Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Remorse, perceived offender immorality, and lay sentencing preferences

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

We examine whether affective, verbal, and restitutive displays of remorse are associated with perceived offender immorality, as well as whether displays of remorse exert indirect effects on preferences for criminal sentencing via perceived offender immorality.

Method

Data are from an online survey, which included a sentencing vignette with experimental manipulations for offender remorse and items measuring sentencing preferences, perceived offender and offense immorality, and controls (N = 352). OLS regression and bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals were used to estimate direct and indirect effects. Replication analyses were conducted with two student samples (N = 103 and N = 131).

Results

Displays of remorse were associated with perceived offender immorality. Displays of remorse also exerted indirect effects on preferences for sentencing severity and support for particular sentencing goals (including incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restoration).

Conclusions

Affective, verbal, and restitutive displays of remorse may be associated with sentencing preferences via perceived offender immorality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Several studies have also used nonexperimental methods to study the role of remorse in sentencing. Eisenberg et al. (1998) found that remorse was an important consideration in sentencing among former capital jurors; Antonio (2006) found that when a defendant appeared emotionally involved at a capital trial, application of the death penalty was less likely; Zhong et al. (2014) found that although judges varied in the extent to which they weighted remorse in the courtroom, many considered it important; and Redlich et al. (2018) found that partial confession (viewed as a sign of less remorse compared to full confession) was associated with reduced plea discounts.

  2. Gold and Weiner (2000) also conducted two other studies, examining personal apologies and political speech, but neither assessed third-party punishment preferences.

  3. Deterrence may encompass both specific deterrence (deterring a particular person from committing more crimes) and general deterrence (deterring any person from committing more crimes). Thus, evaluations of individual offenders may be especially relevant to specific deterrence, but likely less relevant to general deterrence, except to the extent offender immorality judgments may influence views about what a “typical” offender is like.

  4. Supplemental analyses indicated that the findings did not change substantively when the full sample was used.

  5. The measures for offense harm and impact were initially intended to be used as a scale but were not strongly correlated (r = .38). Results are substantively similar when a combined measure is used.

  6. Although intentionality differs from wrongfulness, harm, and impact in that it centers on the offender’s mind rather than on the nature or consequences of the act, we describe it as a measure of perceived offense immorality because judgments about intentionality are key in evaluations of the immorality of acts (e.g., Darley, 2011). Thus, we define perceived offense immorality broadly to include various characteristics of the act, including its intentionality, that relate to perceptions of its immorality. However, we also acknowledge that offense wrongfulness, harm, and impact are more closely aligned with commonly held perceptions of immorality (Schein and Gray, 2018).

  7. We use OLS rather than ANOVA in examining the main effects of the experiment for two reasons. First, regression allows each of the three remorse conditions to be compared directly to the control/no remorse condition in addition to providing an F test for differences among the experimental conditions equivalent to that of a one-way ANOVA. Comparing different forms of remorse to a lack of remorse is more closely aligned with out theoretical goals than simply testing for differences between conditions. Second, presenting regression models provides greater continuity and ease of comparison across the models assessing experimental effects and subsequent models assessing correlational relationships among the perceived immorality and sentencing preference variables.

