Perspective-Related Differences in Interpretations of Injustice by Victims and Victimizers

A Test with Close Relationships
  • Gerold Mikula
Part of the Critical Issues in Social Justice book series (CISJ)

Abstract

Discrepancies in views about what is to be regarded as just and unjust are among the core problems of injustice. Judgments of injustice presuppose observations that people’s entitlements have been violated, that is, that they do not get what they are due by virtue of who they are and what they have done (cf. Buchanan & Mathieu, 1986; Cohen, 1986; Lerner, 1977, 1991). In addition to this most basic element, attributions of responsibility for the violation of entitlement to some other agent than the person affected, and lack of justification for the violation, have been proposed as important components of judgments of injustice (e.g., Cohen, 1982; Crosby & Gonzales-Intal, 1984; Folger, 1986; Mikula, 1993; Mikula & Petri, 1987; Montada, 1991; Utne & Kidd, 1980). If one considers the subjective nature of these various elements, disagreements over the existence of injustice seem likely. They can follow from different views about the nature of the entitlements of certain people, whether and to what extent any existing entitlements have been violated, the responsibilities of various agents, the availability of sufficient justifications, and any combination of these possibilities.

Keywords

Relationship Satisfaction Causal Attribution Negative Behavior Social Image Close Personal Relationship 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baucom, D. H. (1987). Attributions in distressed relations. How can we explain them? In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 177–206). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A., & Wotman, S. R. (1990). Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives about anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 994–1005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borden, V. M. H., & Levinger, G. (1991). Interpersonal transformations in intimate relationships. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 2, pp. 35–56). London: Kingsley.Google Scholar
  4. Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brehm, S. S. (1985). Intimate relationships. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, A., & Mathieu, D. (1986). Philosophy and justice. In R. L. Cohen (Ed.), Justice. Views from the social sciences (pp. 11–45). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  7. Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw pattern of marital conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clayton, S. D. (1992). The experience of injustice: Some characteristics and correlates. Social Justice Research, 5, 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, R. L. (1982). Perceiving justice: An attributional perspective. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 119–160). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cohen, R. L. (1986). Introduction. In R. L. Cohen (Ed.), Justice. Views from the social sciences (pp. 1–9). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  12. Crosby, F., & Gonzales-Intal, A. M. (1984). Relative deprivation and equity theories. In R. Folger (Ed.), The sense of injustice (pp. 141–166). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Desmarais, S., & Lerner, M. J. (1989). A new look at equity and outcomes as determinants of satisfaction in close personal relationships. Social Justice Research, 3, 105–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Felstiner, W. L. F., Abel, R. L., & Sarat, A. (1981). The emergence and transformation of disputes: Naming, blaming, claiming. Law and Society Review, 15, 631–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferguson, T. J., & Rule, B. G. (1983). An attributional perspective on anger and aggression. In R. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews (pp. 41–74). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1988). The impact of attributions in marriage: Empirical and conceptual foundations. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 77–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fincham, F. D., & Jaspars, J. M. (1980). Attribution of responsibility: From man the scientist to man as lawyer. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 81–138). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  21. Folger, R. (1986). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 145–162). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gonzales, M. H., Manning, D. J., & Haugen, J. A. (1992). Explaining our sins: Factors influencing offender accounts and anticipated victim responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 958–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gonzales, M. H., Pederson, J., Manning, D. J., & Wetter, D. W. (1990). Pardon my gaffe: Effects of sex, status, and consequence severity on accounts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 610–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gray, J. D., & Cohen-Silver, R. (1990). Opposite sides of the same coin: Former spouses’ divergent perspectives in coping with their divorce. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1180–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harvey, J. H. (1987). Attributions in close relationships: Research and theoretical developments. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 420–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harvey, J. H., & Weary, G. (1984). Current issues in attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 427–459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harvey, J. H., Wells, G. L., & Alvarez, M. D. (1978). Attribution in the context of conflict and separation in close relationships. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 2, pp. 235–260). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  28. Hatfield, E., Traupmann, J., Sprecher, S., Utne, M., & Hay, J. (1985). Equity and intimate relationships: Recent research. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 91–117). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holmes, J. G. (1981). The exchange process in close relationships: Microbehavior and macromotives. In M J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive in social behavior (pp. 261–284). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holmes, J. G. (1991). Trust and the appraisal process in close relationships. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 2, pp. 57–104). London: Kingsley.Google Scholar
