Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Laboratory Experiments: A Meaningful Contribution to Restorative Justice Research?

  • Published:
Critical Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Advocates of restorative justice (RJ) argue that the process offers a more effective means of responding to crime than the formal criminal justice system, and many studies have evaluated RJ positively across a variety of outcome measures, particularly in comparison to court based procedures. However, the RJ literature contains few studies that directly test the factors affecting RJ participants’ behaviours and experiences, so little is known about the specific factors that influence how, and for whom, RJ works. In this paper, we argue that the expanded use of experimental laboratory methodologies will broaden and strengthen our understanding of the basic mechanisms by which RJ operates. We describe some ways in which experimental laboratory research may enhance understandings of apology in restorative settings as well as public support for RJ, and we emphasise the need and the potential to overcome barriers of artificiality in laboratory settings. This analysis of laboratory methodologies and the field of RJ research indicates that creative and well-designed experimental laboratory studies can advance knowledge in this area, allowing researchers to investigate how particular components of RJ contribute to the success or failure of RJ processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, J. S., & Jacobsen, P. R. (1964). Effects of wage inequities on work equality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(1), 19–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazemore, G., & Umbreit, M. (1995). Rethinking the sanctioning function in juvenile court: Retributive or restorative responses to youth crime. Crime and Delinquency, 41(3), 296–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergseth, K. J., & Bouffard, J. A. (2007). The long term impact of restorative justice programming for juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(4), 433–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkowitz, L., & Donnerstein, E. (1982). External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. American Psychologist, 37(3), 245–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolitho, J. J. (2011). Restorative justice: The ideals and realities of conferencing for young people. Critical Criminology. doi:10.1007/s10612-011-9150-z.

  • Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge: UK, Cambridge University Press.

  • Braithwaite, J. (2000). Shame and criminal justice. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 281–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (2002). Setting standards for restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 563–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. (2003). The role of apology in negotiations. The Marquette Law Review, 87, 665–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsmith, K. M. (2006). The roles of retribution and utility in determining punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 437–451. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.06.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 284–299. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.2.284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J., & Steverson, M. (2009). What! What kind of apology is this?: The nature of apology in victim offender mediation. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(7), 813–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, T., & Holladay, S. (2008). Comparing apology to equivalent crisis response strategies: Clarifying apology’s role and value in crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 34(3), 252–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosby, P. C. (1977). Methods in behavioral research (3rd edition). Palo Alto: Mayfield.

  • Daly, K., & Stubbs, J. (2006). Feminist engagement with restorative justice. Theoretical Criminology, 10(1), 9–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J. M., Carlsmith, K. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2000). Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 24(6), 659–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darley, J. M., & Pittman, T. S. (2003). The psychology of compensatory and retributive justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 324–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davila, J. (2004). Forgiveness as a function of offense severity, apology extensiveness, and perceived sincerity: A theoretical model. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tulane University, New Orleasn, LA, USA.

  • Dhami, M. K. (2011). Offer and acceptance of apology in victim-offender mediation. Critical Criminology. doi:10.1007/s10612-011-9149-5.

  • Egan, L. C., Santos, L. R., & Bloom, P. (2007). The origins of cognitive dissonance: Evidence from children and monkeys. Psychological Science, 18(11), 978–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 582–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feather, N. T. (1996). Reactions to penalties for an offense in relation to authoritarianism, values, perceived responsibility, perceived seriousness, and deservingness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 571–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feather, N. T. (2006). Deservingness and emotions: Applying the structural model of deservingness to the analysis of affective reactions to outcomes. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 38–73. doi:10.1080/10463280600662321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gold, G. J., & Weiner, B. (2000). Remorse, confession, group identities, and expectancies about repeating a transgression. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22(4), 291–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gromet, D. M. (2011). Restoring the victim: Emotional reactions, justice beliefs, and support for reparation and punishment. Critical Criminology. doi:10.1007/s10612-011-9146-8.

  • Harmon-Jones, E., Brehm, J. W., Greenberg, J., Simon, L., & Nelson, D. E. (1995). Evidence that the production of aversion consequences is not necessary to create cognitive dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, L., Blumenthal, E., Douglas, A., & Weinblatt, T. (1999). A deservingness approach to respect as a relationally based fairness judgement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1279–1292. doi:10.1177/0146167299258009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, L., & Sivasubramaniam, D. (2011). Procedural justice: Theory and method. In B. Rosenfeld & S. Penrod (Eds.), Research methods in forensic psychology. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horai, J., & Bartek, M. (1978). Recommended punishment as a function of injurious intent, actual harm done, and intended consequences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(4), 575–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horan, H. D., & Kaplan, M. F. (1983). Criminal intent and consequence severity: Effects of moral reasoning on punishment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9(4), 638–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., & Sunstein, C. R. (1998). Shared outrage and erratic awards: The psychology of punitive damages. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 16, 49–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7(3), 125–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovera, M. B., Levy, R. J., Borgida, E., & Penrod, S. E. (1994). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert evidence type and cross-examination. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 653–674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2001). The effectiveness of restorative practices: A meta-analysis. Department of Justice, Canada: Research and Statistics Division Methodological Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. S., Goldberg, G. H., & Tetlock, P. E. (1998). Sober second thought: The effects of accountability, anger and authoritarianism on attributions of responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 563–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, C. P. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 952–959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, USA: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, E. A., Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Procedural context and culture: Variation in the antecedents of procedural justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 767–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, R., & Wells, G. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 556–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R. J. (2005). Voice, control, and belonging: The double-edged sword of procedural fairness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1, 171–201. doi:10.1146/annurev.Lawsocsci.1.041604.115958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson Frantz, C., & Bennigson, C. (2005). Better late than early: The influence of timing on apology effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(4), 201–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Child and Youth Services (2010). What happens outside the formal court process? Retrieved from http://www.children.gov.on.ca/htdocs/English/topics/youthandthelaw/index.aspx.

