Is compensation enough? Relational concerns in responding to unintended inequity

Traditional justice models suggest that monetary compensation is an adequate response to unintended distributive harm. This perspective is widely accepted in real world settings, and is manifested in policies ranging from worker compensation to the court-based tort system. Drawing on the arguments from relational models of authority, we hypothesize that compensation for losses may be viewed by victims as an inadequate response to the situation, even when those losses are accidental and not the result of intentional harm. In four experimental studies, respondents were asked to react to the receipt of monetary compensation for accidental distributive inequities under varying degrees of relational concern. Results indicate that judgments about the favorability of compensation are only one aspect of people's reaction to responses to harm. In each case, victims displayed more favorable reactions toward the group when compensation was supplemented by relational concern. © 2007 SAGE Publications

From the Inside: The Meaning of Probation to Probationers

Beyond considerations of relative punitiveness, very little is known about how offenders understand the experience of serving a probation sentence. The current study surveyed offenders currently on probation to assess the extent to which they believed their sentence was rehabilitative, incapacitative, deserved, and a deterrent to future offending. Perceptions that probation served no purpose and that it represented a game of manipulation and impression management were also investigated. The results showed that most probationers believed that their sentence was a deterrent, and it was rehabilitative and deserved. They also felt that probation served multiple purposes, and a minority of respondents perceived that there was no point to being on probation. The implications of these findings are discussed