Abstract 

Morality and justice are complex issues that have been debated by philosophers for centuries. In the present study, the relationship between conceptions of justice and moral disengagement is examined.

            Retributive justice is an application of justice centered on punitive measures. Punishment is by nature an imposition of will onto another in a damaging way. In his theory of moral disengagement, Albert Bandura laid out mechanisms used for disengaging from the moral self, in order to avoid the discomfort of acting immorally (2002). If punishment can be justified through these mechanisms, such as re-naming punishment as “justice” or blaming the offender, moral disengagement could be a correlate of support for retributive justice. 

Responses to the Personal and Institutional rights to Aggression and Peace Survey (PAIRTAPS) were collected from 265 participants, utilizing the online survey website www.surveymonkey.com in the summer and fall of 2009 (Malley-Morrison et al 2006). A coding manual was developed using grounded theory to examine qualitative responses concerning such issues as punishment, peace, and justice. Qualitative answers to “There is no justice until wrong-doers have been punished; the more serious their wrong-doing, the more severe their punishment should be,” (Q1) and “Punishing wrong-doers after armed conflict and other forms of aggression is more important than peace,” (Q2) were examined in relation to sex, political affiliation, and moral disengagement scores (sum scores from 15 moral disengagement items). Answers were organized into valence categories indicating an overall theme: pro-punishment, pro-peace, qualified punishment or unresolved. Participants who responded with a pro-punishment valence for both questions were assigned to the pro-punishment group. The same method was used to create pro-peace group. The mean moral disengagement (MD) score was 79.79.

A single factor ANOVA revealed a significant difference (p=0.013) in the MD scores of the pro-punishment group (̅x=87.16) vs. the pro-peace group (̅x=76.36).

In a multifactor ANOVA, there were significant group differences in MD scores based on political affiliation, sex, and pro-punishment grouping (p=.002, p=.026, p=.046). Pairwise comparisons (Tukey’s HSD) at ɑ=.05 showed Republicans scoring higher than Democrats (p=.012,x̅d=78.07, x̅r=89.52), as well as those who identified as having an “other” political affiliation (p=.004, x̅o=62.50), and males scoring higher than females (p=.028, x̅m=83.20, x̅f=77.77). The overall ANOVA revealed significant group differences based on pro-punishment grouping, but the pairwise comparison did not pinpoint specific group differences. Single factor ANOVAs performed on each of the 15 individual moral disengagement items revealed that a pro-punishment valence was a significant predictor of moral disengagement scores on six items.

In a multiple linear regression, political affiliation, sex, and prop-punishment grouping accounted for 15.75% of the variation in total moral disengagement scores (p<.001, r2=.1575) with the significant factors being a pro-punishment valence (p=.014), identifying as female (p=.016), and identifying politically as a party other than Democrat, Republican, or Independent (p=.009).

These results indicate that some facets of moral disengagement are related to a pro-punishment stance, but that other factors such as sex and political affiliation also make significant contributions to moral disengagement.