Abstract

We compared the punitiveness of two groups following a manipulation in which participants were either able to cheat on a simple number-matching task, by taking more money then they rightfully earned, or prevented from doing so on the same task. After completing the task, participants read a number of small vignettes of politicians who had acted questionably, and then were asked to rate the scenarios on both how wrong the behavior was and how much punishment it deserved. Participants given the opportunity to cheat with impunity were significantly less punitive when judging questionable behavior on the part of elected officials.