Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment.

By Kevin M. Carlsmith, J. Darley, P. Robinson. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002

965 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2681061a3ee8dc2f4dd2b8facd136b2a10fac308

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment (2006, methodology): “The logic of this assumption and some supporting data are laid out in Carlsmith et al. (2002). However, that research focused exclusively on deterrence and retribution; the validation results for incapacitation theory were not reported. Those results are included in Table 1, which is expanded from t”
Power, Moral Clarity, and Punishment in the Workplace (2013, background): “These vignettes, modeled after those created by Carlsmith, Darley, and Robinson (2002), described individuals performing unethical acts within a business context.”
A Model of Third Parties' Morally Motivated Responses to Mistreatment in Organizations (2011, background): “Research has shown that even when individuals can rationalize their support for punishment in terms of its utility, their support is more strongly driven by a retributive motive (Carlsmith et al., 2002).”
Moral emotions as determinants of third-party punishment: Anger, guilt, and the functions of altruistic sanctions (2009, background): “Documenting specific emotional reactions may prove a fruitful way to establish functional links between different types of norm violations and the various goals underlying their punishment (Carlsmith et al., 2002; Darley & Pitman, 2003; Zeelenberg, Nelissen, Breugelmans, & Pieters, 2008).”
Restoration and Retribution: How Including Retributive Components Affects the Acceptability of Restorative Justice Procedures (2006, background): “Individuals want the punishment to be proportionate to the crime, and this entails escalating the punitiveness of the punishment as the crimes increase in severity ( Carlsmith et al., 2002; Darley et al., 2000).”
The Neural Correlates of Third-Party Punishment (2008, positive): “In particular, the decision to punish a person for his blameworthy act is generally preceded by an evaluation of that person’s intention in committing that act (Alter et al., 2007; Carlsmith et al., 2002; Darley and Pittman, 2003; Darley and Shultz, 1990; Robinson and Darley, 1995; Robinson et al., ”
Beyond Point-and-Shoot Morality: Why Cognitive (Neuro)Science Matters for Ethics* (2014, methodology): “We rely on our automatic settingsmost of the time, and they generally serve us well.(4) Our brains also have a manual mode.”