The Critical Role of Motivation
in Assigning Culpability and
Punishment for Criminal
Actions
Christian D. Johnston & Jack A. Palmer, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology, College of Business and
Social Sciences, The University of Louisiana at Monroe
Introduction

Often, there is a great disparity regarding how
a criminal action is viewed from a purely legal
perspective in comparison to how it is viewed
from an individual psychology perspective.

The legal system generally views motive as
irrelevant in determining criminal liability.

By contrast, from a psychological perspective,
motive plays a large role in the assessment of
blameworthiness of the perpetrator in regards
to their actions.
(Malle, B., Guglielmo, S. & Monroe, A. 2012; Malle, B., Guglielmo, S. & Monroe, A. 2014.)
Introduction

Trials are conducted with the purpose of:



Courts must determine whether mens rea—the term
used to describe the mental element which is required
for an action to constitute a crime—was present at the
time of the criminal act.


1. determining whether the defendant actually
committed the illegal act in question
2. determining whether the perpetrator had the
required mental state
Mens rea generally requires the accused to be shown
as intending to do wrong or, at the least, that they
possessed the knowledge that they were doing wrong.
Motive may be introduced into a trial as evidence
of guilt; however, motive is not perceived as an
actual legal component of guilt.
(Hessick, 2006)
Introduction

The court must attempt to determine if the defendant
is guilty or not guilty.

Issues relating to culpability of the defendant’s
blameworthiness are generally made only at sentencing,
as illustrated by the case of Regina vs. Dudley and Stephens.

In this case, sailors who were shipwrecked and marooned
on a life raft—with no food or water—decided eventually
to kill and eat one of their own. Later, when they were
rescued, they were prosecuted for the killing.

The defendants argued they should not be punished due
to the killing being required for their survival.

The court did not accept this defense that were starving;
they were found guilty of murder. However, their
sentence was commuted from death to only six months
imprisonment.
Kadish & Schulhofer, 2011
Introduction
In the current state of our legal system, motive
plays only a minor role in the determination of
relative culpability of defendants.
 To compensate for this deficit, Hessick (2006) has
argued that motive should play an expanded role in
punishment assessment.
 Through accounting for motivation during the
sentencing phase of a trial, punishment will more
accurately reflect an appropriate amount of moral
condemnation for actions of the defendant.
 Hessick writes: “Because a punishment system that
reflects shared values is more effective at deterring
crime, and because motives are perceived as
relevant to a defendant’s blameworthiness, a
punishment system that accounts for motives may
also result in less crime” (2006).

Purpose of this Study

The rationale for the present study was to assess
the role of motive domain and its influence on
perceptions of culpability of the perpetrator, as
well as appropriate punishment.

The motivation underlying the perpetrator’s
criminal act was hypothesized to have a major
influence on the perception of that perpetrator’s
level of culpability and what level of punishment
was deserved.

To investigate this, vignettes were created falling
into four categories of motivation: Greed,
Revenge, Jealousy, and crimes committed through
Military engagements.
Purpose of this Study
To explore the interrelationships of vignette responses and:
Demographic values:
HEXACO Personality Test:

Sex

Honesty-Humility

Ethnicity

Emotionality

ACT scores

Extraversion

Level of religiosity

Agreeableness

Level of spirituality

Conscientiousness

Openness to Experience
Method
Participants

102 university students enrolled in
introductory psychology classes in Louisiana
volunteered to participate in the study.
Self-report Instruments

Basic Empathy Scale (BES) = cognitive & affective empathy

Level of Religiosity (REL) = self-reported degree of
religiosity

Level of Spirituality (SPI) = self-reported degree of
spirituality
The HEXACO-60

Honesty-Humility (H):
Sincere, honest, faithful, loyal, modest/unassuming versus
sly, deceitful, greedy, pretentious, hypocritical, boastful, pompous

Emotionality (E):
Emotional, oversensitive, sentimental, fearful, anxious,
vulnerable versus brave, tough, independent, self-assured, stable

Extraversion (X):
Outgoing, lively, extraverted, sociable, talkative, cheerful,
active versus shy, passive, withdrawn, introverted, quiet, reserved

Agreeableness (A):
Patient, tolerant, peaceful, mild, agreeable, lenient, gentle
versus ill-tempered, quarrelsome, stubborn, choleric

Conscientiousness (C):
Organized, disciplined, diligent, careful, thorough, precise
versus sloppy, negligent, reckless, lazy, irresponsible, absent-minded

Openness to Experience (O):
Intellectual, creative, unconventional, innovative, ironic
versus shallow, unimaginative, conventional
Vignettes

Participants were asked to read vignettes
falling into four categories of perpetrator
motivation: Greed, Revenge, Jealousy, and
Military engagement.

In all categories, the outcome of the
criminal action was the same—death of a
human being.

