An experimental study of the process of felt understanding in intergroup relations: Japanese and Chinese relations in Japan.

"Felt understanding" is a crucial determinant of positive interpersonal and intergroup relationships. However, the question of why felt understanding shapes intergroup relations has been neglected. In a pre-registered test of the process in intergroup relations with a sample from East Asia, we manipulated felt understanding (understood versus misunderstood by an outgroup) in an experimental study (N = 476). The results supported the expectation that felt understanding would lead to a more positive intergroup orientation and action intention. The results of parallel mediation analyses showed that felt understanding indirectly predicted intergroup outcomes through felt positive regard, intergroup overlap, and outgroup stereotypes. Furthermore, the results of post-hoc sequential mediation analyses indicated that felt understanding indirectly predicted intergroup outcomes sequentially through felt positive regard and intergroup overlap, followed by outgroup stereotypes.

Examining the differential effects of information about the death penalty on retributivists and non-retributivists in Japan: a refutation of Marshall's third hypothesis.

This study aimed to test Marshall's third hypothesis-that information about the death penalty hardly affects the attitude of death penalty supporters on retribution grounds-utilizing a non-American sample. Four pre-registered experiments were conducted, involving Japanese participants randomly selected from sample pools of retributivists and non-retributivists, based on their reasons for supporting the death penalty. One group received information exposure, while the other was under control conditions. Participants read about deterrence (Study 1) or false convictions (Study 2-4). Except for the results of Study 4, retributivists and non-retributivists were equally affected or unaffected by information. Marshall's third hypothesis is therefore not supported. Retributivists strongly favored the death penalty; higher empathy toward criminals was associated with less pro-death penalty attitudes. Additionally, there were differences in the influence of information. These results suggest the need for a new approach to researching the relationship between public attitudes and information on the death penalty.

Comparing sentencing judgments of judges and laypeople: The role of justifications.

There is a lack of understanding concerning the differences between laypeople's and professional judges' conceptions of justifications for sentencing. We conducted an online quasi-experimental study with 50 active judges and 200 laypeople. Participants were presented with a vignette describing severe child abuse leading to fatality and were asked to indicate a term of imprisonment for the father and the justification they would consider relevant when deciding on the sentence. A two-factor analysis of variance showed that laypeople disproportionately favored retribution compared to judges. This was reflected in the judges' higher scores for the other three justifications (incapacitation, general deterrence, rehabilitation). The Likert scales failed to detect any such differences. Furthermore, imprisonment terms given by judges were shorter than those given by laypeople. These results support the hypotheses that judges balance multiple justifications and find a shorter sentence that is appropriate; their lesser bias toward retribution supports the notion that judges should be balanced and fair-minded.

Justification of Sentencing Decisions: Development of a Ratio-Based Measure Tested on Child Neglect Cases.

Theoretically, people's justification of a sentencing decision involves a hybrid structure comprising retribution, incapacitation, general deterrence, and rehabilitation. In this study, a new ratio-type measure was developed to assess this structure and was tested to detect changes in the weighting of justification according to the content emphasized in a particular crime. Two child neglect scenarios were presented to participants, where they read either a severe-damage scenario (where a single mother's selfish neglect caused her son's death) or a moderate-damage scenario (where a single mother became apathetic due to economic deprivation and caused her child's debilitation). Participants then indicated the proportion of importance they placed on each justification in determining the defendant's punishment, with an overall proportion of 100%, along with responding to the sentence on an 11-point scale. This study involved a two-factor analysis of variance for justification ratios, a t-test for the sentence, and a multiple regression analysis with three demographic variables, the four justifications as independent variables, and the sentence as the dependent variable. The ratio of retribution to rehabilitation was reversed depending on the scenario: in the severe-damage scenario, retribution was weighted highest at 27.0% and rehabilitation was weighted at only 19.0%. By contrast, in the moderate-damage scenario, rehabilitation had the highest weighting of about 26.2%, while retribution was weighted at 21.5%. The sentence was more severe in the severe-damage scenario. Multiple regression analysis suggested that in the severe-damage scenario, most participants failed to deviate from choosing retribution by default and decided on heavier sentences, while some who considered rehabilitation and incapacitation opted for lighter sentences. The present measure succeeded in detecting changes in the weighting of justification, which can be difficult to detect with common Likert Scales. In addition, it was found that not only retribution but utilitarian justification was considered in the sentencing decisions of serious cases.