Individual differences impact support for vigilante justice
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-09-2015-0186 |
| Pages | 186-196 |
| Published date | 11 July 2016 |
| Date | 11 July 2016 |
| Author | Christine M McDermott,Monica K Miller |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Aggression, conflict & peace |
Individual differences impact support for
vigilante justice
Christine M. McDermott and Monica K. Miller
Christine M. McDermott is a
PhD Student at the Department
of Interdisciplinary Social
Psychology, University of
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA.
Monica K. Miller is based at the
Department of Interdisciplinary
Social Psychology, University of
Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA.
Abstract
Purpose –The purposeof this paper is to explore the relationships between moraldisengagement, individual
differences (i.e.need for cognition (NFC), faith in intuition,legal authoritarianism) and responses to vigilantism.
Design/methodology/approach –US university students were surveyed.
Findings –NFC reduced support for vigilante justice while legal authoritarianism increased support
for vigilante justice. Both relationships are mediated by moral disengagement, which also increases support
for vigilante justice.
Research limitations/implications –The present study provides a starting point for further research on
individual differences and responses to vigilantism.
Practical implications –Results expand on the understanding of the function of individual differences in a
morally charged decision-making task. Content has implications for academics and legal practitioners.
Originality/value –Vigilante justice is embedded within American culture. However, vigilantism is currently
illegal, and recent instances of what might be considered vigilante justice (e.g. George Zimmerman, David
Barajas) have highlighted the controversy surrounding such extralegal violence. Little research has focussed
on the moral quandary posed by vigilantism.
Keywords Mediation, Need for cognition, Faith in intuition, Legal authoritarianism,
Moral disengagement, Vigilante
Paper type Research paper
In December of 2012, David Barajas and his two young sons ran out of gas. As they pushed their
car the short distance home, they were struck by a drunk driver, Jose Banda. Barajas
administered care to both boys, but they both died; he then allegedly shot Banda in the head and
was put on trial for murder. David Barajas was acquitted in August 2014 of all charges (Schleifer,
2014). However, cases in which an individual acts outside the legal system as a vigilante are not
universally supported. Officially, vigilante justice is an illegal behavior, but mixed attitudes toward
vigilante justice result in controversy surrounding both the actions of and trials of vigilantes
(McCall, 2004; Perry and Pugh, 1989).
As acts of vigilantism are illegal, individuals might have to bend the rules of morality to view such
acts favorably. One way in which individuals approve of wrongdoings without damaging their
sense of self as moral beings is through moral disengagement (cf. Bandura, 2002). There are a
number of processes that might influence propensity to morally disengage, and through that
affect perceptions of vigilante justice, including deference to authority (i.e. legal authoritarianism)
and individual differences in information processing. However, these relationships are for the
most part not well-explored in the literature. Exploring these relationship allows for a clearer
understanding of how individual differences impact moral decision making.
The current study inv estigated relati onships between in dividual differen ce measures and
support for vigilant e justice. Additio nally, the role of moral di sengagement was exam ined
as a possible media tor between processing style and l egal authoritarianism. Explor ing factors
Received 1 September 2015
Revised 15 February 2016
20 February 2016
Accepted 20 February 2016
PAGE186
j
JOURNAL OF AGGRESSION, CONFLICT AND PEACE RESEARCH
j
VOL. 8 NO. 3 2016, pp.186-196, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1759-6599 DOI 10.1108/JACPR-09-2015-0186
To continue reading
Request your trial