A Recursive Model for Changing Justice Concerns in Social Dilemmas

  • David A. Schroeder
  • Alicia F. Bembenek
  • Kimberly M. Kinsey
  • Julie E. Steel
  • Andria J. Woodell

In 2003, we (Schroeder et al., 2003) presented an analysis of justice concerns and considerations of fairness within social dilemma situations. At that time, we perceived the various types of justice criteria (i.e., distributive, procedural, restorative, retributive) as evolving in a more or less sequential manner as the status of a common resource pool or the threat to a public good changed for the worse over time. Social dilemmas are intriguing mixed-motive situations in which those involved must make choices between acting in their own best interests versus acting for the well-being of a group, and the decisions made can lead to unequal outcomes among the group members. These asymmetries make social dilemma situations particularly well suited for the study of how members of these groups strive to find fair and just accommodations to the self-interest vs. communal interest conflicts operating upon them.


Procedural Justice Restorative Justice Social Dilemma Fair Procedure Experimental Social Psychology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agrawal, A. (1994). Rules, rule making, and rule breaking: Examining the fit between rule systems and resource use. In E. Ostrom, R. Gardner & J. Walker (eds.), Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baden, J. A. (1998). A new primer for the management of common-pool resources and public goods. In J. A. Baden & D. S. Noonan (eds.), Managing the Common (2nd ed., pp. 51–62). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, R. (2000). The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bembenek, A. F. (2006). Retaliation as a function of justice violations: The possible mediational role of negative affect. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas.Google Scholar
  5. Bembenek, A. F., Woodell, A. J., Kinsey, K., Schroeder, D. A. (in preparation). The effects of group membership and repeated transgressions on retributive responses.Google Scholar
  6. Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: “Getting even” and the need for revenge. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp. 246–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Bradley, G. (2003). Retribution: The central aim of punishment. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 27, 19–31.Google Scholar
  8. Brockner, J., Konovsky, M., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., Martin, C. L., Bies, R. J. (1994). The interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome negativity on the victims and survivors of job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 284–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carlsmith, K. M., Wilson, T. D. (2005). Hedonic punishment. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  12. Crombag, H., Rassin, E., Horselenberg, R. (2003). On vengeance. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 9, 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Darley, J. M. (2002). Just punishments: Research on retributional justice. In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (eds.), The Justice Motive in Everyday Life (pp. 314–333). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Darley, J. M., Carlsmith, K. M., Robinson, P. H. (2000). Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for punishment. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 659–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Darley, J. M., Pittman, T. S. (2003). The psychology of compensation and retributive justice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 324–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Cremer, D., Stouten, J. (2003). When do people find cooperation must justified? The effect of trust and self-other merging in social dilemmas. Social Justice Research, 16, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Cremer, D., Tyler, T. R. (2005). Managing group behavior: The interplay between procedural justice, sense of self, and cooperation. In M. P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 151–218). San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dolsak, N., Ostrom, E. (2003). The challenges of the commons. In N. Dolsak & E. Ostrom (eds.), The Commons in the New Millennium (pp. 3–34). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A. (in press, 2006). The Social Psychology of Prosocial Behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Ellickson, R. C. (1991). Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fehr, E., Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frohlich, N., Oppenheimer, J. A. (1992). Choosing Justice: An Experimental Approach to Ethical Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  24. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.Google Scholar
  25. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hardin, R. (1982). Collective Action. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Holmes, J. G., Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (ed.), Close Relationships: Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 187–220). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kerr, N. L. (1995). Norms in social dilemmas. In D.A. Schroeder (ed.), Social Dilemmas: Perspectives on Individuals and Groups (pp. 31–47). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  30. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Messick, D. M., Brewer, M. B. (1983). Solving social dilemmas. In L. Wheeler & P. R. Shaver (eds.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 11–44). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Miller, D. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of injustice. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 527–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nagin, D. (1998). Deterrence and incapacitation. In M. Tonry (ed.), The Handbook of Crime and Punishment (pp. 345–368). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ostrom, E. (2001). Reformulating the commons. In J. Burger, E. Ostrom, R. B. Norgaard, D. Policansky & B. D. Goldstein (eds.), Protecting the Commons: A Framework for Resource Management in the Americas (pp. 17–41). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  36. Posner, E. A. (2000). Law and Social Norms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Platt, J. R. (1973). Social traps. American Psychologist, 28, 641–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rawls, J. (1971, 1999). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. (E. Kelly, ed.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  40. Roberts, P. (2004). The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World. New York: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  41. Schroeder, D. A., Sibicky, M. E., Irwin, M. E. (1995). A framework for understanding decisions in social dilemmas. In D. A. Schroeder (ed.), Social Dilemmas: Perspectives on Individuals and Groups (pp. 183–199). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  42. Schroeder, D. A., Steel, J. E., Woodell, A. J., Bembenek, A. F. (2003). Justice within social dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 374–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Steel, J. E. (2004). When procedural change isn’t enough: Restorative and retributive justice-seeking and the “recognition of necessity”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas.Google Scholar
  44. Thibaut, J., Walker, L. (1975). Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. Tyler, T. R., Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioral Engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  46. Tyler, T. R., Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social Justice in a Diverse Society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  48. Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1–60). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  49. van Dijk, E., Wilke, H. A. M. (1995). Coordination rules in asymmetric social dilemmas: A comparison of public goods dilemmas and resource dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Dijk, E., Wilke, H. A. M., Wilke, M., Metman, L. (1999). What information do we use in social dilemmas? Environmental uncertainty and the employment of coordination rules. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vidmar, N. (2001). Retribution and revenge. In J. Sanders & V. L. Hamilton (eds.), Handbook of Justice Research in Law (pp. 31–63). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
  52. Walster, E., Berscheid, E., Walster, G. W. (1976). New directions in equity research. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 1–42). New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  53. Woodell, A. J. (2005). The cognitive and affective precursors to retributive justice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas.Google Scholar
  54. Woodell, A. J., Schroeder, D. A., Steel, J. E., Bembenek, A. F. (May 2002). Are all transgressors created (and treated) equal?: The influence of group membership on retribution. Poster presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  55. Wright, R. (2000). Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  56. Yamagishi, T. (1986). The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 110–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • David A. Schroeder
    • 1
  • Alicia F. Bembenek
    • 1
  • Kimberly M. Kinsey
    • 1
  • Julie E. Steel
    • 2
  • Andria J. Woodell
    • 3
  1. 1.University of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  2. 2.Rhodes CollegeMemphisUSA
  3. 3.Central Oregon Community CollegeBendUSA

Personalised recommendations