Blaming Blamers: Differential Obligation To Punish For Third-Parties Compared To Victims

The present study examines the different ways we morally evaluate first-party (victims) and third-party (uninvolved observers) in judgement scenarios; when given the opportunity to punish or forgive a moral perpetrator. Participants were asked to read an interaction of individuals playing an economic game where one player cheats the other. Participants then read one of four accounts of either the player who was cheated punishing or forgiving the offender, or a third-party observer punishing or forgiving the offender. After reading the account the participants evaluated the judger in their scenario; we found that people are okay with victims who forgive or punish and third parties who punish, but participants saw third-parties who forgave as extremely immoral and sanctioned them for their decision. The results of this study support the theory that we hold third and first-parties to different moral norms; expecting third-parties to uphold what society believes is just, making punishment a rational protective choice for third-parties.