  8. Specifically, we used the user-written Stata command “sgmediation” using the “bootstrap” option.

References

  • Alicke, M. D. (1992). Culpable causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 368–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alter, A. L., Kernochan, J., & Darley, J. M. (2007). Transgression wrongfulness outweighs its harmfulness as a determinant of sentence severity. Law and Human Behavior, 31(4), 319–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonio, M. E. (2006). Arbitrariness and the death penalty: How the defendant’s appearance during trial influences capital jurors’ punishment decision. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24(2), 215–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandes, S. A. (2016). Remorse and criminal justice. Emotion Review, 8(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). Moderator-mediator variables distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastian, B., Denson, T. F., & Haslam, N. (2013). The roles of dehumanization and moral outrage in retributive justice. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e61842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell Holleran, L. L., Vaughan, T. J., & Vandiver, D. M. (2016). Juror decision-making in death penalty sentencing when presented with defendant’s history of child abuse or neglect. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 34(6), 742–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berryessa, C. M. (2018). The effects of psychiatric and “biological” labels on lay sentencing and punishment decisions. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(2), 241–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berryessa, C. M. (2020). The effects of essentialist thinking toward biosocial risk factors for criminality and types of offending on lay punishment support. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 38(4), 355–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berryessa, C. M. (2021a). The potential influence of criminological rationales in considering childhood abuse as mitigating to sentencing. Child Abuse & Neglect, 111, 104818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berryessa, C. M. (2021). Modeling “Remorse Bias” in probation narratives: Examining social cognition and judgments of implicit violence during sentencing. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Berryessa, C. M. & Balavender, A. (2021). The value of remorse as a “therapeutic tool” for probation officers in sentencing. In M. Perlin & K. Frailing (Eds.), The Therapeutic Jurisprudence Implications of Judicial Decision-Making by Non-Judicial Officers. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

  • Berryessa, C., & Lively, C. (2019). When a sex offender wins the lottery: Social and legal punitiveness toward sex offenders in an instance of perceived injustice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 25(3), 181–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berryessa, C., & Wohlstetter, B. (2019). The psychopathic “label” and effects on punishment outcomes: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 43(1), 9–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, W. J., Steiner, B. D., & Sandys, M. (2001). Death sentencing in black and white: An empirical analysis of the role of jurors’ race and jury racial composition. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 3, 171–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brubacher, M. R. (2019). Moral concerns, criminal punishment, and whether offenders in general or individual offenders are being considered. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 25(1), 129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsmith, K. M. (2008). On justifying punishment: The discrepancy between words and actions. Social Justice Research, 21(2), 119–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsmith, K. M., & Darley, J. M. (2008). Psychological aspects of retributive justice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 193–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(2), 2840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. S., Perkowitz, W. T., Lurigio, A. J., & Weaver, F. M. (1987). Sentencing goals, causal attributions, ideology, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, J. K., Boots, D. P., & Chamlin, M. B. (2006). Political identity and support for capital punishment: A test of attribution theory. Journal of Crime and Justice, 29(1), 45–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, J. K., Boots, D. P., & Heide, K. M. (2003). Attribution styles and attitudes toward capital punishment for juveniles, the mentally incompetent, and the mentally retarded. Justice Quarterly, 20(1), 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. B., Malka, A., Rozin, P., & Cherfas, L. (2006). Religion and unforgivable offenses. Journal of Personality, 74(1), 85–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comartin, E., Kernsmith, R., & Kernsmith, P. (2013). “Sexting” and sex offender registration: Do age, gender, and sexual orientation matter? Deviant Behavior, 34(1), 38–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppock, A., Leeper, T. J., & Mullinix, K. J. (2018). Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(49), 12441–12446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corwin, E. P., Cramer, R. J., Griffin, D. A., & Brodsky, S. L. (2012). Defendant remorse, need for affect, and juror sentencing decisions. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 40(1), 41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T. (2012). Taking rehabilitation seriously: Creativity, science, and the challenge of offender change. Punishment & Society, 14(1), 94–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., Fisher, B. S., & Applegate, B. K. (2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice, 27, 1–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman, F. (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108(2), 353–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J. M. (2009). Morality in the law: The psychological foundations of citizens’ desires to punish transgressions. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 5, 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J. M. (2011). Citizens’ assignments of punishments for moral transgressions: A case study in the psychology of punishment. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 8, 101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J. M., Carlsmith, K. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2000). Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 24(6), 659–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dattalo, P. (2013). Analysis of multiple dependent variables. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deem, M. J., & Ramsey, G. (2016). Guilt by association? Philosophical Psychology, 29(4), 570–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolinko, D. (2003). Restorative justice and the justification of punishment. Utah L. Rev., 319-342.

