Justice as a Personal and Social Construction 561about injustices they have committed against the partner and
about those they have suffered from the partner, Mikula
(1998) found with harmonious couples that the appraisal of
injustices suffered by the partner was more lenient than of
those oneself had committed to the partner. In disharmonious
partnerships, the self-serving bias was the rule.
The role of attitudes toward victims and toward offenders
was intensively studied in research on juries. Prejudices
against defendants have a significant impact on the attribu-
tion of blameworthiness and on sentencing.
The Social Construction of Justice by Social Movements
Social movements are stipulated by focusing a social
injustice—for example, the withholding of civil rights from
minorities, the discrimination against women in the labor mar-
ket, the exploitation of natural resources by the living genera-
tion at the costs of future generations, the discrimination
against homosexuality, the exploitation of children by child
labor, the huge inequalities between the rich and the poor
nations, the torture practiced in many countries, and so on.
Social movements try to appeal to and if necessary change
the public sense of justice. Their views about injustices do not
always reflect common sense and are not always shared by the
majority. Even the disadvantaged (the victims themselves)
might not share their views: The women in the workforce
comparing themselves not with men but with other women
(Crosby, 1982) did not feel disadvantaged. The children
in child labor may consider their lot as normal, or they may
even be proud to contribute a bit to the survival of their fami-
lies. Homosexual persons in earlier times may have not
protested against unjust discrimination but may have de-
plored their “deviant” desires.
The social movements must present convincing arguments
that the status quo, the current social practice, is unjust. They
must gain public attention in the media, but ultimately they
have to convince the majority—at least the majority in the cen-
ters of power. Major (1994) has outlined some of the psycho-
logical processes and strategies to change the public
awareness of entitlements and obligations.
Coping With Injustice
Persons who are suffering an injustice have (in principle)
several options to respond: They can claim correction of the
existing injustice, they can claim an equitable compensation
from the wrongdoers, respectively from those who are liable;
they can start a lawsuit; they can retaliate the victimization;
they can claim an apology from the wrongdoer; they can
appeal for social support and some compensation from their
group or community; they can try to forget the case; they can
ruminate on the case, thus alimenting their resentment and bit-
terness; they can pray for a just punishment; they can excuse
and forgive the wrongdoer; and finally, they can cope with
their resentment. With regard to the construction of justice are
those cases of interest in which an equitable compensation and
a just retaliation are not possible and the resentment is not
calmed down by a honest apology of the wrongdoer. How to
cope with the continuing feelings of resentment and bitter-
ness. According to an analysis of the cognitions implied in the
emotion of resentment (Montada, 1994), the coping can take
one of four strategies:- The suffered harm and losses can be reappraised: Are the
harm and the losses really that severe? Is it, for instance,
that violating to have been insulted by a person who has
such a bad reputation? In cases of objectively severe and
even irrevocable losses the victims may look for com-
pensating positive experiences; this was called search for
meaning in experienced losses.For instance, the victims
may have found their true friends through this event, or
they may be proud of the way they have mastered their
fate. Gains are counterbalancing the losses. - Victims may think about their entitlements or the norms of
justice violated by the offender and may qualify the validity
of these norms. This point is addressed in more detail in this
chapter’s section about mediation in justice conflicts. - Victims may think about the offenders’ responsibility: Has
the offender really acted malevolently, intentionally, reck-
lessly, merely carelessly, or even with good intentions but
clumsily? Was he or she responsible alone or were others
responsible too? The victims can even attribute some
responsibility to themselves in what has been called self-
blame(Bulman & Wortman, 1977). The diffusion of re-
sponsibility (e.g., the poor education of the offender),
especially the attribution of a bit of coresponsibility to
oneself calms down resentment (Montada, 1992). Acci-
dent victims actively use reattributions of responsibility as
a strategy to cope with their feelings of resentment and
injustice (Montada, Schneider, & Seiler, 1999). A compre-
hensive review of research about the effects of self-
responsibility is provided by Dalbert (2001). - Victims may think about possible justifications of the
offender, misconceptions, conflicting obligations, own
provoking behavior, and so on. Imagined justifications
calm down resentment and hostility (Bernhardt, 2000;
Montada & Kirchhoff, 2000).
These coping strategies, if effective, result in a changed view
of the case and of its injustice.