Chapter 3 Rewarding the fair and repairing the unfair: Both group procedural justice and injustice may motivate group-serving behavior

Understanding shame:Examining how justice and emotions operate in the context of restorative justice

“…In the confines of the restorative justice conference, offenders have some connection to the parties that are present (Scheuerman & Keith, 2015b). Although identification with these others may vary based on the identity of the offender, group-serving behavior (e.g., making amends, taking accountability, offering an apology, lawful behavior) should be most likely for those offenders who strongly identify with the group, which reintegrative shaming should facilitate (Barry & Tyler, 2010;Braithwaite, 1989). This behavior may result from disrespected offenders attempting to establish their self-worth apart from the group (Sleebos, Ellemers, & de Gilder, 2006), or to correct for shortcomings of the group (Barry & Tyler, 2010).…”

“…Although identification with these others may vary based on the identity of the offender, group-serving behavior (e.g., making amends, taking accountability, offering an apology, lawful behavior) should be most likely for those offenders who strongly identify with the group, which reintegrative shaming should facilitate (Barry & Tyler, 2010;Braithwaite, 1989). This behavior may result from disrespected offenders attempting to establish their self-worth apart from the group (Sleebos, Ellemers, & de Gilder, 2006), or to correct for shortcomings of the group (Barry & Tyler, 2010). As such, even if elements of stigmatization are present, as long as the conference seeks to decertify the deviance of the offender, procedural and interactional injustice from others at the conference may actually facilitate the healing process (Barry & Tyler, 2010;Sleebos et al, 2006).…”

“…This behavior may result from disrespected offenders attempting to establish their self-worth apart from the group (Sleebos, Ellemers, & de Gilder, 2006), or to correct for shortcomings of the group (Barry & Tyler, 2010). As such, even if elements of stigmatization are present, as long as the conference seeks to decertify the deviance of the offender, procedural and interactional injustice from others at the conference may actually facilitate the healing process (Barry & Tyler, 2010;Sleebos et al, 2006).…”

“…Fourth, researchers should investigate how injustice within the restorative justice conference may actually promote prosocial behavior (Barry & Tyler, 2010;Sleebos et al, 2006). Restorative practices may involve an element of stigmatization even if offenders perceive them to be more reintegrative than other forms of punishment (Barnes et al, 2015;Scheuerman & Keith, 2015b).…”

“…For example, offenders who took part in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) were observed to be subject to more stigmatizing names and labels, harassment, and shouting than offenders who were randomly assigned to court (Barnes et al, 2015, p. 119). Whether or not injustice promotes group-oriented behavior depends in part on group identification (Barry & Tyler, 2010). As such, the ties that offenders have to others should be emphasized to enhance identification with their communities of concern (Braithwaite, 1989;McCold, 2004;Prichard, 2002).…”