An exploration of third parties’ preference for compensation over punishment: Six experimental demonstrations

Janne Van Doorn*, Marcel Zeelenberg, Seger Breugelmans

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Research suggests that to restore equity, third parties prefer compensation of a victim over the punishment of a perpetrator. It remains unclear, however, whether this preference for compensation is stable or specific to certain situations. In six exper- imental studies, we find that adjustments in the characteristics of the situation or in the available behavioral options hardly modify the preference of compensation over punishment. This preference for compensation was found even in cases where pun- ishment might refrain a perpetrator from acting unfairly again in the future, and even when punishment has a greater impact in restoring equity than compensation does. Thus, the preference of compensation over punishment appears to be quite robust. Implications and ideas for future research are discussed.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)333-351
JournalTheory and Decision
Volume85
Issue number3/4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Keywords

  • Third party
  • Preference
  • Compensation
  • Punishment
  • Equity
  • Injustice
  • PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE
  • ALTRUISTIC PUNISHMENT
  • 3RD-PARTY PUNISHMENT
  • JUSTICE SENSITIVITY
  • SOCIAL PREFERENCES
  • COSTLY PUNISHMENT
  • MECHANICAL TURK
  • MORAL EMOTIONS
  • FAIRNESS
  • BEHAVIOR

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'An exploration of third parties’ preference for compensation over punishment: Six experimental demonstrations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this