Retributive justice, restorative justice, and forgiveness: An experimental psychophysiology analysis

This experiment assessed the emotional self-reports and physiology of justice outcomes and forgiveness responses to a common crime, using a three Justice (retributive, restorative, no justice) × 2 Forgiveness (forgiveness, none) repeated-measures design. Participants (27 males, 29 females) imagined their residence was burglarized, followed by six counterbalanced justice-forgiveness outcomes. Imagery of justice—especially restorative—and forgiveness each reduced unforgiving motivations and negative emotion (anger, fear), and increased prosocial and positive emotion (empathy, gratitude). Imagery of granting forgiveness (versus not) was associated with less heart rate reactivity and better recovery; less negative emotion expression at the brow (corrugator EMG); and less aroused expression at the eye (lower orbicularis oculi EMG when justice was absent). When forgiveness was not imagined, justice-physiology effects emerged: signs of cardiovascular stress (rate pressure products) were lower for retributive versus no justice; and sympathetic nervous system responding (skin conductance) was calmer for restorative versus retributive justice.     

Justice through consensus: Shared identity and the preference for a restorative notion of justice

We propose a concept of restorative justice as a sense of justice deriving from consensus about, and the reaffirmation of, values violated by an offence (in contrast to punishment‐based retributive justice). Victims should be more likely to seek restorative justice (and less likely retributive justice) when they perceive to share a relevant identity with the offender. In Study 1, when the relevant identity (university affiliation) shared with the offender was made salient (vs. not), participants found a consensus‐based response more justice‐restoring. In Study 2, when the group (company) shared with the offender was cohesive (vs. not), participants more strongly endorsed a restorative justice philosophy and, mediated by this, responded in consensus‐restoring ways. In Study 3, when the offender was an ingroup (vs. outgroup) member, participants more strongly endorsed a restorative justice philosophy, fully mediated by sadness emotions. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The role of retributive justice and the use of international criminal tribunals in post‐conflict reconciliation

Four experiments examined people's responses to intergroup violence either committed or suffered by their own group. Experiment 1 demonstrated that Serbs who strongly glorified Serbia were more supportive of future violence against, and less willing to reconcile with, Bosniaks after reading about Serbian victimization by Bosniaks rather than Serbian transgressions against Bosniaks. Replicating these effects with Americans in the context of American–Iranian tensions, Experiment 2 further showed that demands for retributive justice explained why high glorifiers showed asymmetrical reactions to ingroup victimization vs. perpetration. Again in the Serb and the American context, respectively, Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrated that post‐conflict international criminal tribunals can help satisfy victim group members' desire for retributive justice, and thereby reduce their support for future violence and increase their willingness to reconcile with the perpetrator group. The role of retributive justice and the use of international criminal justice in intergroup conflict (reduction) are discussed.     

The empowering effect of punishment on forgiveness

We examined the process by which punishment enables forgiveness, testing the proposition that punishment restores a sense of justice to victims, an experience that is empowering. In Study 1 (N = 69), university students received insulting feedback and were given the opportunity (or not) to sanction the offender. In Study 2 (N = 91), participants imagined having the opportunity (or not) to recommend punishment for a person who had vandalized their house. A two‐step mediation model (punishment justice restoration empowerment forgiveness) was supported in these two studies. In Study 3 (N = 227), punishment options were expanded to test the role of victim voice in the context of third‐party and personal retributive and restorative justice responses to workplace bullying, as well as taking into account revenge as an alternative to justice restoration. When victims had voice, empowerment again played a central indirect role in relations between punishment and forgiveness.     

Retribution and Restoration as General Orientations Towards Justice

We proposed two distinct understandings of what justice means to victims and what its restoration entails that are reflected in individual‐level justice orientations. Individuals with a retributive orientation conceptualize justice as the unilateral imposition of just deserts against the offender. In contrast, individuals with a restorative orientation conceptualize justice as achieving a renewed consensus about the shared values violated by the offence. Three studies showed differential relations between these two justice orientations and various individual‐level values/ideologies and predicted unique variance in preferences for concrete justice‐restoring interventions, judicial processes and abstract justice restoration goals. The pattern of results lends validity to the understanding of justice as two distinct conceptualizations, a distinction that provides much needed explanation for divergent preferences for injustice responses. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Exposure to Violence and Attitudes Towards Transitional Justice

