Maybe that does something to explain why a good chunk of women seem to be attracted to jerks. Their empathy for the guys isn't reduced when the guy does something underhanded.

For my own part, I got a huge amount of pleasure one day driving to work. I go through a tiny little town that frequently has a police officer clocking speed at various locations in town. The guy behind me was tailgating me. So, I slowed waaaaay down as we got to a spot where the officer sometimes hides. Luck was with me that day, the guy passed me, the officer was there, and the guy got pulled over. Made me happy the whole day.

I suspect that the percentages would vary depending on what sort of transgression earned the shock. Let the malefactor do something bad to a kid, and I bet those numbers will change.

Interesting study; Alan's comment is especially relevent here. Presumably, there are many variables governing the human propensity to maintain social cohesion and relative harmony. That said, there are obviously good selective reasons for punishing cheaters and rewarding real success; the sexual dimorphism is worth further exploration, too.

This is opposite of what many attorneys believe about jury selection. Defense lawyers, at least, like having women on juries when we believe the plaintiff is lying, cheating, or is just plain greedy in his prosecution of our clients. We don't expect them to feel empathy, we expect them to be judgmental and harsh. Men, on the other hand, are expected to be lenient, and think "hey, I might have done that" in response to claims of exaggerating injury or severity.