Abstract
Abstract
Punishment conveys social information to transgressors, who attribute motives to punishers. Drawing on the motive‐attribution framework, we examined whether transgressors' attributions to
competitive
(i.e. harming transgressors),
individualistic
(i.e. managing one's own interests) and
prosocial
(i.e. healing relationships) motives differ depending on whether punishment is administered by victims (second‐party punishment) or uninvolved observers (third‐party punishment), and how these attributions relate to downstream affective, relational and behavioural outcomes. In an incentivized Stealing Game, participants could steal valuable points and were punished either by the victim or an observer. Subsequently, transgressors reported their motive attributions, affect and willingness to reconcile and completed a measure of prosocial behaviour towards an unrelated other. Contrary to predictions, motive attributions did not systematically differ between second‐ and third‐party punishment, except that third‐party punishment was more strongly attributed to reputational concerns (i.e. a subdimension of individualistic motive attribution). Punishment severity emerged as an important predictor, with harsher sanctions linked to stronger competitive and individualistic attributions. Competitive motive attribution, in turn, was associated with higher negative affect and lower positive affect, willingness to reconcile and prosocial behaviour. Overall, transgressors' responses to punishment were less clearly shaped by who punished and more closely linked to punishment severity and motive attribution.