Transitional justice has emerged to address victims' needs as a means of restoring relations broken by violence. Yet we know little about victims' attitudes towards different transitional justice mechanisms. Why do some victims prioritize retributive justice while others favor other forms of dealing with the violent past? What determines victims' attitudes towards transitional justice policies? To address these questions, we offer a new theoretical framework that draws upon recent insights from the field of evolutionary psychology and links both war exposure and postwar environments to transitional justice preferences. We argue that both past experiences of wartime violence and present‐day social interdependence with perpetrators impact transitional justice preferences, but in divergent ways (resulting in greater support for retributive vs. restorative justice measures, respectively). To test our framework, we rely upon a 2013 representative survey of 1,007 respondents focusing on general population attitudes towards transitional justice in Bosnia two decades after the implementation of the Dayton Accords. Specifically, we examine the impact of displacement, return to prewar homes, loss of property, loss of a loved one, physical injury, imprisonment, and torture on attitudes towards transitional justice. On the whole, our findings confirm our two main hypotheses: Exposure to direct violence and losses is associated with more support for retributive justice measures, while greater present‐day interdependence with perpetrators is associated with more support for restorative justice measures. While acknowledging the legacy of wartime violence, we highlight the importance of the postwar context and institutional mechanisms that support victims in reconstructing their lives.     

Social exchange from the supervisor’s perspective: Employee trustworthiness as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice

Using social exchange theory, we argue that because supervisors tend to value employee trustworthiness, they will be more likely to adhere to interpersonal and informational justice rules with trustworthy employees. Given social exchange theory’s assumption that benefits are voluntary in nature, we propose that the benevolence and integrity facets of trustworthiness will be more likely to engender social exchange relationships than the ability facet. Specifically, we propose that employees seen as having high benevolence and integrity engender feelings of obligation and trust from their direct supervisors, increasing the likelihood that these supervisors will adhere to interpersonal and informational justice rules, which in turn influences employee perceptions of justice. We find partial support for our mediated model using a field sample.     

The utility of a multifoci approach to the study of organizational justice: A meta-analytic investigation into the consideration of normative rules,moral accountability,bandwidth-fidelity,and social exchange

Multifoci justice pulls from research on social exchange theory to argue that despite the proliferation of rule sets in the literature (often referred to as the “types” of justice), individuals seek to hold some party accountable for the violation/upholding of such rules, and it is these parties (e.g., supervisors, the organization as a whole) that are most likely to be the recipients of attitudes and behaviors (i.e., target similarity effects). To explore these issues, we meta-analytically (k = 647, N = 235,682) compared the predictive validities of source- vs. type-based justice perceptions and found that (a) multifoci justice perceptions more strongly predicted outcomes directed at matched sources than did type-based justice perceptions, (b) multifoci justice perceptions more strongly predicted target similar than dissimilar outcomes, and (c) the relationships between multifoci justice perceptions and target similar outcomes were mediated by source-specific social exchange.     

Priming virtue: Forgiveness and justice elicit divergent moral judgments among religious individuals

Forgiveness and justice are related virtues but they may exert divergent effects on moral judgments. Participants were primed with either forgiveness or retributive justice and made moral judgments of individuals. Experiment 1 demonstrated that religious participants recalling an experience of forgiveness reported more favorable attitudes toward moral transgressors than did those recalling an experience of retributive justice. Experiment 2 replicated the priming effect on moral judgments using a subtle prime of either forgiveness or justice (word search) and a different dependent measure. Experiment 3 employed a more religiously diverse sample and revealed the moderating role of religious commitment. These results suggest that salience of forgiveness leads to more favorable evaluations of moral transgressors compared to retributive justice for religious individuals.     

Is revenge about retributive justice,deterring harm,or both?

