Publikationsserver der Universitätsbibliothek Marburg
Titel:Wertebedrohung als Mediator des Zusammenhangs von Gruppenkontext und Strafbedürfnissen
Autor:Keller, Livia
Weitere Beteiligte: Gollwitzer, Mario (Prof. Dr.)
Veröffentlicht:2013
URI:https://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/diss/z2013/0409
URN: urn:nbn:de:hebis:04-z2013-04093
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17192/z2013.0409
DDC: Psychologie
Titel (trans.):Value Threat - Mediating the Relation Between Intergroup Situation and Punishment Reactions
Publikationsdatum:2013-09-09
Lizenz:https://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/

Dokument

Schlagwörter:
Punishment, Wertebedrohung, Gruppen, Value Threat, Psychologie, Strafe, Ingroup, Gerechtigkeit

Zusammenfassung:
Die vorliegende Dissertationsschrift dreht sich um den Einfluss von „Wertebedro-hung“ auf Strafeinstellungen juristischer Laien. Die zentrale These lautet, dass Menschen Norm- und Rechtsbrüche umso härter bestrafen wollen, je mehr sie die Werte ihrer Grup-pe als bedroht wahrnehmen. Damit bezieht sich die Arbeit auf bisherige Forschung zu re-tributiver Gerechtigkeit, erweitert diese jedoch um sozialpsychologische Aspekte. Die An-nahme ist, dass Strafeinstellungen vom sozialen Kontext beeinflusst werden, in dem ein Normbruch begangen wird. Die These der Arbeit steht in Einklang mit einer Reihe von Einzelstudien, die für andere Arten von Bedrohung gezeigt haben, dass diese mit erhöhten Strafbedürfnissen einhergehen. Im Vergleich zu diesen Studien besteht der Wert der vor-liegenden Arbeit darin, dass Wertebedrohung in sieben Studien umfassend untersucht worden ist, inklusive verstärkenden Faktoren und den Auswirkungen auf verschiedene Aspekte von Strafeinstellungen. In drei Studien wird gezeigt, dass Wertebedrohung die Zustimmung zu retributi-ven Strafen erhöht und/oder die Zustimmung zu restaurativen Strafen vermindert. Vier weitere Studien befassen sich mit Faktoren, die wahrgenommene Wertebedrohung ver-stärken. In Übereinstimmung mit bisheriger Literatur wurde gefunden, dass ein Norm-bruch mehr Wertebedrohung auslöst, wenn er durch ein Mitglied der Eigen- statt der Fremdgruppe begangen wird. Auch scheint geringe Distinktheit zwischen Eigen- und Fremdgruppe die wahrgenommene Wertebedrohung zu erhöhen. Die Studien bestätigen zudem den erwarteten Zusammenhang von Wertebedrohung und Strafhärte. Die Frage nach den Gründen für diesen Zusammenhang bleibt jedoch offen. Drei mögliche Erklärungen werden diskutiert und in drei zusätzlichen Studien der Autorin ge-testet. Diese deuten darauf hin, dass dem Zusammenhang von Wertebedrohung und Straf-härte die Motivation zugrunde liegt, den Zusammenhalt der Gruppe zu stärken. Zukünftige Forschung muss allerdings zeigen, ob die physiologischen Korrelate von Wertebedrohung tatsächlich charakteristisch sind für Bedrohung, wie sie in Leistungssituationen definiert worden ist.

