The Restorative Justice Attitudes Scale: Development and Initial Psychometric Evaluation

Abstract

Restorative justice as an applied and theoretical construct has received growing public attention; yet, little research on restorative justice has been conducted within psychology, including counseling psychology—a subfield devoted to social justice, advocacy, and the promotion of human rights and dignity for all people. This may in part be due to the lack of established empirical measurement concerning restorative justice. We developed the Restorative Justice Attitudes Scale (RJAS) using data collected from 650 US adults. Exploratory analyses yielded a 5-factor structure composed of 20 items within five dimensions: (a) Empathic Understanding, (b) Harm and Needs, (c) Restoration Processes, (d) Accountability, and (e) Community Engagement. However, confirmatory analyses suggested the use of a total scale score. Evidence of construct validity was established as the RJAS score was related to measures of empathy and perspective-taking. We discuss implications for the use of the RJAS in practice, advocacy, education, training, and research.

Does race matter? An experimental vignette study on harm severity, college student discipline, and restorative justice.

“…The Restorative Justice Attitudes Scale (RJAS; Taylor & Bailey, 2021) is a 20-item self-report instrument measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ), with higher scores indicating a higher favorability or more positive attitudes toward restorative justice processes. Sample items include, “Inclusive, collaborative processes between victims and offenders of wrongdoing are necessary to repair harm,” and “I believe that wrongdoers should work to develop a greater understanding of their actions.” The RJAS has been shown to have good internal consistency with a total score Cronbach’s α of .91 reported in the author’s original study.…”

Grasping at the Root: Transforming Counseling Psychology

“…Transformation, on the individual and institutional level, cannot occur without accountability. We must engage in a deep study of transformative and restorative justice and what that means for us as individuals and for our profession (Taylor & Bailey, 2022). That will require reading, listening, and honoring the work of community activists and healers who are innovative change-makers in ways that will never get published in academic journals.…”