David Simpson

This preregistered experiment examined two proximate drivers of retributive punishment attitudes: the motivation to make the perpetrator suffer, and understand the wrongfulness of his offense. In a sample of 514 US adults, we presented criminal case summaries that varied the level of suffering (absent vs. present) and understanding (absent vs. present) experienced by the perpetrator and measured punishment judgments and attitudes. Our results demonstrate, as predicted, that participants were more satisfied by the sentence and less punitive when they believed that the perpetrator had suffered from the punishment or that he understood the wrongfulness of his actions. This pattern held across crimes of varying seriousness (theft vs. aggravated robbery) and across two narrative perspectives (participant as victim vs. participant as third party). However, joint evidence of suffering and understanding did not strengthen this effect, contrary to predictions. We discuss the implications of these findings for leading philosophical theories of punishment.

Greene uses evidence from psychology and neuroscience to argue that manual mode is conducive to utilitarian judgments. He further argues that these data, in conjunction with philosophical premises, lend normative support to utilitarianism. After defending Greene’s philosophical premises against critics, I contend that the current state of the evidence suggests that manual mode does not drive utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas involving self-sacrifice. I performed an experiment which replicated the positive association between cognitive reflection test scores and utilitarian responses to dilemmas that involved sacrificing the interests of others. However, I did not find a positive association between CRT scores and self-sacrificial utilitarian responses. The lack of a connection between manual mode and self-sacrifice presents a problem for Greene’s argument that manual mode drives utilitarianism in general. Prima facie, my results indicate that reflection only drives other-sacrificial utilitarian judgments, not self-sacrificial ones. Greene is left without a basis to say that cognitive science lends support to the normative conclusion that we ought to engage in utilitarian self-sacrifice by, for example, giving more to charity. I conclude by discussing other implications of my data for Greene’s argument, and outlining directions for future research.