The Relationship Between Injustice and Crime

Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375385
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Criminal Justice
The relationship between injustice and crime: A general strain

theory approach
Heather L. Scheuerman
Towson University, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice, Liberal Arts 3210, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD, 21252, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Available online 13 September 2013
a b s t r a c t
Purpose: Connect General Strain Theory (GST) and the organizational justice literature by examining how different types and combinations of major forms of injustice (distributive, procedural, and interactional), and
resultant anger, may increase the likelihood that individuals respond to strain with crime.
Method: Logit and OLS regressions are used to analyze survey data obtained from a vignette that was randomly assigned to a sample of undergraduates. The vignette presented a distributive injustice and manipulated
the additional presence of procedural and interactional injustice. Respondents rated their likelihood of
intending to engage in a violent act and a non-violent deviant act.
Results: As expected, multiple types of injustice foster the intention of responding to injustice with crime. In
addition to a distributive injustice, the presence of procedural injustice predicts violence, while interactional
injustice predicts excessive drinking. Moreover, anger mediates the injustice-crime relationship, although
this effect is more substantial for the association between procedural injustice and violence.
Conclusions: The relationship between injustice and crime is complex. Different forms of injustice can affect
the propensity for crime through anger. Further research is encouraged to identify the criminogenic potential
of certain types of combinations of injustice on the experience of negative emotions and crime.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
General Strain Theory (GST) argues that crime is more likely to result when strains, or unpleasant events, are perceived to be unjust.
The experience of injustice stimulates negative emotions, such as
anger, thereby providing some motivation for criminal acts to either
restore justice or to retaliate against the source of perceived injustice
(Agnew, 2006; Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002). Injustice is a
feature of some, but not all strains, which may entail the receipt of
unfair outcomes (distributive injustice), unfair procedures used to
determine the outcomes or harms associated with strain (procedural
injustice), or the experience of unfair disrespectful, aggressive, or
inconsiderate treatment (interactional injustice) (Agnew, 2001).
Even though GST recognizes the different types of injustice, it is not
clear whether one type, or specic combinations, of injustice will
have differential effects on crime. Using GST to clarify the relationship
between injustice and crime is important as recent research expands
the focus of GST to samples and contexts wherein the experience of
injustice is more pronounced and relevant to predict behavior
(Agnew & DeLisi, 2012; Barn & Tan, 2012; DeLisi, 2011; Foster,
2012; Morris, Carriaga, Diamond, Piquero, & Piquero, 2012; Moon &
Jonson, 2012; Rebellon, Manasse, Van Gundy, & Cohn, 2012).
Social psychological research on organizational justice provides
some guidance on when people are likely to respond to combinations
E-mail address: hscheuerman@towson.edu.
0047-2352/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.06.019
of injustice with crime or deviance (Aquino, Lewis, & Bradeld, 1999;

Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Like GST, this literature argues that injustice
produces emotional distress that individuals may relieve by either altering their perceptions of the situation or their actions (Adams,
1965). Although the organizational justice literature has examined
the effects of groupings of types of injustice on behavior, it has typically focused on the formal context of the workplace. Little research
investigates the responses to combined types of injustice in informal
networks, like adolescent peer groups, that are usually examined in
criminology. The goal of this paper is to connect ndings in organizational justice and GST to better specify the conditions that foster
crime and deviance in response to varieties of injustice.
As the occurrence of injustice is stressful, the experience of multiple forms of injustice should increase the likelihood of criminal or deviant behavior (Agnew, 2006; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Interactional
injustice should emerge as a stronger predictor of crime than other
forms of injustice because it violates the view individuals possess of
their self as sacred, resulting in a painful and emotionally laden experience (Bies, 2005, p. 100; Stecher & Rosse, 2005). Interactional justice also deals with the respect an individual experiences (Bies &
Moag, 1986); when violated, it may result in crime (e.g., Anderson,
1999) and should be associated with strains that are central or highly
salient for individuals (Agnew, 2001).
The negative emotions that arise from the various forms of injustice should mediate the relationship between injustice and crime
(e.g., Aseltine, Gore, & Gordon, 2000; Rebellon et al., 2012). Anger is
376
H.L. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375385
an emotion associated with injustice that is especially important in

