Remorse for discrimination: The role of group dominance in judging hate crimes against subordinate group members

Abstract

Power, especially in the court system, is a potent determinant of intergroup relationships. Blind justice being only an ideal, public opinion can influence whether harm to low power groups is considered criminal and should be prosecuted. Our experiments investigated the impact of social dominance orientation (SDO) on the perceived appropriateness of punishment for harm to subordinate group members by dominant group members. Further, we examined the moderating role of a remorseful apology. We argue that perpetrators who do not show remorse towards their less powerful victim might be judged less harshly by those scoring high in SDO. Apologizing for the harm indicates a desire for social cohesion, which should appeal more to those low on SDO. We tested our hypothesis across three potential hate crimes: a privacy violation against a gay man (Study 1, N = 87 US-Americans), a shooting of an unarmed Black man (Study 2, N = 91 US-Americans), and an assault against an innocent refugee (Study 3a, N = 179 and 3b, N = 157 Germans). In three of four studies, people who desired group dominance advocated harsher punishment of remorsefully apologizing perpetrators. Our research contributes to the understanding of punitive attitudes across group boundaries with far-reaching societal implications.