  • Drumbl, M. A. (2007). Atrocity, punishment, and international law. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Duff, A., & Duff, R. A. (2001). Punishment, communication, and community. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, T., Garvey, S. P., & Wells, M. T. (1998). But was he sorry? The role of remorse in capital sentencing. Cornell Law Review, 83(6), 1599–1637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, A., Cavanagh, C., Frick, P. J., Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (2017). Can probation officers identify remorse among male adolescent offenders? Psychological Assessment, 29(6), 754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fradella, H. F., & Vogel, B. (2009). An empirical analysis of the relationship between law, morality, and personal conduct: Implications for theory and policy. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 5(2), 203–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, D. A. (2008). On regression adjustments to experimental data. Advances in Applied Mathematics, 40(2), 180–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (2012). Punishment and modern society: A study in social theory. University of Chicago Press.

  • Gerber, M. M., & Jackson, J. (2013). Retribution as revenge and retribution as just deserts. Social Justice Research, 26(1), 61–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacomantonio, M., & Pierro, A. (2014). Individual differences underlying punishment motivation. Social Psychology, 49, 449–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacomantonio, M., Pierro, A., Baldner, C., & Kruglanski, A. (2017). Need for closure, torture, and punishment motivations. Social Psychology, 48, 335–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold, G. J., & Weiner, B. (2000). Remorse, confession, group identity, and expectancies about repeating a transgression. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22(4), 291–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, A., Pickett, J. T., & Cullen, F. T. (2020). Advantages of matched over unmatched opt-in samples for studying criminal justice attitudes: A research note. Crime & Delinquency, 0011128720977439.

  • Gray, D. (2010). Punishment as suffering. Vanderbilt Law Review, 63, 1617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gromet, D. M., & Darley, J. M. (2009). Punishment and beyond: Achieving justice through the satisfaction of multiple goals. Law & Society Review, 43(1), 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanan, M. E. (2018). Remorse bias. Missouri Law Review, 83, 301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.

  • Hechler, S., & Kessler, T. (2018). On the difference between moral outrage and empathic anger: Anger about wrongful deeds or harmful consequences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 270–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschfield, P. J., & Piquero, A. R. (2010). Normalization and legitimation: Modeling stigmatizing attitudes toward ex-offenders. Criminology, 48(1), 27–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogue, T. E., & Peebles, J. (1997). The influence of remorse, intent and attitudes toward sex offenders on judgments of a rapist. Psychology, Crime and Law, 3(4), 249–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiefer, R. P., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Wenzel, M., Woodyatt, L., & Berry, J. W. (2020). Apology and restitution in a role-play restorative justice experiment: Multiple perspectives, multiple measures. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 48(2), 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, L. B., Oswald, M. E., 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, 23(2–3), 99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehle, A., Miller, M. K., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2009). The influence of accounts and remorse on mock jurors’ judgments of offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 33(5), 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiriakidis, S. P. (2008). Application of the theory of planned behavior to recidivism: The role of personal norm in predicting behavioral intentions of re-offending. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(9), 2210–2221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinke, C. L., Wallis, R., & Stalder, K. (1992). Evaluation of a rapist as a function of expressed intent and remorse. The Journal of Social Psychology, 132(4), 525–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2013). Social class rank, essentialism, and punitive judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacey, N. (2019). Populism and the rule of law. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15, 79–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, P. S., Pickett, J. T., Ryon, S. B., & Kosloski, A. E. (2019). Race, juvenile transfer, and sentencing preferences: Findings from a randomized experiment. Race and Justice, 9(3), 251–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leidner, B., Castano, E., & Ginges, J. (2013). Dehumanization, retributive and restorative justice, and aggressive versus diplomatic intergroup conflict resolution strategies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 181–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippman, M. (2005). Mens rea, concurrence, causation. In Contemporary Criminal Law: Concepts, Cases and Controversies (1st ed., pp. 118–152).

  • Lo, L. Y., Au-Yeung, O. N., & Lin, M. (2016). Does content matter? The effect of remorseful tone on length of prison sentence. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 19(2), 170–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, H., & Miethe, T. D. (2003). Confessions and criminal case disposition in China. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 549–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malle, B. F. (2020). Moral judgments. Annual Review of Psychology72.

