NCJ Number
72822
Date Published
1976
Length
187 pages
Annotation
This study investigated the hypotheses that punishment for harmful behavior is more likely to be assigned when the perpetrator's responsibility is great, when compensation does not come from the perpetrator, and when no compensation is available for the victim.
Abstract
These hypotheses were developed from a review of the equity literature which suggested that the relationship between the availability of compensation for negative outcomes and punishment of the responsible individuals should be mediated by equity restoration principles. These principles state that punishment makes the responsible person suffer a loss and reduces the likelihood of the reoccurrence of the harmful behavior. Study subjects were 480 students in introductory psychology classes at one New York City university. Study subjects, in the role of simulated jurors, read a case summary of an automobile accident in which a pedestrian was injured. The accident descriptions varied in terms of compensation conditions, perpetrator responsibility, and severity of harm. Subjects were asked whether the perpetrator should be punished, and what degree of contributory negligence they would attribute to the victim and to the perpetrator. Results confirmed the responsibility hypothesis, greater punishment was assigned when the perpetrators' reponsibility was high. Greater punishment was also assigned when the severity of harm was high. The source of compensastion had no significant effect, possible because suggested compensation was minimal rather than adequate. Tables, charts, 159 references, and appendixes presenting study materials and additional tables are included. (Author abstract modified)