Check out this new article by Andrés Gvirtz, Patrick F. Kotzur, Andrew L. Stewart, and Felicia Pratto in the British Journal of Social Psychology. The paper asks a clear question: does a perpetrator’s remorse change how people judge punishment for harms by dominant-group members against subordinate-group victims, and does this depend on the observer’s social dominance orientation (SDO)?
The authors ran four vignette experiments that varied the target group, country and whether the perpetrator was a private individual or a police officer.
Participants first chose possible charges and sentence lengths, then read either a remorseful apology or a non-remorse statement from the alleged perpetrator. Outcomes were severity of recommended punishment and charging decisions. Key predictors were SDO (16-item scales), outgroup attitudes, condition (remorse vs no remorse), and the SDO×condition interaction. Studies 3a and 3b were pre-registered and included attention checks. The authors also ran a mini meta-analysis across studies.
Across three of four studies (1, 3a, 3b), remorse interacted with SDO. People higher in SDO recommended harsher punishment when the perpetrator apologised. People lower in SDO recommended more lenient punishment with remorse. In Studies 3a and 3b there were additional main effects: higher SDO and more negative attitudes toward refugees were linked to generally lower punishment, and remorse reduced average punishment. Study 2 did not show the target interaction, likely due to design noise and the police-officer context, although higher SDO was associated with more leniency toward the officer. The mini meta-analysis found an overall significant interaction (mean ~0.47), supporting the core claim.
The findings are counterintuitive. Treat apology discounts with care. Remorse does not uniformly reduce punitive preferences. It can polarise judgments along ideological lines about group hierarchy.
Sentencing and prosecutorial guidelines that reward remorse should recognise heterogeneity in public views. Training for judges, prosecutors and jurors should cover SDO-linked biases in evaluating remorse in cases involving minority victims.
Communication strategies after discriminatory harm should consider that signals of inclusion and responsibility may backfire among audiences who endorse group dominance.