Each category had 3 vignettes for a total of
12 vignettes.
Sample Vignettes
Greed

A businessperson owns a company that manufactures a protein
supplement drink. The owner orders the workers to add a certain
chemical to the formula that will falsely show higher protein values
when the product is tested. The chemical is known to be toxic and the
subsequent outcome of this action is a disastrous. The protein drink
causes the death of at least one individual before the product is pulled
from the market.
What is the culpability
(responsibility) of this person?
Circle one.
If found guilty in a court of law
what should the punishment be?
Circle one.

1= Not at All

1= Less than one year in prison

2= Very Little

2= From 1 to 15 years in prison

3= Somewhat

3= More than 15 years in prison

4= To a Great Extent

4= Life in prison

5= Entirely

5= Death by execution
Sample Vignettes
Revenge

A parent loses a child in a college campus mass shooting. The
perpetrator has been arrested and is being transported to the
courthouse to stand trial. The bereaved parent finds a hiding place
outside the courthouse and lies in wait with a sniper rifle. As the
perpetrator is being led up the courthouse steps the grieving parent
kills the perpetrator with a single shot.
What is the culpability
(responsibility) of this person?
Circle one.
If found guilty in a court of law
what should the punishment be?
Circle one.

1= Not at All

1= Less than one year in prison

2= Very Little

2= From 1 to 15 years in prison

3= Somewhat

3= More than 15 years in prison

4= To a Great Extent

4= Life in prison

5= Entirely

5= Death by execution
Sample Vignettes
Jealousy

An individual comes home to find their spouse in bed with a
stranger. A struggle ensues and the stranger is killed by that
individual.
What is the culpability
(responsibility) of this person?
Circle one.
If found guilty in a court of law
what should the punishment be?
Circle one.

1= Not at All

1= Less than one year in prison

2= Very Little

2= From 1 to 15 years in prison

3= Somewhat

3= More than 15 years in prison

4= To a Great Extent

4= Life in prison

5= Entirely

5= Death by execution
Sample Vignettes
Military

A Special Forces sniper has one chance to take out a high-value
enemy target. The high-value target is standing in front of a civilian
bystander. The sniper decides to take the shot and both the target
and the bystander are killed by the same bullet.
What is the culpability
(responsibility) of this person?
Circle one.
If found guilty in a court of law
what should the punishment be?
Circle one.

1= Not at All

1= Less than one year in prison

2= Very Little

2= From 1 to 15 years in prison

3= Somewhat

3= More than 15 years in prison

4= To a Great Extent

4= Life in prison

5= Entirely

5= Death by execution
Results and
Discussion
Results and Discussion
Part 1: Impact of Motivation Domain
on Judgments of Culpability

Data analysis revealed a significant effect for
motivation domain
[One-way repeated measures ANOVA, Wilkes'
Lambda=.606, F(3, 99)= 21.5, p<.0001,
Multivariate partial eta squared=.394]
Domain
Mean
SD
N
Greed Culpability
Revenge Culpability
Jealousy Culpability
Military Culpability
4.43
3.74
4.32
3.98
.681
1.08
.774
.872
102
102
102
102
Results and Discussion
Part 1: Impact of Motivation Domain
on Judgments of Culpability
Pair-wise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment
of the mean scores for Culpability of the four types
of Motivation revealed:

Greed scored significantly higher than Revenge

Both Greed and Revenge were significantly higher than
Military (p< .001)

Jealousy did not differ significantly from either Greed or
Revenge.
Greed > Revenge and Jealousy > Military
Results and Discussion
Part 2: Impact of Motivation Domain
on Judgments of Punishment

Data analysis revealed a significant effect for
motivation domain
[One-way repeated measures ANOVA, Wilkes'
Lambda=.327, F(3, 98)=67.11, p<.0001,
multivariate partial eta squared=.673]
Domain
Mean
SD
N
Greed Punishment
Revenge Punishment
Jealousy Punishment
Military Punishment
2.71
2.25
3.17
2.07
.789
.982
.833
.806
102
102
102
102
Results and Discussion
Part 2: Impact of Motivation Domain
on Judgments of Punishment
Pair-wise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustment
of the mean scores for Punishment of the four types
of Motivation revealed:

Jealousy scored significantly higher than Greed and
Revenge

Both Jealousy and Greed were significantly higher than
Revenge and Military (p< .001)

