![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Three studies are presented which test hypotheses derived from Equity Theory, Prospect Theory and the principle of Diminishing Marginal Value with regard to preferences for overpunishment and underpunishment in the assignment of penalties to offences of varying severity. The first two studies showed that, with different subject samples, offences, and kinds of punishments, subjects indicated a marked preference for over-punishment rather than underpunishment, when both over punishment and under-punishment deviated from ideal, or equitable, punishment to the same degree. However, the effect was only apparent for serious offences. A third study showed that the overpunishment preference for a serious offence existed even when the overpunishment deviated 30% more from ideal punishment than underpunishment, but again no preference was shown' for the less serious offence. As the results cannot be readily explained in terms of any of the three explanatory principles, a possible explanation in terms of concept of negative reciprocity is advanced.