  • Muncie, J. (2005). The globalisation of crime control - the case of youth and juvenile justice: Neo-liberalism, policy convergence and international conventions. Theoretical Criminology, 9, 35–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, J., & Rose, M. R. (2003). Victim impact testimony and the psychology of punishment. Cornell Law Review, 88, 419–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hara, E., & Yam, D. (2002). On apology and consilience. Washington Law Review, 77, 1121–1172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okimoto, T. G., Wenzel, M., & Feather, N. T. (2009). Beyond retribution: Conceptualizing restorative justice and exploring its determinants. Social Justice Research, 22, 156–180. doi:10.1007/s11211-009-0092-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou, M., & Knowles, A. (2001). Domestic violence: Attributions, recommended punishments and reporting behaviour related to provocation by the victim. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 8(1), 76–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrucci, C. J. (2002). Apology in the criminal justice setting: Evidence for including apology as an additional component in the legal system. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20(4), 337–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polk, K. (1994). Family conferencing: Theoretical and evaluative concerns. In C. Alder & J. Wundersitz (Eds.), Family conferencing and juvenile justice: The way forward or misplaced optimism? (pp. 123–140). Canberra, ACT: Australian Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regehr, C., & Gutheil, T. (2002). Apology, justice, and trauma recovery. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 30(3), 425–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V., & Stalans, L. J. (2004). Restorative sentencing: Exploring the views of the public. Social Justice Research, 17(3), 315–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, N. (2007). Restorative justice at work: Examining the impact of restorative justice resolutions on juvenile recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 53(3), 355–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossner, M. (2011). Emotions and interaction ritual: A micro analysis of restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology, 51(1), 95–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Narchel, F. M., & Kassin, S. M. (2005). Investigating true and false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm. Psychological Science, 16(6), 481–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salkind, N. (2006). Exploring research (6th ed.). USA: Pearson, Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L., Strang, H., Angel, C., Woods, D., Barnes, G., Bennett, S., et al. (2005). Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1(3), 367–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivasubramaniam, D., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2008). Decisions to participate in restorative justice conferences: Effects of convener identity and power-distance. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 15(2), 301–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sommers, S. R., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2000). Race in the courtroom: Perceptions of guilt and dispositional attributions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1367–1379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, J., & Cooper, J. (2001). A self-standards model of cognitive dissonance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(3), 228–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strang, H. (2002). Repair or revenge: Victims and restorative justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strang, H., & Sherman, L. W. (2003). Repairing the harm: Victims and restorative justice. Utah Law Review, 15((n/a)), 15–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strang, H., & Sherman, L. W. (2006). Restorative justice to reduce victimization. Preventing Crime. New York: USA, Springer.

  • Strang, H., Sherman, L., Angel, C., Woods, D., Bennett, S., Newbury-Birch, D., et al. (2006). Victim evaluations of face-to-face restorative justice conferences: A Quasi-Experimental Analysis. Journal of Social Sciences, 62(2), 281–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taft, L. (2000). Apology subverted: The commodification of apology. The Yale Law Journal, 109(5), 1135–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talwar, V. (2008). Social and cognitive correlates of children’s lying behavior. Child Development, 79(4), 866–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A psychological analysis. New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trimboli, L. (2000). An evaluation of the NSW youth justice conferencing scheme. Sydney, NSW: Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social Justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 117–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2006). Restorative justice and procedural justice: Dealing with rule breaking. Journal of Social Issues, 62(2), 307–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., Sherman, H., Strang, L., Barnes, G. C., & Woods, D. (2007). Reintegrative shaming, procedural justice, and recidivism: the engagement of offenders’ psychological mechanisms in the Canberrarise drinking-and-driving experiment. Law and Society Review, 41(3), 553–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umbreit, M. (1998). Restorative justice through victim-offender mediation: A multisite assessment. Western Criminology Review, 1(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umbreit, M., Coates, R., & Kalanj, B. (1994). Victim meets offenders: The impact of restorative justice and mediation. New York, USA: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umbreit, M., Coates, R. & Vos, B. (2001). Juvenile victim offender mediation in six Oregon counties. Retrieved from http://www.rjp.umn.edu.

  • Vidmar, N., & Miller, D.T. (1980). Socialpsychological processes underlying attitudes toward legal punishment. Law & Society Review, 14(3), 565–602. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3053193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Waister, W. G. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 151–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., & Cameron, K. (2011). Do retributive and restorative justice processes address different symbolic concerns? Critical Criminology. doi:10.1007/s10612-011-9147-7.

  • Witvliet, C., Worthington, E., Root, L., Sato, A., Ludwig, L., & Exline, E. (2008). Retributive justice, restorative justice, and forgiveness: An experimental psychophysiological analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 10–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alana Saulnier.

Additional information

In November, 2011, Diane Sivasubramaniam will join the Department of Psychological Sciences and Statistics at Swinburne University in Melbourne, Australia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saulnier, A., Lutchman, K. & Sivasubramaniam, D. Laboratory Experiments: A Meaningful Contribution to Restorative Justice Research?. Crit Crim 20, 99–115 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-011-9152-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-011-9152-x

Keywords

Navigation