FOLK RETRIBUTIVISM AND THE COMMUNICATION CONFOUND

Retributivist accounts of punishment maintain that it is right to punish wrongdoers, even if the punishment has no future benefits. Research in experimental economics indicates that people are willing to pay to punish defectors. A complementary line of work in social psychology suggests that people...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Economics and philosophy 2013-07, Vol.29 (2), p.235-261
Hauptverfasser: Nadelhoffer, Thomas, Heshmati, Saeideh, Kaplan, Deanna, Nichols, Shaun
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 261
container_issue 2
container_start_page 235
container_title Economics and philosophy
container_volume 29
creator Nadelhoffer, Thomas
Heshmati, Saeideh
Kaplan, Deanna
Nichols, Shaun
description Retributivist accounts of punishment maintain that it is right to punish wrongdoers, even if the punishment has no future benefits. Research in experimental economics indicates that people are willing to pay to punish defectors. A complementary line of work in social psychology suggests that people think that it is right to punish wrongdoers. This work suggests that people are retributivists about punishment. However, all of the extant work contains an important potential confound. The target of the punishment is expected to be aware of the punitive act. Thus, it's possible that people punish because they want to communicate something to the wrongdoer, e.g. disapproval, the presence of a norm, etc. In three studies, we examine whether people will punish even when the punishee will be ignorant. We find that people are no less likely to punish when the punishee will be ignorant. This finding emerges both in a survey study and in a monetized behavioural decision study.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S0266267113000217
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1426224431</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0266267113000217</cupid><sourcerecordid>3037969241</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-f4ae6af413702b4a35ab3e3c8422afcf4d48d6d3bd461bbc23067dd830223bc73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE9PwkAUxDdGExH9AN6aePFS3bf72K1HRJBGaBNovTb7rwYCFLtw8Nu7BA5G4-llMr-ZvAwht0AfgIJ8nFMmBBMSgFNKGcgz0gGUGAeRnJPOwY4P_iW58n5JKbAniR0Co3zyFs2GxSx9Lov0PZ1Po372EhXjYTTIp9MySwf9Is2zoLJRXmYv1-SiVivvbk63S8rRsBiM40n-GthJbBBwF9eonFA1ApeUaVS8pzR33CTImKpNjRYTKyzXFgVobRinQlqbcMoY10byLrk_9m7b5nPv_K5aL7xxq5XauGbvK0AmGEPkENC7X-iy2beb8F2gIIEeMEEDBUfKtI33raurbbtYq_arAlodRqz-jBgy_JRRa90u7If7Uf1v6htglWy1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1418151260</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>FOLK RETRIBUTIVISM AND THE COMMUNICATION CONFOUND</title><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Nadelhoffer, Thomas ; Heshmati, Saeideh ; Kaplan, Deanna ; Nichols, Shaun</creator><creatorcontrib>Nadelhoffer, Thomas ; Heshmati, Saeideh ; Kaplan, Deanna ; Nichols, Shaun</creatorcontrib><description>Retributivist accounts of punishment maintain that it is right to punish wrongdoers, even if the punishment has no future benefits. Research in experimental economics indicates that people are willing to pay to punish defectors. A complementary line of work in social psychology suggests that people think that it is right to punish wrongdoers. This work suggests that people are retributivists about punishment. However, all of the extant work contains an important potential confound. The target of the punishment is expected to be aware of the punitive act. Thus, it's possible that people punish because they want to communicate something to the wrongdoer, e.g. disapproval, the presence of a norm, etc. In three studies, we examine whether people will punish even when the punishee will be ignorant. We find that people are no less likely to punish when the punishee will be ignorant. This finding emerges both in a survey study and in a monetized behavioural decision study.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-2671</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1474-0028</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0266267113000217</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Communication ; Consequentialism ; Crime ; Decision analysis ; Deterrence ; Economic behaviour ; Economic surveys ; Experimental economics ; Moral education ; Philosophy ; Punishment ; Social psychology</subject><ispartof>Economics and philosophy, 2013-07, Vol.29 (2), p.235-261</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-f4ae6af413702b4a35ab3e3c8422afcf4d48d6d3bd461bbc23067dd830223bc73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-f4ae6af413702b4a35ab3e3c8422afcf4d48d6d3bd461bbc23067dd830223bc73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0266267113000217/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,780,784,27923,27924,55627</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nadelhoffer, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heshmati, Saeideh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaplan, Deanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nichols, Shaun</creatorcontrib><title>FOLK RETRIBUTIVISM AND THE COMMUNICATION CONFOUND</title><title>Economics and philosophy</title><addtitle>Economics and Philosophy</addtitle><description>Retributivist accounts of punishment maintain that it is right to punish wrongdoers, even if the punishment has no future benefits. Research in experimental economics indicates that people are willing to pay to punish defectors. A complementary line of work in social psychology suggests that people think that it is right to punish wrongdoers. This work suggests that people are retributivists about punishment. However, all of the extant work contains an important potential confound. The target of the punishment is expected to be aware of the punitive act. Thus, it's possible that people punish because they want to communicate something to the wrongdoer, e.g. disapproval, the presence of a norm, etc. In three studies, we examine whether people will punish even when the punishee will be ignorant. We find that people are no less likely to punish when the punishee will be ignorant. This finding emerges both in a survey study and in a monetized behavioural decision study.