The Justice of Retributions 551other men’s commitments, normative social expectations of
partner’s commitments, and lack of justification as to why
their partner is contributing less than expected. Perceived
violations of entitlement together with attributions of respon-
sibility to the partner and lack of justification predicted 53%
of the criterion variable blaming the partner.This set of vari-
ables includes the key variables for the perception of injus-
tice: entitlements on the basis of some justice norm and
violation of these entitlements by a responsible actor who
does not have convincing justification (cf. Lerner, 1987;
Montada, 1991). To predict perceptions of violated entitle-
ments, it is necessary to assess the justice norms applied by
the individual.
Another example based on a similar conceptual model of-
fers a questionnaire study conducted by Reichle (1996) about
losses and restrictions experienced by spouses after the birth
of their first child. Anger (resentment) toward the spouse was
predicted by attributing responsibility for one’s own losses
and restrictions to the spouse, which was moderated by the
perceived injustice of the losses and a negative balance
of perceived gains and losses (explained variance=74%).
Marital dissatisfaction was explained by anger toward the
spouse, extent of the experienced losses, number of losses at-
tributed to the spouse, and attribution of responsibility for the
losses to the spouse (explained variance =77%). Within this
sample, strong preferences for using the equality and the
need principle in distributions of tasks, opportunities, and
restrictions (in contrast to gender specific traditional norms)
and strong preferences for negotiations as the just way to
proceed in cases of disagreement were observed (Reichle &
Gefke, 1998).
The Effects of Social Exchanges on Third Parties
Assessing the justice of social exchange relationships would
be incomplete without examining the effects of exchanges
on third parties. Adverse effects of exchange relationships on
third parties raise justice problems—but to my knowledge,
they have not yet been an object of psychological research.
Contracts that are fair to the contractual parties may incur
serious disadvantages for others. For instance, cartel con-
tracts may be fair for the contract parties, but they are made at
the expense of others. Exclusive contracts of sale put other
suppliers at a disadvantage. Granting government subsidies
to a big company in financial trouble may be viewed as fair by
its employees but as unfair by its competitors. Labor contracts
between employers’ organizations and unions may be viewed
as a fair distribution of profits but may cause rationalization
measures leading to the dismissal of part of the workforce, or
they may prevent the expansion of the workforce, which
would have provided jobs for the unemployed. Even in close
relationships, adverse effects on third parties are not unusual.
Parents may enjoy the loyal support of their partner in cases
of conflict with their adolescent child who in turn considers
this loyalty to be a coalition at his or her own cost.
Therefore, it is adequate to expand the view from the
directly concerned exchange parties and to examine the con-
sequences for others and for the social system.THE JUSTICE OF RETRIBUTIONSThe phrase retributive justicenormally means the justice of
retribution for crimes and negligence, as well as the justice
of compensations for caused damages and harm. However,
special achievements (intellectual, artistic, moral, etc.),
especially those that go beyond the call of duty, are also to be
repaid or acknowledged. Because the justice of acknowl-
edgement of special achievements has received little research
attention thus far, it is only mentioned here; the retribution
for crimes and negligence is treated in more detail.Just Retribution and PunishmentThough just retribution for crimes is anchored in criminal
law, in criminal justice proceedings, and in precedents in
court judgments, empirical social and behavioral sciences
can contribute significant insights, because the sense of jus-
tice held by the general public does not perfectly coincide
with that reflected by the legal code and court decisions.
What is just retribution for the violation of criminal law?
A first answer could be reparation for the damagescaused,
analogous to the equity principle of social exchanges. Such
regulations exist in the civil code, as can be seen in liability
laws: The defective product must be replaced; the damage
must be compensated; the price must be reduced if services
are insufficient; the caused secondary costs (expenses, oppor-
tunity costs) are to be balanced out. Compensation for dam-
ages is not a prevalent goal in criminal justice.
For most people’s sense of justice, equitable compensa-
tion would be an inadequate atonement for a crime. This is
true not only for crimes which have caused irreversible
losses: How could, for example, the murder of a person, per-
manent health impairments following a physical injury, or
psychological damage caused by terror or humiliation be
compensated? This is generally true because the violation of
criminal law means a violation of the moral consensus with-
out which the social community cannot survive (Miller &
Vidmar, 1981). Regardless of the amount of damage, this in-
jury to the moral code of society demands punishment. The