Need for Closure, Torture, and Punishment Motivations: The Mediating Role of Moral Foundations
Abstract
Abstract. When considering how criminals should be punished, most individuals prefer retributive (i.e., punishment compensating for the harm caused by the perpetrator) over utilitarian justice (i.e., punishment with the intent to deter future crime). However, past research has found that individuals with a high (vs. low) need for cognitive closure (NCC) are more likely to endorse utilitarian punishment. In three studies, we replicated past research on the association between need for closure and utilitarian justice (Study 1), and found that this relationship is mediated by moral concerns pertaining to group unity and cohesion (Study 2). In Study 3 we examine another instance of utilitarian policy: torture. Our data provide evidence that preference for utilitarian punishment is rooted in basic moral concerns.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Endorsement of each moral foundation predicts stronger attitudes toward both utilitarian punishment and retributive punishment.
“For example, endorsement of each moral foundation predicts stronger attitudes toward both utilitarian punishment (aimed at avoiding repetition of violations) and retributive punishment (aimed at retribution of violators).”
From Nostalgia increases punitiveness by intensifying moral concern (2024) · cites this paper as [70]
Moral concern predicts harsh moral judgments and punishment intentions toward those who commit moral violations.
“Moral concern and punitiveness are positively related: Moral concern predicts harsh moral judgments and punishment intentions toward those who commit moral violations70–73.”
From Nostalgia increases punitiveness by intensifying moral concern (2024) · cites this paper as [70]
Cites
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0021847 · Cited by 2,666 · see citing works
Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes
Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.006 · Cited by 682 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nostalgia increases punitiveness by intensifying moral concern
Lasaleta, J. D., Wildschut, T., & Sedikides, C. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-61858-x · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Giacomantonio, M., Pierro, A., Baldner, C., & Kruglanski, A.
- Affiliations
- Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Venue
- Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Hogrefe Publishing Group
- Published
- 2017-11
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 335-347
- ISSN
- 1864-9335 (ISSN-L)
- 2151-2590
- OpenAlex
- W2768969026
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 1.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Keywords
- need for cognitive closure, retributive justice, torture, moral concern, group cohesion, deterrence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
