Undergraduates' punish-help judgments: The effect of transgressor's and victim's sex

Abstract

Thirty-six undergraduates were presented with four hypothetical court cases in which the negligent actions of one individual (male or female) resulted in harm to another individual (male or female). Each participant read one case from each of the four sex of transgressor— sex of victim dyads. The sex dyads associated with the cases were counterbalanced across the four nine-member groups. Following each case, the subjects were asked to (1) rate the importance of punishing the transgressor and aiding the victim, (2) allocate $1000 of tax revenues to punishing the transgressor and/or helping the victim, (3) select either punishing or helping if the available resources could be used for only one, and (4) rate how angry and how sad they thought the victim felt. Although the undergraduates generally favored helping over punishing, their ratings indicated that they perceive female victims as more emotional and as meriting more assistance than males experiencing the same misfortunes. The relation of the present findings to those of a similar study involving children is discussed.