Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 7, 2026
08:05
A Procedure to Study Stress-Induced Relapse of Heroin Seeking after Punishment-Imposed Abstinence
Published on: March 23, 2022
3.1K
Cast into doubt: Free will and the justification for punishment
Stephen Koppel1, Mark Fondacaro1,2, Chongmin Na1
1John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA.
Behavioral Sciences & the Law
|July 14, 2018
Summary
Doubt in free will reduces support for retribution, especially for less serious crimes. For emotional crimes, it boosts support for consequentialist punishment, but decreases it for less emotional crimes.
Area of Science:
- Legal Psychology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Criminology
Background:
- Criminal punishment is justified by retribution (free will and blame) or consequentialism (crime prevention).
- Scientific challenges to the concept of free will may impact public support for punishment.
- Previous research indicates free will doubt weakens support for retribution, but its effect on consequentialism and across crime types is less understood.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate how doubt in free will affects support for retributive and consequentialist justifications for criminal punishment.
- To examine these effects across different crime categories: drug, property, and violent crime.
- To understand how crime severity and emotional response influence the relationship between free will doubt and punishment support.
Main Methods:
- Experimental design exploring participants' views on punishment.
- Manipulation of belief in free will.
- Assessment of support for retribution and consequentialism across varying crime types (drug, property, violent).
Main Results:
- Free will doubt weakens support for retribution across all crime types.
- For high-emotion (violent) crimes, free will doubt increases support for consequentialism.
- For low-emotion (drug, property) crimes, free will doubt decreases support for consequentialism, mediated by blame.
Conclusions:
- The impact of free will doubt on punishment support is complex and crime-dependent.
- As mechanistic explanations of behavior advance, overall support for criminal punishment may decline, particularly for less severe offenses.
- Future legal and policy considerations must account for evolving views on free will and its implications for justice.
Related Concept Videos
01:27Punishment
946
Negative reinforcement and punishment are often confused but serve distinct functions in behavior modification. Reinforcement, whether positive or negative, increases the likelihood of a desired behavior, while punishment decreases it.
Punishment can be positive or negative. Positive punishment involves adding an undesirable stimulus, such as scolding, to decrease a behavior. Negative punishment involves removing a desirable stimulus, such as taking away a favorite toy, to decrease behavior....
Punishment can be positive or negative. Positive punishment involves adding an undesirable stimulus, such as scolding, to decrease a behavior. Negative punishment involves removing a desirable stimulus, such as taking away a favorite toy, to decrease behavior....
946
03:20The Stanford Prison Experiment
24.7K
The famous and controversial Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by social psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his colleagues at Stanford University, demonstrated the power of social roles, social norms, and scripts.
24.7K
02:20Milgram's Obedience to Authority
7.4K
Obedience to authority is classically demonstrated in a more famous series of social psychology experiments performed by Stanley Milgram. He was a social psychology professor at Yale who was influenced by the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi war criminal. Eichmann’s defense for the atrocities he committed was that he was “just following orders.”
7.4K