Three studies examined the relationship between need for cognition and support for punitive responses to crime. The results of Study 1 (N = 110) indicated that individuals high in need for cognition were less supportive of punitive measures than their low need for cognition counterparts. This finding was replicated in Study 2 (N = 1,807), which employed a nationally representative probability sample and included a more extensive battery of control variables. The purpose of Study 3 (N = 255) was to identify a third variable that might explain this relationship. This final study’s results suggest that attributional complexity mediates the relationship between need for cognition and punitiveness. High need for cognition individuals are less supportive of punitive measures because they endorse more complex attributions for human behavior than their low need for cognition peers.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2.
Blumstein, A., & Cohen, J. (1980). Sentencing of convicted offenders: An analysis of the public’s view. Law & Society Review, 14, 223-261.
3.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.
4.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
5.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F., & Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032-1043.
6.
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, 284-299.
7.
Carlson, H. M., & Sutton, M. S. (1975). The effects of different police roles on attitudes and values. Journal of Psychology, 91, 57-64.
8.
D’Agostino, P. R., & Fincher-Kiefer, R. (1992). Need for cognition and the correspondence bias. Social Cognition, 10, 151-163.
9.
Fletcher, G.J.O., Danilovics, P., Fernandez, G., Peterson, D., & Reeder, G. D. (1986). Attributional complexity: An individual differences measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 875-884.
10.
Goldberg, J. H., Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Rage and reason: The psychology of the intuitive prosecutor. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 781-795.
11.
Harvey, O. J. (1986). Belief systems and attitudes toward the death penalty and other punishments. Journal of Personality, 54, 659-675.
12.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.
13.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology: Vol. 1 (4th ed., pp. 233-265). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
14.
Krosnick, J. A. (2003, May). The impact of personality on political beliefs, attitudes, and behavior: Need for cognition and need to evaluate.Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Society, Atlanta, GA.
15.
Kury, H., & Ferdinand, T. (1999). Public opinion and punitivity. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22, 373-392.
16.
Lambert, A.J., Payne, B.K., Jacoby, L.L., Shaffer, L.M., Chasteen, A. L., & Khan, S. R. (2003). Stereotypes as dominant responses: On the “social facilitation” of prejudice in anticipated public contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 277-295.
17.
Lerner, J. S., Goldberg, J. H., & Tetlock, P. E. (1998). Sober second thought: The effects of accountability, anger, and authoritarianism on attributions of responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 563-574.
18.
Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255-275.
19.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855.
20.
Petty, R.E., Schumann, D.W., Richman, S.A., & Strathman, A.J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for affect under high- and low-elaboration conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 5-20.
21.
Pope, J., & Meyer, R. (1999). An attributional analysis of jurors’ judgments in a criminal case: A preliminary investigation. Social Behavior and Personality, 27, 563-574.
22.
Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 637-654.
23.
Rennison, C. (2002). Criminal victimization 2001: Changes 2000-01 with trends 1993-2001. Retrieved May 8, 2003, from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
24.
Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1995). Justice, liability, and blame: Community views and the criminal law. Boulder, CO: Westview.
25.
Sutton, M. S., & Carlson, H. M. (1977). Attitude and personality differences among men and women studying police science. Journal of Social Psychology, 102, 161-162.
26.
Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 227-236.
27.
Tetlock, P.E., Visser, P., Singh, R., Polifroni, M., Scott, A., Elson, B., et al. (2002). Alleged biases and errors in attribution of responsibility: Defective intuitive scientists or prudent intuitive prosecutors? Unpublished manuscript.
28.
U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d.). 1998 criminal sentencing statistics. Retrieved May 8, 2003, from Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics Web site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/sent.htm
29.
Wells, G.L., Petty, R.E., Harkins, S.G., Kagehiro, D., & Harvey, J. (1977). Anticipated discussion of interpretation eliminates actor-observer differences in the attribution of causality. Sociometry, 40, 247-253.
30.
Zimmerman, S. E., Van Alstyne, D. J., & Dunn, C. S. (1988). The National Punishment Survey and public policy consequences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25, 120-149.