  • Manchak, S. M., & Fisher, L. R. (2019). An examination of multiple factors influencing support for sex offender policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(6), 925–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mancini, C., & Pickett, J. T. (2016). The good, the bad, and the incomprehensible: Typifications of victims and offenders as antecedents of beliefs about sex crime. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(2), 257–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. W., & Heiphetz, L. (2021). “Internally wicked”: Investigating how and why essentialism influences punitiveness and moral condemnation. Cognitive Science, 45(6), e12991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maruna, S., & King, A. (2009). Once a criminal, always a criminal? ‘Redeemability’ and the psychology of punitive public attitudes. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15(1–2), 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxfield, L. D., Martin, W., & Kitchens, C. (1996). Just Punishment: Public Perceptions and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. US Sentencing Commission.

  • McNeill, F. (2012). Four forms of ‘offender’ rehabilitation: Towards an interdisciplinary perspective. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17(1), 18–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menkel-Meadow, C. (2007). Restorative justice: What is it and does it work? Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3, 161–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 109–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, J. (2012). Blaming as a social process: The influence of character and moral emotion on blame. Law and Contemporary Problems, 75(2), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, J., & McDonnell, M. H. (2012). Moral character, motive, and the psychology of blame. Cornell Law Review, 97, 255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niedermeier, K. E., Horowitz, I. A., & Kerr, N. L. (2001). Exceptions to the rule: The effects of remorse, status, and gender on decision making 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(3), 604–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyúl, B., Kende, A., Engyel, M., & Szabó, M. (2018). Perception of a perpetrator as a successful person predicts decreased moral judgment of a rape case and labeling it as rape. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piazza, J., Landy, J. F., & Goodwin, G. P. (2014). Cruel nature: Harmfulness as an important, overlooked dimension in judgments of moral standing. Cognition, 131(1), 108–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, J. T., Mancini, C., & Mears, D. P. (2013). Vulnerable victims, monstrous offenders, and unmanageable risk: Explaining public opinion on the social control of sex crime. Criminology, 51(3), 729–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picó, A., Gračanin, A., Gadea, M., Boeren, A., Aliño, M., & Vingerhoets, A. (2020). How visible tears affect observers’ judgements and behavioral intentions: Sincerity, remorse, and punishment. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 1–18.

  • Pipes, R. B., & Alessi, M. (1999). Remorse and a previously punished offense in assignment of punishment and estimated likelihood of a repeated offense. Psychological Reports, 85(1), 246–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proeve, M. J., & Howells, K. (2006). Effects of remorse and shame and criminal justice experience on judgements about a sex offender. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12(2), 145–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proeve, M., & Tudor, S. (2016). Remorse: Psychological and jurisprudential perspectives. Routledge.

  • Redlich, A. D., Yan, S., Norris, R. J., & Bushway, S. D. (2018). The influence of confessions on guilty pleas and plea discounts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(2), 147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roach, K. (2000). Changing punishment at the turn of the century: Restorative justice on the rise. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 249–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, P., & Litton, P. (2018). Crime, punishment, and causation: The effect of etiological information on the perception of moral agency. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 118–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. T., Smith-Lovin, L., & Tsoudis, O. (1994). Heinous crime or unfortunate accident? The effects of remorse on responses to mock criminal confessions. Social Forces, 73(1), 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. H. (1994). The role of harm and evil in criminal law: A study in legislative deception. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, 5, 299–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. H. (2013). Intuitions of justice and the utility of desert. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Robinson, P. H. (2016). Democratizing criminal law: Feasibility, utility, and the challenge of social change. Northwestern University Law Review, 111, 1565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. H., Jackowitz, S. E., & Bartels, D. M. (2012). Extralegal punishment factors: Study of forgiveness, hardship, good deeds, apology, remorse, and other such discretionary factors in assessing criminal punishment. Vanderbilt Law Review, 65(3), 737–828.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheff, T. J. (1998). Community conferences: Shame and anger in therapeutic jurisprudence. Revista Jurídica UPR, 67, 97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2018). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 32–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, J. Z., Crockett, M. J., & Dolan, R. J. (2017). Inferences about moral character moderate the impact of consequences on blame and praise. Cognition, 167, 201–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silver, J. R. (2017). Moral foundations, intuitions of justice, and the intricacies of punitive sentiment. Law & Society Review, 51(2), 413–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stafford, M. C., & Warr, M. (1993). A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(2), 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen, S., Engen, R. L., & Gainey, R. R. (2005). Images of danger and culpability: Racial stereotyping, case processing, and criminal sentencing. Criminology, 43(2), 435–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stearns, D. C., & Parrott, W. G. (2012). When feeling bad makes you look good: Guilt, shame, and person perception. Cognition & Emotion, 26(3), 407–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallon, J. A., Daftary-Kapur, T., & Penrod, S. (2015). Defendant remorse and publicity in capital trials: Is seeing truly believing? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(12), 1282–1302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, D., Uhlmann, E. L., & Diermeier, D. (2011). Moral signals, public outrage, and immaterial harms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1249–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Hafez, L. (2011). Shame, guilt, and remorse: Implications for offender populations. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 22(5), 706–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C., & Kleinke, C. L. (1992). Effects of severity of accident, history of drunk driving, intent, and remorse on judgments of a drunk driver. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(21), 1641–1655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. J., & Pickett, J. T. (2020). Are relational inferences from crowdsourced and opt-in samples generalizable? Comparing criminal justice attitudes in the GSS and five online samples. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1–26.

