The authors investigated the country difference in the public protest effect on the punishment goals pursued in cases of severe crimes against women. In a randomised experiment, Indians and Americans read about a severe crime committed by a man against a woman in the presence of his group of friends. The experimental manipulations were about (a) the prevailing social order (unspecified vs. deteriorating, i.e., the combination of rising crime rate and declining conviction rate) and (b) the resulting public protest (no vs. yes) against that crime. Participants indicated the punishment goals they pursued with the offender (deterrence and retribution) and his group of friends (deterrence and omission). Both manipulations were successful. Also, responses to punishment goals with the offender and his group had two-factor structures. Importantly, country-specific differences in responses to public protests supported the hypothesised moderation by country. Americans pursued the deterrence and retribution goals equally regardless of public concern with the crime; Indians, in contrast, pursued both goals more vehemently when there was public protest against the crime than when there was no public concern at all. Thus, public protest affected the pursuit of the deterrence and retribution goals by Indians but not by Americans. In the absence of public concern, Indians found it to be practical by going along with how the society actually functions. Given public protests, however, they considered what is right versus wrong for the society and how women's security might be achieved. Such flexibility in responding to public concern portrays Indians as pragmatic politicians. No public protest effect on responses by Americans reflects on their value concern as to how the society ought to function. Like principled theologians, therefore, they protect the sacred values of deterrence and retribution from encroachments by temporary ups and downs in the society.
展开▼
