A new study by an inter­dis­ci­pli­nary team of Arizona State University psy­chol­o­gy researchers has found a link between the actu­al and per­ceived scarci­ty of resources and sup­port for cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. The study, cur­rent­ly in press but avail­able online on August 10 in the sci­ence jour­nal, Evolution and Human Behavior, dis­cov­ered that coun­tries with greater resource scarci­ty were more like­ly to have a death penal­ty, as were U.S. states with low­er per capi­ta income. 

Building on the­o­ries of human evo­lu­tion and evi­dence of how humans evolved to deal effec­tive­ly with dif­fer­ent envi­ron­ments, the ASU research team of social psy­chol­o­gists, evo­lu­tion­ary psy­chol­o­gists, and legal schol­ars the­o­rized that psy­cho­log­i­cal fac­tors relat­ed to the abun­dance or scarci­ty of resources could influ­ence indi­vid­ual and social views of pun­ish­ment. Keelah Williams, the lead author of the study who is now an assis­tant pro­fes­sor of psy­chol­o­gy at Hamilton College in New York, said “[t]o under­stand why peo­ple feel the way they do about the death penal­ty, we looked beyond indi­vid­ual dif­fer­ences to fea­tures of the envi­ron­ment that might affect people’s pun­ish­ment atti­tudes, some­times in ways out­side of their conscious awareness.” 

The researchers first looked to see whether they could find a rela­tion­ship at the soci­etal lev­el between pun­ish­ment and abun­dance or scarci­ty and, after find­ing that link, con­duct­ed two exper­i­ments to test that rela­tion­ship at the indi­vid­ual lev­el. They found that study par­tic­i­pants who had been shown infor­ma­tion and images of eco­nom­ic hard­ship tend­ed to view the death penal­ty more favor­ably than those of the same polit­i­cal ide­ol­o­gy and socioe­co­nom­ic sta­tus who had been giv­en infor­ma­tion and images about eco­nom­ic pros­per­i­ty. They next hypoth­e­sized that resource scarci­ty affects the death penal­ty by lead­ing peo­ple to see offend­ers as pos­ing greater risks to soci­ety and asked ques­tions to see whether there was a rela­tion­ship between scarci­ty, tol­er­ance of recidi­vism, and the death penal­ty. They found that when they asked study par­tic­i­pants their views on ques­tions such as Keeping con­vict­ed mur­der­ers alive is too great a risk for soci­ety to take” or The death penal­ty is the only way to ensure a con­vict­ed mur­der­er will not mur­der again” before ask­ing them about the death penal­ty itself, respon­dents expressed greater sup­port for capital punishment. 

Law pro­fes­sor Michael Saks, the senior author of the study, said the find­ings sug­gest that per­cep­tions about eco­nom­ic secu­ri­ty influ­ence the way a group deals with indi­vid­u­als who threat­en the safe­ty of oth­ers in the group. Arizona State University’s Psychology Department Chair Steven Neuberg said the study find­ings help sup­port the view that aspects of con­tem­po­rary psy­chol­o­gy rest on a deep, evolved ratio­nal­i­ty. They also have more imme­di­ate, prac­ti­cal impli­ca­tions: The abil­i­ty of sci­en­tif­ic psy­chol­o­gy to bet­ter under­stand the periph­er­al fac­tors that shape beliefs about the death penal­ty may be, for some, the dif­fer­ence between life and death.”

Citation Guide
Sources

Vige Barrie, Williams Publishes on Death Penalty Attitudes, Hamilton College, August 23, 2018; Kimberlee D’Ardenne, Resource scarci­ty increas­es sup­port fordeathpenal­ty, Arizona State University, August 242018.