  • Twardawski, M., Tang, K. T., & Hilbig, B. E. (2020). Is it all about retribution? The flexibility of punishment goals. Social Justice Research, 1–24.

  • Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., & Diermeier, D. (2015). A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 72–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhlmann, E. L., & Zhu, L. (2014). Acts, persons, and intuitions: Person-centered cues and gut reactions to harmless transgressions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(3), 279–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhlmann, E. L., Zhu, L., & Diermeier, D. (2014). When actions speak volumes: The role of inferences about moral character in outrage over racial bigotry. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(1), 23–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhlmann, E. L., Zhu, L. L., & Tannenbaum, D. (2013). When it takes a bad person to do the right thing. Cognition, 126(2), 326–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umbreit, M. S., Vos, B., Coates, R. B., & Lightfoot, E. (2005). Restorative justice in the twenty-first century: A social movement full of opportunities and pitfalls. Marq. L. Rev., 89, 251.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2021, accessed September 9, 2021). QuickFacts United States. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/RHI625219.

  • U.S. Sentencing Commission (2018). U.S. Sentencing Code 28 § 994. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/994

  • U.S. Sentencing Commission (1995). National Sample Survey Public Opinion on Sentencing

  • de Vel-Palumbo, M., Howarth, L., & Brewer, M. B. (2019). ‘Once a sex offender always a sex offender’? Essentialism and attitudes towards criminal justice policy. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(5), 421–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N., & Miller, D. T. (1980). Social-psychological processes underlying attitudes toward legal punishment. Law and Society Review, 565–602.

  • Ward, T., Fox, K. J., & Garber, M. (2014). Restorative justice, offender rehabilitation and desistance. Restorative Justice, 2(1), 24–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, J. D., Freese, J., & McElhattan, D. (2014). Comparing data characteristics and results of an online factorial survey between a population-based and a crowdsource-recruited sample. Sociological Science, 1, 292–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisman, R. (2004). Showing remorse: Reflections on the gap between expression and attribution in cases of wrongful conviction. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46(2), 121–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisman, R. (2009). Being and doing: The judicial use of remorse to construct character and community. Social & Legal Studies, 18(1), 47–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witvliet, C. V., Wade, N. G., Worthington, E. L., Jr., Root Luna, L., Van Tongeren, D. R., Berry, J. W., & Tsang, J. A. (2020). Apology and restitution: Offender accountability responses influence victim empathy and forgiveness. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 48(2), 88–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wringe, B. (2012). Collective agents and communicative theories of punishment. Journal of Social Philosophy, 43(4), 436–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wringe, W. (2016). An expressive theory of punishment. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yankah, E. N. (2003). Good guys and bad guys: Punishing character, equality and the irrelevance of moral character to criminal punishment. Cardozo Law Review, 25, 1019–1069.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhong, R., Baranoski, M., Feigenson, N., Davidson, L., Buchanan, A., & Zonana, H. (2014). So you’re sorry? The role of remorse in criminal law. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 42, 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Approval for this study was granted by the Institutional Review Board at Rutgers University (Pro2019000045). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Funding

This research was supported by the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University (internal funds); this funding source had no role other than financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason R. Silver.