This paper explores the vast literature on revenge and retributive punishment to ascertain whether revenge seekers are primarily seeking retribution or to deter future harm. This review considers research findings from social, consumer, evolutionary, and industrial/organizational psychology. Revenge is defined as an action in response to some perceived wrongdoing by another party that is intended to inflict damage, injury, discomfort, or punishment on the party judged responsible. In support of the perspective that revenge is about retribution, vengeance is typically triggered only by unjust harms, revenge‐seekers report a moral imperative, justice beliefs predict revenge, and justice‐related information has the greatest influence on punishment calculations. On the other hand, a plethora of findings in economic games such as serial prisoner dilemmas reveal that tit‐for‐tat style revenge is an effective means of deterring future harm. Overall, the evidence seems to support a retribution model of revenge over a deterrence model; however, as this review describes in its conclusion, the psychology of revenge is in need of further investigation along several key dimensions.     

家长式领导与组织公正感的关系

以428名企事业单位员工为调查对象,采用问卷法,探讨了家长式领导与组织公正感的关系,结果表明：（1）仁慈领导对组织公正感各维度有显著的积极影响;德行领导对组织公正感各维度有显著的积极影响;权威领导对领导公正有显著的消极影响;（2）在分配公正、程序公正上,德行与权威领导有显著负交互效应;在领导公正、领导解释上,仁慈与权威领导有显著负交互效应。最后,对研究的理论和实践意义作了探讨,并提出了未来的研究方向     

Retribution and forgiveness: The healing effects of punishing for just deserts

Although punishment and forgiveness frequently are considered to be opposites, in the present paper we propose that victims who punish their offender are subsequently more likely to forgive. Notably, punishment means that victims get justice (i.e. just deserts), which facilitates forgiveness. Study 1 reveals that participants were more likely to forgive a friend's negligence after being primed with punishment than after being primed with inability to punish. In Study 2, participants were more forgiving towards a criminal offender if the offender was punished by a judge than if the offender escaped punishment, a finding that was mediated by the just deserts motive. Study 3 was in the context of actual recalled ongoing interpersonal relations and revealed that punishment predicted forgiveness indirectly via just deserts, not via victims' vengeful motivations. It is concluded that punishment facilitates forgiveness because of its capacity to restore a sense of justice. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Retributive versus compensatory justice: Observers' preference for punishing in response to criminal offenses

In the current paper, the author examines whether independent observers of criminal offenses have a relative preference for either retributive justice (i.e., punishing the offender) or compensatory justice (i.e., compensating the victim for the harm done). In Study 1, results revealed that participants recommended higher sums of money if a financial transaction was framed as offender punishment (i.e., the offender would pay money to the victim) than if it was framed as victim compensation (i.e., the victim would receive money from the offender). In Study 2, participants were asked to gather information about court trials following three severe offenses to evaluate whether justice had been done in these cases. Results revealed that participants gathered more information about offender punishment than about victim compensation. In Study 3 these findings were extended by investigating whether observers' relative preference for punishing is moderated by emotional proximity to the victim. Results revealed that the relative preference for punishing only occurred among participants who did not experience emotional proximity to the victim. It is concluded that observers prefer retributive over compensatory justice, provided that they do not feel emotionally close to the victim. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Retributive and restorative justice: Importance of crime severity and shared identity in people's justice responses

Retributive and restorative justice present two different responses to wrongdoing: one that focuses on addressing the moral wrong through punitive sanctions (retribution) and one that focuses on addressing the harm that has been caused through reparative sanctions (restoration). Psychological investigations of what factors influence which justice outcome that people desire (retributive, restorative, or both) have focused on two constructs: crime severity and shared identity. The crime severity approach contends that people can have multiple justice goals, and which justice goals people want to fulfil is dependent on the salient features of the situation (such as offence seriousness). The shared identity approach argues that people's desire for restoration or retribution is dependent on the shared identity and perceptions of value consensus between offender and victim in the judgement context. The findings related to both of these factors are reviewed, and possibilities for future research integrating these two approaches are discussed.     

What stops revenge taking? Effects of observed emotional reactions on revenge seeking

What reaction stops revenge taking? Four experiments (total N = 191) examined this question where the victim of an interpersonal transgression could observe the offender's reaction (anger, sadness, pain, or calm) to a retributive noise punishment. We compared the punishment intensity selected by the participant before and after seeing the offender's reaction. Seeing the opponent in pain reduced subsequent punishment most strongly, while displays of sadness and verbal indications of suffering had no appeasing effect. Expression of anger about a retributive punishment did not increase revenge seeking relative to a calm reaction, even when the anger response was disambiguated as being angry with the punisher. It is concluded that the expression of pain is the most effective emotional display for the reduction of retaliatory aggression. The findings are discussed in light of recent research on reactive aggression and retributive justice.     

