Narrative Retribution and Cognitive Processing

Abstract

In both narrative theory and evolutionary psychology, equitable-retribution—or the idea that punishments for committing a moral transgression should be equivalent to the transgression itself—is a centerpiece of discussion. This article reports results from a blocked within-subjects experiment that examined speed of cognitive processing and subjective rating of three types of narrative retribution: equitable-retribution; under-retribution, where punishment is absent for a transgression; and over-retribution, where punishment exceeds the severity of the transgression. Results suggest that narrative endings depicting equitable-retribution are processed more quickly and liked more than endings with under-retribution and over-retribution. In addition, liking seems to correspond with enjoyment for equitable-retribution and over-retribution; for under-retribution, liking seems to correspond with appreciation. Discussion focuses on implications for theory and extending the current experimental paradigm.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.