Marshall Julia, Gollwitzer Anton, Bloom Paul
Department of Psychology.
Dev Psychol. 2022 Sep;58(9):1783-1792. doi: 10.1037/dev0001378. Epub 2022 May 5.
Past research has demonstrated that both consequentialist motives (such as deterrence) and deontological motives (such as "just deserts") underlie children's and adults' punitive behavior. But what motives do we ascribe to others who pursue punishment? The present work explores this question by assessing which punitive motives children (6- and 7-year-olds, = 100; 67% White; 55% female) and adults ( = 100; 76% White; 35% female) attribute to individuals who witnessed and punished a transgression (third-party punishment). Beyond this, we varied the social role of the punisher (a teacher, an adult visiting a school, a fellow peer) to examine whether motivational ascriptions vary depending on social context. Across these contexts, children endorsed a variety of punishment motives but consistently rejected the notion that individuals punish for the purpose of inflicting suffering. Adults-like children-prioritized consequentialist motives but, in more personal contexts (involving a child punishing their peer), considered "just deserts" a more plausible motive. These findings speak to developmental and contextual variation in individuals' theories about punitive motives and provide insight into how individuals understand and respond to punishment in everyday life. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
过去的研究表明，结果主义动机（如威慑）和道义论动机（如“应得的惩罚”）是儿童和成人惩罚行为的基础。但是，对于那些寻求惩罚的人，我们会赋予他们什么样的动机呢？本研究通过评估儿童（6岁和7岁，n = 100；67%为白人；55%为女性）和成人（n = 100；76%为白人；35%为女性）将哪些惩罚动机归因于目睹并惩罚违规行为的个体（第三方惩罚）来探讨这个问题。除此之外，我们还改变了惩罚者的社会角色（教师、到学校参观的成年人、同龄人），以检验动机归因是否会因社会背景而异。在这些背景下，儿童认可多种惩罚动机，但始终拒绝个体惩罚是为了造成痛苦这一观点。与儿童一样，成年人将结果主义动机置于优先地位，但在更私人的背景下（涉及一个孩子惩罚其同龄人），认为“应得的惩罚”是一个更合理的动机。这些发现揭示了个体关于惩罚动机的理论在发展和背景方面的差异，并为个体在日常生活中如何理解和应对惩罚提供了见解。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2022美国心理学会，保留所有权利）
