Justice Theory and Research: A Social Functionalist Perspective

Skitka, Linda J.; Wisneski, Daniel C.

doi:10.1002/9781118133880.hop205019

Cited by 13 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 192 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, by punishing another it may serve to reinforce the consensus that the particular action was morally wrong (Wenzel, Okimoto, Feather, & Platow, 2008). People seem to punish not simply to scare another into submitting to the rule that was broken but instead wish to have perpetrators hold themselves accountable for their wrongdoing (Dil & Darwall, 2014; see also Skitka & Wisneski, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Truth or Punishment: Secrecy and Punishing the Self

Slepian

Bastian

2017

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We live in a world that values justice; when a crime is committed, just punishment is expected to follow. Keeping one's misdeed secret therefore appears to be a strategic way to avoid (just) consequences. Yet, people may engage in self-punishment to right their own wrongs to balance their personal sense of justice. Thus, those who seek an escape from justice by keeping secrets may in fact end up serving that same justice on themselves (through self-punishment). Six studies demonstrate that thinking about secret (vs. confessed) misdeeds leads to increased self-punishment (increased denial of pleasure and seeking of pain). These effects were mediated by the feeling one deserved to be punished, moderated by the significance of the secret, and were observed for both self-reported and behavioral measures of self-punishment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Truth or Punishment: Secrecy and Punishing the Self

Slepian

Bastian

2017

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…23 However, since policy decisions are made using different procedural arrangements than 18 For a review, see Skitka and Wisneski (2012). 19 De Cremer and Tyler 2007.…”

Section: Design Data and Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance

Esaiasson¹,

Persson²,

Gilljam³

et al. 2016

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

131

169

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Procedural fairness theory posits that the way in which authoritative decisions are made strongly impacts people's willingness to accept them. This article challenges this claim by contending that democratic governments can achieve little in terms of acceptance of policy decisions by the procedural means at their disposal. Instead, outcome favorability is the dominant determinant of decision acceptance. The article explicates that while central parts of procedural fairness theory are true, outcome favorability is still overwhelmingly the strongest determinant of individuals' willingness to accept authoritative decisions. It improves on previous research by locating all key variables into one causal model and testing this model using appropriate data. Findings from a large number of experiments (both vignette and field) reproduce the expected relationships from previous research and support the additional predictions.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, further elaboration of the link between procedural justice and communion motivation has, to our knowledge, not been the subject of much study. Typically, elements of procedural justice are considered in terms of voice, standing or respect that they bring participants, each of which are agency-related concepts (for an overview, see Skitka & Wisneski, 2012). Where procedural justice is interpreted as the interest participants have in 'telling their side of the story' (see McCoun, Lind, Hensler, Bryant, & Ebener, 1988), the emphasis is squarely on 'their side'.…”

Section: Procedural Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond retribution, restoration and procedural justice: the Big Two of communion and agency in victims’ perspectives on justice

Pemberton

Aarten

Mulder

2017

Psychology, Crime & Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Victims' perspectives on justice in the aftermath of crime are a key victimological topic. The main justice concepts that have received scholarly victimological attention are retributive justice, value restoration and procedural justice. In this paper, we argue that the so-called Big Two frameworkagency and communioncan further help us understand victims' experiences with justice. Agency refers to a person striving for individuality, while communion refers to the participation of the individual in and connection with a group. According to the framework outlined in this paper, we argue that victimization by crime involves an impaired sense of agency and communion, and justice can be viewed as an attempt to repair both these dimensions. Retributive justice is a prominent means to repair agency, but other options to do so are also open to the victim. A similar observation can be made about value restoration with respect to communion. Acknowledging this can be of particular importance in cases where no offender is apprehended. As to procedural justice, the framework emphasizes the need to distinguish process participation as a means to re-establish agency from participation to re-establish communion with representatives of society.

show abstract

Justice Theory and Research: A Social Functionalist Perspective

Cited by 13 publications

References 192 publications

Truth or Punishment: Secrecy and Punishing the Self

Truth or Punishment: Secrecy and Punishing the Self

Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance

Beyond retribution, restoration and procedural justice: the Big Two of communion and agency in victims’ perspectives on justice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About