</description><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Consequentialism</subject><subject>Crime</subject><subject>Decision analysis</subject><subject>Deterrence</subject><subject>Economic behaviour</subject><subject>Economic surveys</subject><subject>Experimental economics</subject><subject>Moral education</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Punishment</subject><subject>Social psychology</subject><issn>0266-2671</issn><issn>1474-0028</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE9PwkAUxDdGExH9AN6aePFS3bf72K1HRJBGaBNovTb7rwYCFLtw8Nu7BA5G4-llMr-ZvAwht0AfgIJ8nFMmBBMSgFNKGcgz0gGUGAeRnJPOwY4P_iW58n5JKbAniR0Co3zyFs2GxSx9Lov0PZ1Po372EhXjYTTIp9MySwf9Is2zoLJRXmYv1-SiVivvbk63S8rRsBiM40n-GthJbBBwF9eonFA1ApeUaVS8pzR33CTImKpNjRYTKyzXFgVobRinQlqbcMoY10byLrk_9m7b5nPv_K5aL7xxq5XauGbvK0AmGEPkENC7X-iy2beb8F2gIIEeMEEDBUfKtI33raurbbtYq_arAlodRqz-jBgy_JRRa90u7If7Uf1v6htglWy1</recordid><startdate>20130701</startdate><enddate>20130701</enddate><creator>Nadelhoffer, Thomas</creator><creator>Heshmati, Saeideh</creator><creator>Kaplan, Deanna</creator><creator>Nichols, Shaun</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130701</creationdate><title>FOLK RETRIBUTIVISM AND THE COMMUNICATION CONFOUND</title><author>Nadelhoffer, Thomas ; Heshmati, Saeideh ; Kaplan, Deanna ; Nichols, Shaun</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c414t-f4ae6af413702b4a35ab3e3c8422afcf4d48d6d3bd461bbc23067dd830223bc73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Consequentialism</topic><topic>Crime</topic><topic>Decision analysis</topic><topic>Deterrence</topic><topic>Economic behaviour</topic><topic>Economic surveys</topic><topic>Experimental economics</topic><topic>Moral education</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Punishment</topic><topic>Social psychology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nadelhoffer, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heshmati, Saeideh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaplan, Deanna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nichols, Shaun</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>Global News &amp; ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Art, Design &amp; Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Arts &amp; Humanities Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Economics and philosophy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nadelhoffer, Thomas</au><au>Heshmati, Saeideh</au><au>Kaplan, Deanna</au><au>Nichols, Shaun</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>FOLK RETRIBUTIVISM AND THE COMMUNICATION CONFOUND</atitle><jtitle>Economics and philosophy</jtitle><addtitle>Economics and Philosophy</addtitle><date>2013-07-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>235</spage><epage>261</epage><pages>235-261</pages><issn>0266-2671</issn><eissn>1474-0028</eissn><abstract>Retributivist accounts of punishment maintain that it is right to punish wrongdoers, even if the punishment has no future benefits. Research in experimental economics indicates that people are willing to pay to punish defectors. A complementary line of work in social psychology suggests that people think that it is right to punish wrongdoers. This work suggests that people are retributivists about punishment. However, all of the extant work contains an important potential confound. The target of the punishment is expected to be aware of the punitive act. Thus, it's possible that people punish because they want to communicate something to the wrongdoer, e.g. disapproval, the presence of a norm, etc. In three studies, we examine whether people will punish even when the punishee will be ignorant. We find that people are no less likely to punish when the punishee will be ignorant. This finding emerges both in a survey study and in a monetized behavioural decision study.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0266267113000217</doi><tpages>27</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0266-2671
ispartof Economics and philosophy, 2013-07, Vol.29 (2), p.235-261
issn 0266-2671
1474-0028
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1426224431
source Cambridge University Press Journals Complete
subjects Communication
Consequentialism
Crime
Decision analysis
Deterrence
Economic behaviour
Economic surveys
Experimental economics
Moral education
Philosophy
Punishment
Social psychology
title FOLK RETRIBUTIVISM AND THE COMMUNICATION CONFOUND
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T23%3A32%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=FOLK%20RETRIBUTIVISM%20AND%20THE%20COMMUNICATION%20CONFOUND&rft.jtitle=Economics%20and%20philosophy&rft.au=Nadelhoffer,%20Thomas&rft.date=2013-07-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=235&rft.epage=261&rft.pages=235-261&rft.issn=0266-2671&rft.eissn=1474-0028&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0266267113000217&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3037969241%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1418151260&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0266267113000217&rfr_iscdi=true