Not revenge, but change is sweet: Experimental evidence of how offender change and punishment play independent roles in victims' sense of justice.

What positive effects do victims gain by punishing their offenders? Previous research suggests that punishment increases victims' justice-related satisfaction only when the offender indicates that they changed their moral attitude and behaviour. However, offender change may increase justice-related satisfaction independently of punishment. So far, it is empirically unclear whether punishment affects satisfaction beyond offender change (e.g. by producing the change), and whether punishment has positive effects on victims that are independent of offender change, specifically how it empowers victims. In two studies, we use a full experimental design to test the unique influence of punishment and offender change on victims' justice-related satisfaction and empowerment. In a third study, we extend the design and additionally test for the effects of assigned versus self-selected punishment. Across three studies (N = 824) with different methodological approaches, we consistently found that offender change alone increased victims' justice-related satisfaction-and this effect was not moderated by punishment. Study 2, but not Study 3, showed that punishment alone empowered victim-and this effect was not moderated by offender change. This indicates that offender change and punishment have independent roles in producing positive effects on victims. Overall, it was offender change and not punishment that made victims feel that justice has been done.

The higher they go the harder they could fall: The impact of risk-glorifying commercials on risk behavior.

Previous research on risk-glorifying media has provided encompassing evidence for a positive connection between risk-glorifying contents and (a) risk-positive emotions, (b) risk-positive cognitions and attitudes, and (c) risk-positive behavioral inclinations. Nevertheless, little evidence shows whether risk-glorifying content increases actual risk behavior. We conducted three experimental studies to assess whether risk-glorifying commercials increase risk behavior. In all studies, participants were randomly assigned to a risk-glorifying or a neutral commercial. Additionally, in Study 2 participants were randomly assigned to an arousal or a non-arousal condition to test the mediating effect of arousal. In Study 3, we tested the mediating effect of the accessibility to risk-positive cognitions. We measured participants' risk behavior via the risk assessment ramp (RAR). Our results revealed that participants who watched the risk-glorifying commercial walked faster to the jumping-off point (Studies 1, 2, & 3) and would have jumped from a higher level (Studies 2 & 3), thus, indicating the exposure to risk-glorifying media content increases people's risk behavior. Neither arousal nor the accessibility to risk-positive cognitions mediated the effect of risk-glorifying media content. Beyond our findings, we offer a new tool to assess risk behavior that is effective and easy to apply.

Talking to others: The importance of responsibility attributions by observers.

This commentary extends Doris's approach of agency by highlighting the importance of responsibility attributions by observers. We argue that (a) social groups determine which standards are relevant and which actors are responsible, (b) consensus about these attributions may correct individual defeaters, and (c) the attribution of moral responsibility reveals agency of observers and may foster the actors' agency.

The infamous among us: Enhanced reputational memory for uncooperative ingroup members.

People remember uncooperative individuals better than cooperative ones. We hypothesize that this is particularly true when uncooperative individuals belong to one's ingroup, as their behavior violates positive expectations. Two studies examined the effect of minimal group categorization on reputational memory of the social behavior of particular ingroup and outgroup members. We manipulated uncooperative behavior as the unfair sharing of resources with ingroup members (Study 1), or as descriptions of cheating (Study 2). Participants evaluated several uncooperative and cooperative (and neutral) ingroup and outgroup members. In a surprise memory test, they had to recognize target faces and recall their behavior. We disentangled face recognition, reputational memory, and guessing biases with multinomial models of source monitoring. The results show enhanced reputational memory for uncooperative ingroup members, but not uncooperative outgroup members. In contrast, guessing behavior indicated that participants assumed more ingroup cooperation than outgroup cooperation. Our findings integrate prior research on memory for uncooperative person behavior and person memory in group contexts. We suggest that the ability to remember the uncooperative amidst the supposedly cooperative ingroup could stabilize intragroup cooperation.

Divorcing the puzzles: When group identities foster in-group cooperation.

We argue that general social psychological mechanisms (e.g., common group identity) can account for prosocial behavior and cooperative norms without the need for punishing Big Gods. Moreover, prosocial religions often do not prevent conflict within their religious groups. Hence, we doubt whether Big Gods and prosocial religions are more effective than alternative identities in enhancing high-level cooperation.

Political diversity versus stimuli diversity: Alternative ways to improve social psychological science.

Instead of enhancing diversity in research groups, we suggest that in order to reduce biases in social psychological research a more basic formulation and systematic testing of theories is required. Following the important but often neglected ecological research approach would lead to systematic variation of stimuli and sometimes representative sampling of stimuli for specific environments.