Reinforcement sensitivity theory at work: punishment sensitivity as a dispositional source of job-related stress

Gray's reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) describes two important personality constructs; sensitivity to reward and sensitivity to punishment. In two studies, we examine whether these constructs can be considered dispositions to work stress. Results of Study 1 (N = 105 employees in different occupations) indicated that employees with strong punishment sensitivity reacted more strongly to work stressors than others. This idea was confirmed in a longitudinal design in Study 2. Reward sensitivity was unrelated to stress in both studies. Overall, results strongly support the idea that punishment sensitivity is a dispositional source of work stress. Results further confirm that RST and its derived personality measures can contribute to theorizing about personality–environment interactions in a highly relevant daily setting, namely the working environment. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Communication,Punishment, and Virtue

This essay suggests that while Antony Duff's model of criminal punishment as secular penance is pregnant with possibilities for theological reception and reflection, it proceeds by way of a number of separations that are brought into question by the penitential traditions of Christianity. The first three of these—between justice and mercy, censure and invitation, and state and victim, constrain the true communicative character of his account of punishment. The second set of oppositions, between sacrament and virtue, interior character and external action, and formal and moral reconciliation, subject the model of state punishment as secular penance to problematic liberal and libertarian constraints. A postsecular analogy, outlining a theology of the invitational nature of divine judgment, and drawing on Thomas Aquinas's account of penance as both sacrament and virtue, is proposed.     

Whom to punish? How observers sanction norm-violating behavior in ostracism situations

When observing ostracism, individuals can either side with the target or the sources of ostracism. Here we demonstrate that side-taking depends on whether the target previously acted in adherence to or in violation of perceived social norms. In four studies, a target behaved either norm-consistently or violated a social norm, and was subsequently either excluded by the sources or was not. Next, participants could sanction the behavior of the observed persons by refraining to assign money (Studies 1 and 2), or by subtracting money from a bonus (Studies 3 and 4). Observers assigned less money to the sources when these excluded a norm-consistent target. However, when the target had violated a social norm before, participants assigned less money to the target instead. These results have far-reaching implications because the (in)actions of neutral individuals can legitimize the sources’ behavior, or help a target under attack.