constructs are expected to result from individual dif-
ferences on these constructs as well.Retributive Justice
Although there is an abundance of research on proce-
dural and distributive justice, less attention has been
paid to the psychology of retributive justice, concern-
ing reactions to rule violation. When an injustice is
addressed in the legal system, options for sanction
largely involve victim compensation and offender
punishment. Research suggests that a primary deter-
minant of the impulse to punish rule-breaking behav-
ior is the perpetrator’s state of mind. If victims and
third parties judge perpetrators to have committed
harm unintentionally (negligence), psychological rea-
soning focuses on compensation for harm. However,
when perpetrators are thought to have intentionally
violated group norms and values, observers are moti-
vated to punish the offender.
Proportionality is a central characteristic of retribu-
tive sentencing. The severity of the punishment
assigned by observers increases with the perceived
seriousness of the offense and the harm caused.
Additional factors, such as the offender’s age or pre-
vious criminal record, or the observer’s cultural back-
ground, can also affect the severity of sanctions.
Mitigations and justifications may eliminate or sup-
press the relationship between the severity of an inten-
tionally committed offense and the severity of the
punishment (e.g., when an offender kills someone
who threatens his or her own life or the life of another).
Studies have found that apologies and expressions of
remorse also decrease the severity of the sentences
recommended.
Sentencing in the criminal justice system has sev-
eral underlying aims, including deterrence, rehabilita-
tion, incapacitation, and retribution. Retribution is the
only sentencing aim that is nonutilitarian and based on
judgments of “just deserts”; as such, it is often consid-
ered a retrograde and vindictive motive for sanction.
However, research on retributive justice suggests that
retribution can be forward looking, in that it aims to
ensure that problems of the past do not recur.
Retributive justice performs an important role in main-
taining the cohesion of social groups and is motivated
by group members’ concern for the group’s welfare.
Criminal violations of social norms constitute a salient
threat to an individual’s well-being, and offenses against
innocent victims threaten group members’ stableworldviews, in which one’s environment is perceived as
predictable and controllable. Punishment is seen as a
stabilizing force, used to prevent future violations of
group norms and restore the social order. Research sup-
ports the fundamental role of retribution in people’s
reactions to norm violations, suggesting that people
assign punishment for just deserts rather than utilitarian
motives. In addition to the rational, group-stabilizing
motivation behind the desire for retribution, recent
research demonstrates the role of moral emotions in
assigning sanctions for norm violation. The severity of
observers’ assigned punishments for offenses increases
when those offenses elicit, in particular, anger and
moral outrage.Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
In recent decades, various procedures have emerged
as alternatives to the court in resolving legal disputes.
They include small-claims mediation, divorce media-
tion, judicially mediated plea bargaining, judicial set-
tlement conferences, court-annexed arbitration, and
summary jury trials. The Dispute Resolution Act of
1998 requires every federal district court in the United
States to implement a dispute resolution program
where one does not already exist and to improve exist-
ing programs. The growing popularity of ADR pro-
grams has prompted extensive investigation into
disputants’ responses to ADR.
While ADR procedures can be distinguished
according to legal and structural characteristics (e.g.,
whether the procedure is voluntary, whether it is bind-
ing, the identity of the third party, the degree of formal-
ity, and the nature of the outcome), they can also
be distinguished according to the degree of control that
disputants retain over the process and the decision. For
example, in court-annexed arbitration, participants
retain process control in the presentation of evidence
but relinquish decision control to the arbiter. In media-
tion procedures, participants retain process control,
presenting their version of events, but also retain deci-
sion control, aiming to reach a bilateral agreement.
Consistent with psychological theory about PJ,
research suggests that the increased levels of participa-
tion and voice, as well as the respectful treatment from
benevolent authorities that can accompany these alter-
native procedures, enhance fairness and satisfaction.
Correlational field studies have also found that media-
tion procedures are more likely to produce decisions
that are obeyed than are adjudication procedures.628 ———Procedural JusticeP-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 628