Revenge did not differ significantly from Military.
Jealousy > Greed > Revenge and Military
Correlations between
Judgments of
Culpability and
Punishment
Greed Punishment
Greed Punishment
Pearson Correlation
Revenge Punishment
.624**
.012
.000
.000
102
102
102
101
Pearson Correlation
.247*
1
.493**
.247*
Sig. (2-tailed)
.012
.000
.013
N
N
Jealousy Punishment
1
102
102
102
101
.503**
.493**
1
.373**
.000
.000
102
102
102
101
.624**
.247*
.373**
1
.000
.013
.000
101
101
101
101
.360**
.007
-.015
.198*
.000
.948
.879
.047
102
102
102
101
Pearson Correlation
.088
.451**
.206*
.162
Sig. (2-tailed)
.378
.000
.038
.107
102
102
102
101
Pearson Correlation
.158
.245*
.191
.076
Sig. (2-tailed)
.112
.013
.055
.450
102
102
102
101
Pearson Correlation
.121
-.058
-.053
.378**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.226
.566
.594
.000
102
102
102
101
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Military Punishment
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Greed Culpability
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Revenge Culpability
N
Jealousy Culpability
N
Military Culpability
Military Punishment
.503**
Sig. (2-tailed)
Revenge Punishment
Jealousy Punishment
.247*
N
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
.000
Part 3: Relationships
between Personality Traits
and Judgments of Culpability
and Punishment
HEXACO Honesty
Correlated with Culpability
Correlations
HEX Honesty
HEX Honesty
Pearson Correlation
GreedCulpability
1
.192
.203*
.040
.044
.055
.043
100
100
100
100
100
Pearson Correlation
.206*
1
.369**
.505**
.547**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.040
.000
.000
.000
N
100
102
102
102
102
Pearson Correlation
.202*
.369**
1
.500**
.445**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.044
.000
.000
.000
100
102
102
102
102
Pearson Correlation
.192
.505**
.500**
1
.402**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.055
.000
.000
100
102
102
102
102
Pearson Correlation
.203*
.547**
.445**
.402**
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.043
.000
.000
.000
100
102
102
102
N
Jealousy Culpability
N
Military Culpability
MilitaryCulpability
.202*
N
Revenge Culpability
JealousyCulpability
.206*
Sig. (2-tailed)
Greed Culpability
RevengeCulpability
N
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
.000
102
HEXACO Honesty, Emotionality,
Extraversion & Conscientiousness
Correlated with Punishment
HEX Honesty
HEX Honesty
Pearson Correlation
HEX Emotionality
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
HEX Emotionality
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
HEX Extraversion
.011
.046
100
100
100
1
-.212*
.022
.034
.829
.506
100
100
1
-.046
.011
.034
100
100
100
100
Pearson Correlation
.200*
.022
-.046
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.046
.829
.647
100
100
100
100
Pearson Correlation
.201*
.233*
-.090
.103
Sig. (2-tailed)
.045
.019
.371
.308
100
100
100
100
Pearson Correlation
.234*
.211*
-.047
.286**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.019
.035
.641
.004
100
100
100
100
Pearson Correlation
.168
.224*
-.118
-.005
Sig. (2-tailed)
.094
.025
.243
.960
100
100
100
100
.266**
.279**
-.211*
.132
.008
.005
.036
.191
99
99
99
99
Pearson Correlation
N
N
Military Punishment
.506
-.212*
N
Jealousy Punishment
.200*
100
N
Revenge Punishment
-.067
-.254*
N
Greed Punishment
-.067
HEX Conscientiousness
-.254*
100
Sig. (2-tailed)
HEX Conscientiousness
100
HEX Extraversion
Pearson Correlation
(2-tailed)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05Sig.
level
(2-tailed).
N level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01
.647
Conclusion
The present study has provided compelling evidence
suggesting that the motivation behind a crime affects
one’s perception of the perpetrator, as well as the
manner in which they should be dealt.
 It has also demonstrated that judgments of punishment
are closely aligned with assessments of culpability of
the perpetrator.
 Interestingly, the results suggest that homicides
motivated by jealousy and greed should merit stronger
punishment than similar crimes motivated by revenge
or in the course of military engagement.
 Furthermore, it has demonstrated that the sixth factor
added to the traditional Big Five personality factor
model by the HEXACO inventory—namely, HonestyHumility—is a strong predictor of such judgments.

References

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major
dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340345. doi: 10.1080/00223890902935878

Darrick, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Development and validation of the
basic empathy scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29(4), 589-611. doi:
10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010

Hessick, C. B. (2006). Motive’s role in criminal punishment. Southern
California Law Review, 80(1). Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=921111

Malle, B. F., Guglielmo, S., & Monroe, A. E. (2012). Moral, cognitive, and
social: The nature of blame. In J. Forgas, K. Fiedler, and C. Sedikides (Eds.),
Social thinking and interpersonal behaviour (311-329). Philadelphia, PA:
Psychology Press.

Malle, B. F., Guglielmo, S., & Monroe, A. E. (2014). A theory of blame.
Psychological Inquiry, 25(2), 147-186. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2014.877340

Nadler, J., & McDonnel, M. (2011). Moral character, motive, and psychology
of blame. Cornell Law Review, 97(2), 255-304.

14 Q. B. D. 273 (1884). In S. H. Kadish and S. J. Schulhofer (Eds.), Criminal
law and its processes (7th ed., 135-140).