Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Beyond Retribution: Conceptualizing Restorative Justice and Exploring its Determinants

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous research considering reactions to injustice has focused predominantly on retributive (i.e., punitive) responses. Restorative justice, a relatively understudied concept, suggests an alternative justice response which emphasizes bilateral discussion in an attempt to reach a consensus about the meaning of the offense and how to address the transgression. The current research explores the additional contribution of restorative justice processes, examining the extent to which bilateral consensus is viewed as a fairer response to transgressions than unilateral decisions. Results show that, independent of the punishment, restorative responses are generally regarded as fairer than nonrestorative responses. And compared to punishment, which tends to be moderated by offender intent and seriousness of the harm, restorative responses are regarded as particularly fair when the involved parties share an identity. Findings suggest the importance of distinguishing retributive justice from a “restorative notion of justice”—a notion that focuses on addressing concerns over the maintenance of existing social relationships and identity-defining values.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Pilot Study. For examples of the remorse and decision agreement manipulations, see the description of the bilateral consensus manipulation in the main study. Participants rated their agreement on 7-point scales for all measures, with higher numbers indicating more agreement, and composite measures with multiple item scales were created by averaging items. Decision agreement was assessed by two items: “The offender and I decided together what should be done” and “The offender and I reached an agreed consensus about the situation.” Offender remorse was assessed by two items: “The offender was remorseful” and “The offender acknowledged what he/she did was wrong.” Fairness was assessed by three items: “The resolution to the situation is fair,” “The resolution restored justice,” and “I handled the situation fairly.” Lastly, restorative justice was assessed by a single item: “This resolution attempts to restore justice through renewed value consensus.”

  2. A between-subjects manipulation of seriousness of the harm was also included in the experimental design by altering the extent of the losses accrued by the victim. However, initial analysis of our measured variable of seriousness revealed a significant scenario effect and a significant interaction between scenario and manipulated seriousness; there was more variation in seriousness between scenarios than there was in the manipulation, which was also not consistent across scenarios. To account for these differential effects, we examined perceptions of seriousness as a measured variable, rather than examining the seriousness manipulation. Seriousness as a measured variable actually served as a better predictor than the manipulation of seriousness, although the pattern of results was essentially the same for both.

  3. Results were similar when examining all variables in a single regression equation.

  4. Post hoc analyses further indicated that all cell means are significantly different from one another. The pattern of interaction was similar when examined through simple slope analysis.

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alicke, M. D. (2000). Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 556–574.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Averill, J. R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. (2005). Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 629–643.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bazemore, G. (1998). Restorative justice and earned redemption: Communities, victims, and offender reintegration. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 768–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beven, J. P., Hall, G., Froyland, I., Steels, B., & Goulding, D. (2005). Restoration or renovation? Evaluating restorative justice outcomes. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 12, 194–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 289–319). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (1998). Restorative justice. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The handbook of crime and punishment (pp. 323–344). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 25, pp. 1–127). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    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, 284–299.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Christie, N. (1977). Conflicts as property. British Journal of Criminology, 17, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression: Correlation analyses for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    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, 659–683.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137–149.

    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, 571–587.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feather, N. T. (1998). Reactions to penalties for offenses committed by the police and public citizens: Testing as social-cognitive process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 528–544.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feather, N. T. (1999). Values, achievement, and justice: Studies in the psychology of deservingness. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

    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 Psychology, 17, 38–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folger, R., & Butz, R. (2004). Relational models, “deonance”, and moral antipathy toward the powerfully unjust. In N. Haslam (Ed.), Relational models theory: A contemporary overview. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gromet, D. M., & Darley, J. (2006). Restoration and retribution: How including retributive components affects the acceptability of restorative justice processes. Social Justice Research, 19, 395–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, R., & Emler, N. P. (1981). Retributive justice. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horai, J. (1977). Attributional conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 88–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. W., & Smith, E. R. (1999). Conceptualizing social identity: A new framework and evidence for the impact of different dimensions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 120–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeton, W., Dobbs, D., Keeton, R., & Owen, D. (1984). Prosser and Keeton on the law of torts (5th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFave, W. (2000). Criminal law (3rd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 819–834.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mikula, G. (1986). The experience of injustice: Towards a better understanding of its phenomenology. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 103–123). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikula, G., Scherer, K., & Athenstaedt, U. (1998). The role of injustice in the elicitation of differential emotional reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 769–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. T., & McCann, C. D. (1979). Children’s reactions to the perpetrators and victims of injustices. Child Development, 50(3), 861–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. T., & Vidmar, N. (1981). The social psychology of punishment reactions. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montada, L., & Schneider, A. (1989). Justice and emotional reactions to the disadvantaged. Social Justice Research, 3, 313–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M. (2009). The symbolic meaning of transgressions: Towards a unifying framework of justice restoration. In K. A. Hegtvedt & J. Clay-Warner (Eds.), Advances in group processes: Justice (Vol. 25, pp. 291–326). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

  • Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M. (in press). Punishment as restoration of group and offender values following a transgression: Value consensus through symbolic labelling and offender reform. European Journal of Social Psychology. doi:10.1002/ejsp.537.

  • Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Swaab, R. I. (2005a). Social influence in small groups: An interactive model of social identity formation. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 16, pp. 1–42). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postmes, T., Spears, R., Lee, A. T., & Novak, R. J. (2005b). Individuality and social influence in groups: Inductive and deductive routes to group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 747–763.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prentice, D. A., Miller, D. T., & Lightdale, J. R. (1994). Asymmetries in attachments to groups and their members: Distinguishing between common-identity and common-bond groups: The self and the collective [Special issue]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 484–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2001). Simulation, scenarios, and emotional appraisal: Testing the convergence of real and imagined reactions to emotional stimuli. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11), 1520–1532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, L. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 588–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Weber, R. (1982). Support for the death penalty. Law and Society Review, 17, 21–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. (2000). Retribution and revenge. In J. Sanders & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law (pp. 31–63). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakslak, C. J., Jost, J. T., Tyler, T. R., & Chen, E. S. (2007). Moral outrage mediates the dampening effect of system justification on support for redistributive social policies. Psychological Science, 18, 267–274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M. (2004). A social categorisation approach to distributive justice. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 15, pp. 219–257). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 375–389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (in press). Justice through consensus: Shared identity and the preference for a restorative notion of justice. European Journal of Social Psychology.

  • Wenzel, M., & Thielmann, I. (2006). Why we punish in the name of justice: Just desert versus value restoration and the role of social identity. Social Justice Research, 19, 450–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council (DP0557634).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia

    Tyler G. Okimoto

  2. Yale School of Management, 135 Prospect Street, P.O. Box 208200, New Haven, CT, 06520-8200, USA

    Michael Wenzel & N. T. Feather

Authors
  1. Tyler G. Okimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Wenzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. N. T. Feather
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tyler G. Okimoto.

Appendix: Transgression Scenarios

Appendix: Transgression Scenarios

  1. 1.

    You own a small catering company. You have recently noticed that although more stock is being ordered in, you do not seem to be making any more money. You decide to check the surveillance footage on the stockroom camera and discover that one of the staff is helping himself to food!

  2. 2.

    You own a small grocery. The day shift manager informs you that a new staff member is pretending to work longer shifts than she actually is; recording in her time book an extra 15 min per shift.

  3. 3.

    You have a woman come and clean your house every Wednesday. You are not home when she comes as you work full time. She has her own set of keys, and access to all areas of the house. She has been cleaning your house for the last 2 months. When you receive your most recent phone bill there is a $20 call to a ‘psychic hotline’ on it. The woman who cleans your house made this call at your expense, and without your permission.

  4. 4.

    You are running a training program for young people who wish to develop their employment opportunities by gaining work experience. As part of the program, the participants have to mail out application letters. They have to pay for printing and mailing out applications, but they are reimbursed for the cost. This is not usually more than $10 per application. You find out that one of the participants is making fraudulent claims.

  5. 5.

    You share a house with a very good friend. While you are away on holiday, you ask your friend to pay some bills for you with your credit card. Two weeks after you arrive home from your holiday, you receive your credit card bill. Your friend has used your credit card to purchase $35 worth of groceries without your permission.

  6. 6.

    Your neighbor is undertaking major garden maintenance. A large gum tree that is near your fence is being pruned. Due to your neighbor’s negligence, a branch falls onto your property and scratches your car. Your neighbor decides to remove the branch without telling you about the damage to the car.

Note: Scenarios also varied in seriousness by altering amount of losses. All scenarios were randomized by order and across experimental conditions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Okimoto, T.G., Wenzel, M. & Feather, N.T. Beyond Retribution: Conceptualizing Restorative Justice and Exploring its Determinants. Soc Just Res 22, 156–180 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-009-0092-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-009-0092-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation