2002). Wie das Selbst das Denken formt—Der Einfluss von Selbstwissen auf die Informationsverarbeitung im sozialen Kontext [How the self shapes thinking—The influence of self-knowledge on information processing in the social context]. Retrieved February 10, 2006, from http://opus.kobv.de/tuberlin/volltexte/2002/491

Schwenkmezger, P., Hodapp, V., & Spielberger, C. D. (1992). State-Trait-Ärgerausdrucks-Inventar STAXI [State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory STAXI]. Berne, Switzerland: Huber.

Sidanius, J., Mitchell, M., Haley, H., & Navarrete, C. D. (2006). Support for harsh criminal sanctions and criminal justice beliefs: A social dominance perspective. Social Justice Research, 19, 433–449.CrossRef

Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580–591.CrossRef

Singelis, T. M., Bond, M. H., Sharkey, W. F., & Lai, C. S. Y. (1999). Unpackaging culture’s influence on self-esteem and embarrassability. The role of self-construals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 315–341.CrossRef

Spielberger, C. D. (1988). STAXI. State-trait anger expression inventory. Tampa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Sprott, J. B., & Doob, A. N. (1997). Fear, victimization, and attitudes to sentencing, the courts, and the police. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 39, 275–291.

Tyler, T. R., & Boeckmann, R. J. (1997). Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers. Law and Society Review, 31, 237–265.CrossRef

Tyler, T. R., & Weber, R. (1983). Support for the death penalty. Law and Society Review, 17, 201–224.

Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Van den Bos, K., Bruins, J., Wilke, H. A. M., & Dronkert, E. (1999). Sometimes unfair procedures have nice aspects: On the psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 324–336.CrossRef

Van Prooijen, J.-W. (2006). Retributive reactions to suspected offenders: The importance of social categorizations and guilt probability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 715–726.PubMedCrossRef

Vidmar, N. (2001). Retribution and revenge. In J. Sanders & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law (pp. 31–63). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Vidmar, N. (2002). Retributive justice: Its social context. In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 291–313). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Titel: Are “We” More Punitive than “Me”? Self-Construal Styles, Justice-Related Attitudes, and Punitive Judgments
verfasst von: Mario Gollwitzer
Katrin Bücklein
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2007
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Social Justice Research / Ausgabe 4/2007
Print ISSN: 0885-7466
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6725
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0051-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2007

The Consequences of Victim Physical Attractiveness on Reactions to Injustice: The Role of Observers’ Belief in a Just World

Social Class is Dead. Long Live Social Class! Stereotype Threat among Low Socioeconomic Status Individuals

The Good and Bad of Social Change: Ambivalence Toward Activist Groups

Resource Priority, Fairness, and Equality-Efficiency Compromises

Predicting Customer Service Employees’ Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions: The Roles of Customer Interactional Injustice and Interdependent Self-Construal

Transitional Justice in Historical Perspective