Supplementary materials for: 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. Supplementary materials for: Fousiani, K., & van Prooijen, J.-W. (2022). Punishment reactions to powerful suspects: Comparing a “corrupt” versus a “leniency” approach of power. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 230(2), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000462

尽管司法系统通常仅在存在明确论证理由的情形下，才会对违规行为作出惩处，但仍存在部分情境，人们会对罪责存疑的行为实施者作出评判。本研究旨在探讨观察者如何依据嫌疑人的权力（即个体掌控有价值资源、达成预期结果的能力），为其分配惩罚。一方面，权力意味着个体具备实施伤害的潜在可能性，因此会提升观察者对有权嫌疑人的有罪感知，此即“权力腐化”视角。另一方面，人们会以更为积极的态度看待权力持有者（可参照“借光效应（Basking in reflected glory）”），并忽视其负面信息，此即“权力宽恕”视角。若“权力腐化”视角成立，则观察者应会认为，相较于无权或权力不明的嫌疑人，拥有权力的嫌疑人罪责感更强。此外，观察者应会基于功利主义动机实施惩罚，旨在剥夺这类极具威胁性的权力持有者的作恶能力，防止其再次实施伤害。若“权力宽恕”视角成立，则观察者应会认为，相较于有权嫌疑人，无权或权力不明的嫌疑人罪责感更强，且会对这类嫌疑人表现出更强的惩罚动机（包括功利性、报应性或恢复性动机）。此外，结合两种视角，我们预测观察者将遵循直觉报应主义假说，相较于高权力嫌疑人，会向低权力或权力不明的嫌疑人分配更多报应性惩罚，以使其为自身行为付出相应代价。除此之外，本研究还将探讨再犯可能性与罪责感知在嫌疑人权力与观察者惩罚动机之间的中介作用。最后，我们预期相较于功利性或恢复性制裁动机，报应性惩罚会被更为普遍地采用。研究问题：人们是否会依据嫌疑人的权力，为其分配报应性、功利性或恢复性惩罚？研究方法：我们将采用简单实验设计，对被控挪用资金的嫌疑人的权力属性进行实验操控。我们将评估嫌疑人的罪责感知与再犯可能性，以及观察者的惩罚动机（报应性、功利性、恢复性）。补充材料来源：Fousiani, K., & van Prooijen, J.-W. (2022). 《对权力嫌疑人的惩罚反应：比较“权力腐化”与“权力宽恕”视角》. 《心理学杂志（Zeitschrift für Psychologie）》, 230(2), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000462