Narrative Retribution and Cognitive Processing

In both narrative theory and evolutionary psychology, equitable-retribution-or the idea that punishments for committing a moral transgression should be equivalent to the transgression itself-is a centerpiece of discussion. This article reports results from a blocked within-subjects experiment that examined speed of cognitive processing and subjective rating of three types of narrative retribution: equitable-retribution; under-retribution, where punishment is absent for a transgression; and over-retribution, where punishment exceeds the severity of the transgression. Results suggest that narrative endings depicting equitable-retribution are processed more quickly and liked more than endings with under-retribution and over-retribution. In addition, liking seems to correspond with enjoyment for equitable-retribution and over-retribution; for under-retribution, liking seems to correspond with appreciation. Discussion focuses on implications for theory and extending the current experimental paradigm.

Automated summary

The study found that narrative endings depicting equitable-retribution are processed more quickly and liked more than those with under-retribution and over-retribution. Liking seems to correspond with enjoyment for equitable-retribution and over-retribution, while appreciation is associated with under-retribution. The implications for theory and extending the current experimental paradigm are discussed in detail.