Justice in Social Relations 5492001). These responses function also as a measures to edu-
cate the offender whose apologies and remorse are healing
the relationship (Ohbuchi, Kameda, & Agarie, 1989;
Montada & Kirchhoff, 2000). The range of normative expec-
tations may encompass the acknowledgement of expertise,
performances and efforts, granted supports, loyalty, consider-
ation of one’s preferences, sympathies, aversions, fears,
handicaps, and vulnerabilities: All these have to be respected.
Moreover, codes of politically correct behavior and language
that have to be respected have gained much attention.
Disrespect is experienced as an offence to the personal
and social identity. Some of the victims’ responses to disre-
spect are meant as a defense or restoration of their violated
self (Vidmar, 2000). In case of public disrespect, the aim of
responses may be to restore social status in the eyes of others.
Violent acts may have these functions to restore the self-
esteem and social status (Megargee & Bohn, 1979; Toch,
1969; for a review, see Streng, 1995)—evening the score by
retaliation (Greenberg & Scott, 1996).
The motive to even the score may also be given in re-
sponses like reduction of commitment at the workplace or in
close relationships, reduction of trust, and silent or explicit
rejection of proposals. The positive effects of respectful treat-
ment by authorities on the acceptance of their decisions and
on generalized trust in them (Lind & Tyler, 1988) mirror this
hypothesis in positive terms.
Justice Within Close Relationships
“The rule most frequently advocated as therule governing all
relationships, including intimate ones, is equity” (Clark &
Chrisman, 1994, p. 17). Participants are expected to be more
satisfied with the relationship, which is in turn expected to be
more stable when equity is realized. Participants strive to
make inequitable relationships equitable by changing their
contributions, their expected outcomes, or both by requesting
change in the contributions made by their partners or by reap-
praising their own or their partners’ contributions and out-
comes (Walster et al., 1978). Because equity is in the eye of
the beholder, so to speak, reappraisals may be functional for
establishing subjective equity.
It is indisputable that exchanges can be balanced on vari-
ous dimensions (e.g., those emphasized by Foa and Foa
(1980)—love, status, money, material goods, services, and
information): Information can be compensated by money,
services by love, and so on. In our culture, parents typically
do not expect that their investments into their children’s care,
development, and education would be reciprocated by the
children. Instead, they feel more than compensated when they
are loved by their children. To assess whether a relationship is
considered just, one has to look at the balances that are actu-
ally made. The global measure of equity generally used in
research—that is, asking subjects what they contribute to a
relationship and what they get out of it—relative to their part-
ner(s) is unsatisfactory. The precise balances have to be spec-
ified if we are to learn how appraisals of equity and inequity
are generated.
One major problem is the validity of global measures of
equity. Respondents who do not really balance contributions
and outcomes for themselves and for their partners may use
the terms equity and justice synonymously. Detailed mea-
sures across numerous exchange dimensions—which may
additionally be weighted according to personal importance—
are possible, however (e.g., Lujansky & Mikula, 1983; Van
Yperen & Buunk, 1994). The correlations between detailed
and global measures are generally modest or near zero
(Sprecher & Schwartz, 1994). Thus, using global measures of
equity does not really clarify which justice standards are
actually used by respondents.
Nevertheless, in accordance with hypotheses derived from
equity theory, some studies have found that not only respon-
dents who feel deprived compared to their partner but also
those who feel advantaged are less satisfied with their rela-
tionship than are respondents who perceive their relationship
as equitable (Buunk & van Yperen, 1991). The effects of eq-
uity ratings on satisfaction in the partnership and the stability
of the relationship are, however, generally weak or nonexis-
tent (Sprecher & Schwartz, 1994).
Thus, we do not have robust evidence in favor of the equity
model in close relationships, such as those between family
members, in intimate partnerships, and best friendships. Re-
search about justice in close relationships is reported and re-
viewed in a volume edited by Lerner and Mikula (1994) and a
special issue ofSocial Justice Research(Vol. 11, 3) edited by
Mikula (1998). One might question whether justice actually
matters at all in these kinds of relationships, which ideally are
characterized by mutual love, trust, and caring. However, as
Desmarais and Lerner (1994) argue, the degree of “closeness”
is not the same at all times and for all parties, and it may vary
from anidentityrelationship (in which the parties’ identities
are merged), to aunitrelationship (in which equal but inde-
pendent partners cooperate), and even to anonunitrelation-
ship (in which the parties compete with one another).
According to Desmarais and Lerner (1994), strong effects of
equity ratings on satisfaction are not to be expected within
identity relationships—“where meeting a partners’ needs is
most likely to create harmonious relations, while equal and
reciprocal treatment may be alienating in close relationships”
(p. 45)—in which the partners are not looking for long-term
reciprocity. In a study with married couples, Desmarais and