ABSTRACT
Retributive justice concerns arise when rules are broken and a group or individual must decide whether someone should be punishes for rule breaking, what type of punishment is appropriate, and how severe that punishment should be. The labels "psychology of retribution" or "retributive justice" suggest that the focus of the area of research is on retribution. Retributive justice is important because social responses to rule breaking are central to public views about society and social authority. The strong support for punishing rule breakers suggests that punishment fills some important need within society. The important implication of the social analysis of the evolution of rules is that rules will develop in situations in which social order is threatens by the free operation of individual motivations. The functions of apologies suggests apology and remorse expressions also have meaning for the broader social context. The tension between macro– and micro–level judgments mirrors the earlier tension found between macro– and micro–level distributive justice judgments.
