Validating a Set of Retribution Narratives for Use in Media Psychology Research

Abstract

Witnessing characters enact and receive punishment for transgressions–that is, narrative retribution–is central to affective disposition theory. Despite its centrality, a standardized set of retribution narratives is absent from the literature. The current study seeks to provide validation evidence for a set of retribution narratives used in a previous study. Based on theoretical conceptualizations of narrative retribution, we examined the validity of 15 narratives that include three different endings which vary the level of retribution in terms of under-retribution (i.e., forgiveness), equitable-retribution (i.e., tit-for-tat punishment), and over-retribution (i.e., punishment that exceeds the original transgression). Consistent with hypotheses, we show that the three endings fit (a) a positive linear trend with regard to the perceived severity of the retribution, (b) an inverted-U trend with regard to ending preference, (c) a positive linear trend with regard to anticipated enjoyment, and (d) a decreasing quadratic trend with regard to anticipated appreciation. We also link findings to trait variables identified by previous research, namely biological sex, punitiveness, vigilantism, media moral disengagement, and empathy. Findings suggest that three trait variables–vigilantism, empathy, and sex–are the most useful as potential moderators and should be considered first for inclusion in future studies. Findings also specify theoretical relationships of these variables to narrative retribution processes. Based on the evidence provided here and in earlier research, the 15 narratives with their alternative endings seem to be the best candidate for a standardized stimulus set for exploring the impact of narrative retribution on media psychology-relevant processes.