  33. Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: close relationships (Vol. 9, pp. 187–220). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer. Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones et al. (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79–94). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structures and process. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 457–501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive: Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  39. Lerner, M. J. (1991). Integrating societal and psychological rules of entitlement. In R. Vermunt & H. Steensma (Eds.), Social justice in human relations (Vol. 1, pp. 13–32). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  40. Lerner, M. J., Miller, D. T., & Holmes, J. G. (1976). Deserving and the emergence of forms of justice. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol 9, pp. 134–162). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  41. McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., & O’Hair, H. D. (1983). The management of failure events: Some contextual determinants of accounting behavior. Human Communication Research, 9, 208–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Messick, D. M., Bloom, S., Boldizar, J. P., & Samuelson, C. D. (1985). Why we are fairer than others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 480–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mikula, G. (1980). On the role of justice in allocation decisions. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 127–166). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  44. Mikula, G. (1984). Justice and fairness in interpersonal relations: Thoughts and suggestions. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimension (Vol. 1, pp. 204–227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Mikula, G. (1986). The experience of injustice—Toward a better understanding of its phenomenology. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 103–123). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mikula, G. (1987). Exploring the experience of injustice. In G. R. Semin & B. Krahe (Eds.), Issues in contemporary German social psychology (pp. 74–96). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Mikula, G. (1992). Austausch und Gerechtigkeit in Freundschaft, Partnerschaft und Ehe: Ein Überblick über den aktuellen Forschungsstand (Exchange and justice in friendship, courtship, and marriage: A review of the present state of research). Psychologische Rundschau, 43, 69–82.Google Scholar
  48. Mikula, G. (1993). On the experience of injustice. In M. Hewstone, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 223–244). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  49. Mikula, G., & Heimgartner, A. (1990). Experiences of injustice in intimate relationships. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  50. Mikula, G., & Pétri, B. (1987). Antecedent conditions of experiences of injustice: First results. (Berichte aus dem Institut für Psychologie der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz No. 1987–1). Graz: University of Graz, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
  51. Mikula, G., Pétri, B., & Tanzer, N. (1990). What people regard as unjust: Types and structures of everyday experiences of injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mikula, G., & Schwinger, T. (1978). Intermember relations and reward allocation. In H. Brandstätter, J. H. Davis, & H. Schüler (Eds.), Dynamics of group decisions (pp. 229–250). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Montada, L. (1991). Coping with life stress. Injustice and the question “who is responsible?” In H. Steensma & R. Vermunt. Social justice in human relations (Vol. 2, pp. 9–30). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mummendey, A., Linneweber, V., & Löschper, G. (1984). Actor or victim of aggression. Divergent perspectives—divergent evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1989). Perspective-specific differences in the segmentation and evaluation of aggressive interaction sequences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  57. Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 41–51.Google Scholar
  58. Orvis, B. R., Kelley, H. H., & Butler, D. (1976). Attributional conflict in young couples. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 1, pp. 353–386). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  59. Reis, H. T. (1981). Self-presentation and distributive justice. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management. Theory and social psychological research (pp. 269–291). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  60. Reis, H. T. (1984). The multidimensionality of justice. In R. Folger (Ed.), The sense of injustice: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 25–61). New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reis, H. T. (1987). The nature of the justice motive: Some thoughts on operation, internalization, and justification. In J. C. Masters & W. P. Smith (Eds.), Social comparison, social justice, and relative deprivation (pp. 131–150). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  62. Rusbult, C. E., Johnson, D. J., & Morrow, G. D. (1986). Impact of couple patterns on problem solving on distress and nondistress in dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 744–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  64. Schönbach, P. (1990). Account episodes. The management or escalation of conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 23, 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Semin, G. R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1983). The accountability of conduct: A social psychological analysis. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  67. Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sillars, A. L. (1985). Interpersonal perception in relationships. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 277–305). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Snyder, C. R., Higgins, R. L., & Stucky, R. J. (1983). Excuses: Masquerades in search of grace. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  70. Sprecher, S. (1992). Social exchange perspectives to the dissolution of close relationships. In T. L. Orbuch (Ed.), Close relationship loss: Theoretical approaches (pp. 47–66). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sprecher, S. (1992). How men and women expect to feel and behave in response to inequity in close relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Taylor, S. E., Wood, J. V., & Lichtman, R. R. (1983). It could be worse: Selective evaluation as a response to victimization. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tedeschi, J. T., & Nesler, M. (1993). Grievances: Development and reactions. In R. Felson & J. T. Tedeschi (Eds.), Aggression and violence: A social interactionist approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  75. Utne, M. K., & Kidd, R. F. (1980). Equity and attribution. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 63–93). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  76. van der Pligt, J. (1981). Actors’ and observers’ explanations: Divergent perspectives or divergent evaluations? In C. Antaki (Ed.), The psychology of ordinary explanations of social behaviour (pp. 97–117). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  77. Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  78. Watson, D. (1982). The actor and the observer: How are their perceptions of causality divergent? Psychological Bulletin, 92, 682–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Weiner, B., Folkes, V. S., Amirkhan, J., & Verette, J. A. (1987). An attributional analysis of excuse giving: Studies of a naive theory of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 316–324.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Weiss, R. S. (1975). Marital separation. New York: Basic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerold Mikula
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations