Testing an attribution‐of‐blame model of judgments of injustice

Mikula, Gerold

doi:10.1002/ejsp.184

Cited by 84 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As Mikula (2003) argues, an injustice is likely to be perceived when an offender is considered responsible for the violation of another's entitlement that cannot be justified through other, higher-order ethical motives. Most, if not all, justice theories assume that experiences of injustice generally elicit the motivation to restore justice (e.g.…”

Section: Retributive and Restorative Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Justice through consensus: Shared identity and the preference for a restorative notion of justice

Wenzel

Okimoto

Feather

et al. 2009

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.When somebody violates a rule or law, we often feel an urge to pay them back, to retaliate or punish. Indeed, our sense of justice may demand us to do so. This notion of justice is widely understood as just desert or retributive justice and, in a way, is also institutionalized in our Western criminal justice system. However, in recent decades an alternative paradigm has emerged in criminology and law, called restorative justice. There are various practices of restorative justice, but the prototypical form involves a getting together of victim, offender and perhaps community representatives, where the incident and its aftermath are worked through in interaction between the parties. Ideally, the parties come to an agreement about the harm done, the values violated and the compensation, restitution and/or punishment required.We contend that retributive and restorative justice practices imply fundamentally different notions of justice. From a social psychological perspective, it would seem important to understand what determines whether people subscribe to a retributive or restorative justice notion. In terms of practical value, a more refined understanding of people's conception of justice should assist in fine-tuning justice practices in order to maximize a sense of fairness among the involved parties. This may help secure a higher level of legitimacy of our regulatory institutions and authorities-both in the legal arena and in organizational contexts, and regardless of whether the transgressions are of an interpersonal nature or occur in the context of large-scale intergroup conflicts. Our present empirical contribution focuses on transgressions in the interpersonal domain, where offenders and victims are considered as individuals or individual members of a group.European Journal of Social Psychology Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 909-930 (2010) Received 28 April 2008 Accepted 27 April 2009We examine two psychological conceptions of justice, retributive and restorative justice, and examine common identity as a key variable affecting the...

show abstract

Section: Retributive and Restorative Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

Justice through consensus: Shared identity and the preference for a restorative notion of justice

Wenzel

Okimoto

Feather

et al. 2009

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, in organizational settings it is easy to find examples of the importance of understanding how people deal with being overpaid (e.g., Adams, 1965;Adams & Freedman, 1976;Greenberg, 1982). Furthermore, research on intimate relationships has revealed that being better off than your partner can play an important role in how people react to issues in their intimate relationships (e.g., Mikula 2003;Van Yperen & Buunk, 1990).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, in the 1960s, Jacques (1961) and Adams (1965) started the inquiry into this fascinating topic, and since then many researchers have further studied this frequently occurring instance of injustice. Researchers have shown that overpaid people try to restore equity (Adams, 1965;Walster et al, 1973Walster et al, , 1978, tend to feel only moderately satisfied with their outcome (Adams, 1965;Buunk & Van Yperen, 1991;Van Yperen & Buunk, 1990;Walster et al, 1973;Walster et al, 1978), and try to justify their advantage, for example, by adjusting the types of comparisons that they make (Austin, 1977;Mikula, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Psychology of the Advantaged: How People React to Being Overpaid

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on the idea that overpaid people are in conflict between hedonic principles (i.e., what makes them pleased) and what they believe to be right, two studies tested the hypothesis that it should be relatively difficult for people to make satisfaction judgments regarding outcomes in which they are being advantaged. In line with this hypothesis, Study 1 demonstrated that response latencies of satisfaction judgments were longer when participants were being overpaid, compared to when they were underpaid or equally paid. Study 2 extended these findings by demonstrating that people required more time to make satisfaction judgments when they were overpaid in the context of a close relationship (i.e., in which the conflict between hedonic and concerns for the other's need should be stronger) than when overpaid in the context of a non-close relationship. Theoretical implications regarding the social-cognitive processes underlying reactions to overpayment are discussed.

show abstract

“…For instance, they may believe the tax authority tolerates tax avoidance schemes of the wealthy, but intervenes when the same schemes are adopted by ordinary taxpayers (Hobson, 2002;Murphy, 2003). In line with Mikula's (1993Mikula's ( , 2003 attribution of blame model, we would expect that taxpayers' explanations of the tax authority's actions determine how much responsibility and blame they attribute to the authority, and how much injustice and resentment they feel.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Legitimacy of regulatory authorities as a function of inclusive identification and power over ingroups and outgroups

Wenzel

Jobling

2006

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To insure compliance with rules and laws, regulatory authorities are usually in a position of power over a heterogeneous population or multiple groups. Power may thus need to be analysed as a tripartite relationship between authority, ingroup and outgroup. Based on the social identity approach and related justice theories, it is argued that social identification with an inclusive category that includes ingroup, outgroup and authority determines how group members react to the authority's power use and perceived legitimacy. Two studies were set in the context of the Australian tax system. Study 1 used an experimental design with a student sample; Study 2 was survey with a random sample of Australian citizens. Participants who identified less strongly with the inclusive category (Australians) attributed more legitimacy to the tax authority, when it exercised effective power over the outgroup (Study 1), or when it appeared lenient towards the ingroup (Study 2). In contrast, participants who identified strongly with the inclusive category attributed more legitimacy to the tax authority when it used its powers consistently towards both groups.

show abstract

Testing an attribution‐of‐blame model of judgments of injustice

Cited by 84 publications

References 38 publications

Justice through consensus: Shared identity and the preference for a restorative notion of justice

Justice through consensus: Shared identity and the preference for a restorative notion of justice

On the Psychology of the Advantaged: How People React to Being Overpaid

Legitimacy of regulatory authorities as a function of inclusive identification and power over ingroups and outgroups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About