Ethics declarations

This research was supported by School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University (internal funds); this funding source had no role other than financial support. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Approval for this study was granted by the Institutional Review Board at Rutgers University (Pro2019000045). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Student sample replication

We replicated parts of the main analysis in supplemental student samples drawn from two Northeastern universities. One (university #1) serves a predominantly nonurban and white population (N = 131). The other (university #2) serves a predominantly urban and nonwhite population (N = 113). Each sample is described below. Next, Table 5 shows models predicting perceiver offender and offense immorality from the remorse manipulations. Table 6 shows models predicting sentencing preferences from the remorse manipulations.

University #1 sample. The university #1 student sample was recruited from undergraduate sociology courses in Fall 2019. A total of 137 students completed the survey; 6 were dropped from the sample for failing an attention check. The sample was 81% female; 80% White, 4% Black, 9% other race, and 6% Hispanic; and the median age was 19 years. Data on education, income, and region were not collected. All relevant materials and measures in the university #1 sample were identical to those used in the main analyses.

University #2 sample. The university #2 student sample was recruited from undergraduate criminal justice courses in the Spring of 2019. A total of 103 students provided complete answers on the survey. Although demographic information was not collected, the campus from which the students were recruited is approximately 53% female as well as 25% White, 19% Black, 21% Asian, and 27% Hispanic. In this sample, the remorse manipulations as well as the measures of punishment severity preferences, punishment goals, and perceived offender immorality are the same. However, there are a few differences in other measures. In the vignette, the victim (Ron) is described as having Down’s syndrome rather than an unnamed intellectual disability, and the vignette wording differs slightly. Perceived offense wrongfulness is measured using the following items: “Jim’s act was morally blameworthy”; “Jim’s act was wrong;” and “Jim’s act was cruel.” Offense harm is measured using a single item: “How much pain does Ron feel after Jim beats him up?” Offense impact is not measured in this sample.

See Table 5, 6.

Appendix 2. Full vignette text

Page 1:

Jim is a 35-year-old man who was convicted of a violent assault.

[The victim of the assault, Ron, is a 42-year-old man.] /// [The victim of the assault, Ron, has a severe intellectual disability. Although he is a 42-year-old man, he has the mental functioning of an 8 year-old-child. Given enough training, however, Ron is able to learn to do tasks quite well— even complex ones.]

Jim assaulted Ron after Ron bumped into him while walking by on the street. Jim screamed at Ron to turn around and then punched Ron, knocking him to the ground. Although Ron tried to fight back, Jim kept hitting and kicking Ron in anger. Ultimately, Ron was injured badly enough to go to the hospital.

Page 2:

During Jim's trial, it came out that Jim’s father had beaten [Jim’s mother frequently while she was pregnant with him, often hitting and kicking her in anger. The blows frequently landed on Jim's mother's abdomen, where Jim was still developing in the womb.] /// [Jim frequently when he was between the ages of 2 and 5 years old, often hitting and kicking him in anger.] /// [Jim frequently when he was between the ages of 8 and 11 years old] /// [Jim frequently when he was between the ages of 8 and 11 years old.] The abuse only occurred during this period.

Research shows that people like Jim who were exposed to physical abuse [while developing in the womb] /// [in early childhood] /// [in late childhood] /// [as teenagers] are often aggressive and impulsive as adults.

Page 3:

[While in the courtroom, Jim appeared to be emotionally upset about hurting Ron.] /// [While in the courtroom, Jim said that he was sorry for hurting Ron.] /// [While in the courtroom, Jim mentioned that he was paying Ron’s medical bills in reparation for hurting Ron.] /// [While in the courtroom, Jim did not show any remorse for hurting Ron.]

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Silver, J.R., Berryessa, C.M. Remorse, perceived offender immorality, and lay sentencing preferences. J Exp Criminol 19, 425–463 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-021-09488-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-021-09488-5

Keywords

Navigation