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.     

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.     

Refusing to apologize can have psychological benefits (and we issue no mea culpa for this research finding)

Despite an understanding of the perception and consequences of apologies for their recipients, little is known about the consequences of interpersonal apologies, or their denial, for the offending actor. In two empirical studies, we examined the unexplored psychological consequences that follow from a harm‐doer's explicit refusal to apologize. Results showed that the act of refusing to apologize resulted in greater self‐esteem than not refusing to apologize. Moreover, apology refusal also resulted in increased feelings of power/control and value integrity, both of which mediated the effect of refusal on self‐esteem. These findings point to potential barriers to victim–offender reconciliation after an interpersonal harm, highlighting the need to better understand the psychology of harm‐doers and their defensive behavior for self‐focused motives. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Decline of Hip Joint Movement Relates to Overestimation of Maximum Forward Reach in Elderly Persons

The authors aimed to characterize age-related changes in the performance of maximum reach and identify kinematic parameters that explain the age-related discrepancy between perceived and actual maximum reach distance. Maximum reach was evaluated in 22 younger women (21.3 years old) and 20 older women (81.2 years old). Both the perceived and actual maximum forward reach and forward excursion of the center of pressure was shorter in older women. Older women also overestimated their maximum reach distance to a greater extent. Decline of movement at the hip joint specifically correlated with both the maximum distance and the overestimation. Based on these results, decline of hip control may be a primary factor for the age-related retardation of perceived and actual maximum reach.     

Information Regarding Social‐Sexual Behavior as an Antecedent to Perceptions of Ineffectiveness in the Workplace1

Three experimental studies investigated whether information implying social‐sexual behavior (any non‐work‐related behavior containing a sexual component) by employees would influence judgments of their effectiveness. In managerial and entry‐level positions, both male and female employees depicted as engaging in social‐sexual behaviors at work were perceived as less effective and less desirable as bosses, compared to identically described managers for whom no social‐sexual behavior information was provided. However, these negative evaluations were mitigated when information was provided indicating that these managers were always on‐task and effectively using their time at work (Study 3), suggesting that the effectiveness of employees who engage in social‐sexual behavior at work is devalued because others believe that these behaviors detract from productive time in the office.     

The varying meaning of forgiveness: Relationship closeness moderates how forgiveness affects feelings of justice

Psychological research has repeatedly shown that victims are more likely to forgive socially close than distant others, but little research has addressed the question whether forgiveness in these two cases actually has the same psychological meaning. As one approach to this issue, the present research investigates how acts of forgiveness aid the restoration of victims' justice feelings through different processes, depending on the closeness of their relationship to the offender. In two studies (Study 1 using a scenario method, Study 2 an autobiographical recall), the victim's perceptions of value consensus with the offender mediated justice‐restoring effects of forgiveness expressed towards a close offender, whereas feelings of status/power mediated justice‐restoring effects of forgiveness expressed towards a distant offender. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Third-party punishment and symbolic intragroup status

Retributive justice theory has suggested two processes by which punishment is psychologically satisfying to victims of injustice: leveling the power imbalance caused by the transgression and revalidating social consensus over the importance of the rules, norms, and values violated by the offense. The current investigation proposes a third symbolic function that has not yet been identified as a psychological consequence of punishment: confirmation of the victim's membership status in the group (i.e., intragroup standing or respect). Three studies identified perceptions of intragroup membership status as following from third-party punishment, partly explaining the effect of punishment on a victim's group identification. Study 1 showed that, following the experience of an injustice, punishment prevented perceived membership status threats from resulting in victim disidentification. Study 2 showed that third-party desires to punish increased subsequent identification by symbolically communicating the ingroup's regard for the victim, even when the offender did not actually suffer the effects of third-party sanctions. Finally, Study 3 showed that punishment only implied membership status when the act of punishment was instigated by an ingroup authority and was thus identity-relevant. Taken together, these studies offer the first examination of membership status as a relevant concern underlying retributive justice.     

How acts of forgiveness restore a sense of justice: Addressing status/power and value concerns raised by transgressions

Commonly it is understood that forgiveness means sacrificing justice. However, the present study shows that the act of forgiving can increase a sense of justice, which in turn facilitates benevolent sentiments towards the offender. University students (N = 88) imagined themselves as victims and, after the offender either did or did not offer an apology, they either were or were not instructed to express their forgiveness to the offender (via an email). Results showed that, irrespective of apology, the expression of forgiveness led to a greater sense of justice in victims, mediated via feelings of status/power and the perception of a value consensus with the offender. The feeling of justice further mediated the effects of the forgiveness expression in terms of reducing hostile emotions, revenge motivation and retributive attitudes, as well as increasing the willingness to reconcile with the offender. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.