An integrative review of South Africa’s approach to victim support

This integrative review seeks to consider the evidence on how crime victims’ rights are served within South Africa’s criminal justice system. Victims view criminal proceeding as the means through which justice for the harms they suffered can be obtained. Such aspirations are often misplaced since criminal proceedings are a legal process between the state and accused with the sole purpose of determining guilt or innocence. As such, the concerns of victims are secondary. Victim’s rights in South Africa was only truly acknowledged during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in 1995. South Africa’s victim empowerment policy is underpinned by restorative justice principles. Contradictory to legal procedures, restorative justice is not offender-driven, but aims to elevate the role of crime victims in the criminal justice system.     

Predicting appraisals of romantic revenge: The roles of Honesty-Humility, Agreeableness, and vengefulness

This study examined whether personality factors are associated with people’s appraisals of the costs and benefits of romantic revenge. Our goal was to extend our understanding of variables that influence individuals’ decisions to get even with romantic partners. Undergraduates (N = 130) completed the HEXACO personality inventory, the Vengeance Scale, and questionnaires examining people’s beliefs about revenge in romantic relationships. Honesty-Humility predicted individuals’ judgments of revenge as more desirable when appraising its benefits and less undesirable when appraising its costs, whereas Agreeableness only predicted benefit appraisals. Furthermore, vengefulness predicted individuals’ scores on the benefits- and costs-appraisal indices controlling for Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness. These findings provide a first step towards determining whether certain people may be quicker than others to see the benefits of romantic revenge while minimizing its costs.     

Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations

A field study and an experimental study examined relationships among organizational variables and various responses of victims to perceived wrongdoing. Both studies showed that procedural justice climate moderates the effect of organizational variables on the victim's revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, or avoidance behaviors. In Study 1, a field study, absolute hierarchical status enhanced forgiveness and reconciliation, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were high; relative hierarchical status increased revenge, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were low. In Study 2, a laboratory experiment, victims were less likely to endorse vengeance or avoidance depending on the type of wrongdoing, but only when perceptions of procedural justice climate were high.     

Gender and role-based perceptions of domestic abuse: does sexual orientation matter?

Although it is estimated that domestic abuse is as common in gay male and lesbian intimate relationships as in heterosexual relationships, the legal system often fails to recognize or respond to same-gender cases. Empirical research examining the impact of sexual orientation on perceptions of abuse is virtually nonexistent. Undergraduates (N = 252) read a summary of a domestic abuse incident in which victims and perpetrators varied by gender and, by implication, sexual orientation. Victim and respondent gender, rather than the couple's sexual orientation, primarily affected responses to domestic abuse. Domestic abuse perpetrated against women was perceived to be more serious and in need of intervention than abuse against men. Women were more likely than men to believe the victim and to recommend criminal justice system interventions. Because they are inconsistent with gender role stereotypes, domestic abuse cases involving male victims or female perpetrators may not receive equitable treatment within the criminal justice system.     

Teachers' views and beliefs about bullying: Influences on classroom management strategies and students' coping with peer victimization

A multilevel design was used to test a model in which teachers' attitudes (beliefs) about bullying (e.g., it is normative; assertive children do not get bullied; children wouldn't be bullied if they avoided mean kids) were hypothesized to influence if and how they intervene in bullying interactions. In turn, it was hypothesized that teachers' strategies would influence how their students cope with victimization and the frequency of victimization reported by their students. Data were gathered on 34 2nd and 4th grade teachers and 363 ethnically-diverse students (188 boys; 175 girls; M age = 9 years 2 months). Results indicated that teachers were not likely to intervene if they viewed bullying as normative behavior, but were more likely to intervene if they held either assertion or avoidant beliefs. Moreover, avoidant beliefs were predictive of separating students which was then associated both directly and indirectly (via reduced revenge seeking) with lower levels of peer victimization. No grade differences emerged for teachers' views or management strategies; however, minor sex differences were detected which will be discussed.