Bibliographie / References

  1. Baron, J., & Ritov, I. (1993). Intuitions about penalties and compensation in the context of tort law. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 17-33.
  2. Carlsmith, K. M. (2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 437-451.
  3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, A. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
  4. Oswald, M. E., Hupfeld, J., Klug, S. C., & Gabriel, U. (2002). Lay-perspectives on criminal deviance, goals of punishment, and punitivity. Social Justice Research, 15(2), 85-98.
  5. Aharoni, E., Weintraub, L., & Fridlund, A. J. (2007). No skin off my back: Retribution deficits in psychopathic motives for punishment. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26(5), 869-889.
  6. Brown, R.J., & Wade, G. (1987). Superordinate goals and intergroup behavior the effect of role ambiguity and status on intergroup attitudes and task-performance.
  7. 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.
  8. Iyer, A., Jetten, J., & Haslam, A. (2012). Sugaring o'er the devil: Moral superiority and group identification help individuals downplay the implications of ingroup rule- breaking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 141–149.
  9. Rossi, P. H., Simpson, J. E., & Miller, J. L. (1985). Beyond crime seriousness: Fitting the punishment to the crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1(1), 59-90.
  10. Keller, L., Oswald, M., Stucki, I., & Gollwitzer, M. (2010). A closer look at an eye for an eye: Laypersons' punishment decisions are primarily driven by retributive motives. Social Justice Research, 41(1), 20-26.
  11. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  12. 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.
  13. Does a common ingroup identity reduce intergroup threat? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 403-423.
  14. Wilson, J. P., & Hugenberg, K. (2010). When under threat, we all look the same: Distinctiveness threat induces ingroup homogeneity in face memory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1004-1010.
  15. Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: a motivational theory of social identity processes. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 223-255.
  16. Roberts, J. V., & Edwards, D. (1989). Contextual effects in judgments of crimes, criminals, and the purposes of sentencing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19(11), 902-917.
  17. Miller, D. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 527-553.
  18. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self – On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475-482.
  19. Riek, B.M., Mania, E.W., & Gaertner, S.L. (2006). Intergroup threat and out-group attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336-353.
  20. 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 & Society Review, 31, 237-265.
  21. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000a). Intergroup similarity and subgroup relations: Some implications for assimilation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 948-958.
  22. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000b). Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction. Personality and Social Psycholy Bulletin, 26, 242-256.
  23. Jetten, J., Summerville, N., Hornsey, M. J., & Mewse, A. J. (2005). When differences matter: Intergroup distinctiveness and the evaluation of impostors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 609-620.
  24. Durkheim, E. (1964). The division of labor in society (trans: Simpson, G.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press. (Original work published 1902).
  25. Vaes, J., & Wicklund, R. A. (2002). General threat leading to defensive reactions: A field experiment on linguistic features. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 271-280.
  26. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717-731.
  27. Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M. (2008). The symbolic meaning of transgressions: Towards a unifying framework of justice restoration. In K. A. Hegtvedt & J. Clay-Warner (Eds.), Advances in group processes: Justice (Vol. 25, pp. 291- 326). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. PUNISHMENT AND DISTINCTIVENESS 27
  28. Okimoto, T. G., Wenzel, M., & Feather, N. T. (2009). Beyond retribution: Conceptualizing restorative justice and its determinants. Social Justice Research, 22(1), 156-180.
  29. Marques, J. M., Abrams, D., Paez, D., & Martinez-Taboada, C. (1998). The role of categorization and in-group norms in judgments of groups and their members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 976-988.
  30. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33-48). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
  31. McGregor, I., Zanna, M. P., Holmes, J. G., & Spencer, S. J. (2001). Compensatory conviction in the face of personal uncertainty: Going to the extremes and being oneself. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 472-488.
  32. Brewer, M. B., Hong, Y.-Y., & Li, Q. (2004) Dynamic entitativity: Perceiving groups as actors. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd & O.Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception. Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 25-38). New York: Psychology Press.
  33. LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, attitudes, and group behavior. Oxford, England: Wiley & Sons.
  34. Evidence for Terror Management Theory: I. The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who violate or uphold cultural values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 681-690. PUNISHMENT AND DISTINCTIVENESS 28
  35. Stephan, W. G, Ybarra, O., & Morrison, K. R. (2009). Ingroup threat theory. In T. D. Nelson (Eds.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 43- 59), New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.
  36. Abrams, D., Marques, J. M., Bown, N. J., & Henson, M. (2000). Pro-norm and anti- norm deviance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 906-912.
  37. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. S. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory (pp. 68–88). Oxford: Blackwell.
  38. 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: Cambridge University Press.
  39. Gollwitzer, M., Keller, L., & Braun, J. (2012). Retributive punishment in a social context. In E. Kals & J. Maes (Eds.), Justice and conflicts: Theoretical and empirical contributions (pp. 169-196). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
  40. Turner, J. C. (1987). The analysis of social influence. In J. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J.
  41. Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social Identity (pp. 35-58). Oxford: Blackwell.
  42. Voci, A. (2010). The link between identification and in-group favouritism: Effects of threat to social identity and trust-related emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 265–284.
  43. Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of threats in intergroup relations. In M. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From Prejudices to Intergroup Emotions – Differentiated reactions to Social groups (pp. 191-207). New York: Psychology Press.
  44. Kahan, D. M. (1996). What do alternative sanctions mean? University of Chicago Law Review, 63, 591-653. PUNISHMENT AND DISTINCTIVENESS 26
  45. Gollwitzer, M., & Keller, L. (2010). What you did only matters if you are one of us: Offenders' group membership moderates the effect of criminal history on punishment severity. Social Psychology, 41(1), 20-26.
  46. Mlicki, P. P., & Ellemers, N. (1996). Being different or being better? National stereotypes and identifications of Polish and Dutch students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 97-114.
  47. Fritsche, I., Jonas, E., & Kessler, T. (2011). Collective reactions to threat: Implications for intergroup conflict and solving societal crises. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1, 101-136.
  48. Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (2004). Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 862-879.
  49. Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2001). Similarity as a source of differentiation: the role of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(6), 621-640.
  50. Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Defining dimensions of distinctiveness: Group variability makes a difference to differentiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1481-1492.
  51. Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 375-389.
  52. 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.
  53. McFatter, R. M. (1978). Sentencing strategies and justice: Effects of punishment philosophy on sentencing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1490–1500.
  54. Fischer, P., Greitemeyer, T., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., & Oßwald, S. (2007). Terror salience and punishment: Does terror salience induce threat to social order? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 964–971.
  55. Vidmar, N., & Miller, D. T. (1980). Social psychological processes underlying attitudes toward legal punishment. Law and Society Review, 14, 401-438. PUNISHMENT AND DISTINCTIVENESS 29
  56. Grant, B. R., & Grant, P. R. (2010). Songs of Darwin's finches diverge when a new species enters the community. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 20156-20163. PUNISHMENT AND DISTINCTIVENESS 25
  57. Pickett, C. L, & Brewer, M. B (2001). Assimilation and differentiation needs as motivational determinants of perceived in-group and out-group homogeneity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 341-348.

* Das Dokument ist im Internet frei zugänglich - Hinweise zu den Nutzungsrechten
© UB Marburg 1997 - 2024 Universitätsbibliothek Marburg