predicting whether or not crime occurs in response to strain. Anger
reduces the perceived costs of crime, creates a desire for revenge,
and motivates an individual for action, which may prompt individuals
to get even upon the receipt of injustice (Agnew, 2001, 2006).
In what follows, I rst review the social psychological literature on
the association between injustice and crime and then apply GST to further clarify the link between injustice, strain, and crime. Using a vignette study of 320 undergraduate students, I show how different
forms of injustice foster intentions to engage in criminal behavior via
negative emotions. I conclude with the discussion of the implications
of these results for understanding the injustice-crime relationship.
Justice and crime
People perceive whether their experiences are just by comparing
their actual experiences to what would be expected based on justice
rules relevant to the situation (e.g., Hegtvedt, 2006). When perceptions of an outcome, procedure, or treatment do not match a particular justice rule, individuals experience emotional distress, which in
turn may lead people to retaliate against the perpetrator of injustice
or to attempt to restore justice to the situation (Adams, 1965).
Below, I detail the three central forms of injustice and their relationship to crime.
Distributive justice
Distributive justice refers to the fairness of the outcome of the allocation of resources in a group or exchange (Adams, 1965; Homans,
1961). Research reveals that the actual level of resources distributed
is less important in forming justice judgments than the relative outcomes received in comparison with others (Colquitt, Greenberg, &
Zapata-Phelan, 2005). This relationship is formally expressed by equity theory, which states that individuals compare the outcome-input
ratio of two or more actors to determine if their rewards are commensurate with their contributions, a situation resulting in the perception of distributive justice (Adams, 1965; Colquitt, Conlon,
Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Outcomes are considered to be items received from an exchange or allocation, which may consist of pay or
intrinsic satisfaction, while inputs include training, seniority, and effort (Cohen & Greenberg, 1982). For instance, equity will be met
when individuals perceive that their pay is proportionate to their
rank and the time and effort they put into their work. Inequity will
occur when individuals perceive they receive less pay for their work
than they think they deserve based on their rank and investment in
their job (Van Yperen, Hagedoorn, Zweers, & Postma, 2000).1
Perceptions of equity result in feelings of contentment, satisfaction, and commitment, while perceptions of inequity lead individuals
to experience distress and dissatisfaction (Adams, 1965; Homans,
1961). The greater the perceived inequity, the more distress individuals experience, and the harder they will attempt to restore equity
(Jasso, 1980). Underrewarded individuals may demand restitution,
retaliate against the harmdoer (Ambrose et al., 2002; Berscheid,
Boye, & Walster, 1968), or engage in theft (Greenberg, 1990), or vandalism (DeMore, Fisher, & Baron, 1988). If individuals perceive that
they cannot alter the system that has led to their distributive injustice, they may inict punishment on the party they think is the
most responsible for their plight (Aquino et al., 1999).
Procedural justice
Principles of procedural justice encompass rules that, when
followed, ensure that just means are used to allocate rewards or resources (Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry, 1980). Although many rules characterize procedural justice, here I focus on the rules of consistency
and bias suppression (for a full discussion, refer to Leventhal, 1980).
These rules have been judged to be the most important for determining procedural fairness in informal, cooperative, and unequal groups
(Barrett-Howard & Tyler, 1986), which are examined in this study.
The consistency rule guarantees that procedures are consistent across
persons and time, while the bias suppression rule necessitates that
personal self-interest and narrow preconceptions are suppressed
when an allocation is made. Consistency across persons would occur
if all persons applying for the same job are given the same aptitude
test, while consistency across time species that evaluation criteria
for workers remain stable. Administering aptitude tests of varying
difculty and changing established practices of performance evaluation would violate perceptions of procedural justice (Leventhal,
1980). Moreover, those who institute procedures for hiring or evaluating employees should have no vested interest in the outcome of
whether an individual receives a job or an increase in pay. If an employer hires someone or favorably evaluates an individual because
doing so in some way serves the personal self-interest of the employer, then bias suppression would not be met (Colquitt et al., 2001).
Individuals value procedural fairness because it allows them to
have control over the decision-making process to ensure a fair outcome (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) or because they want to receive benecial social outcomes by being perceived as valued members of their
group (Lind & Tyler, 1988).2 Procedural justice promotes happiness
(Murphy & Tyler, 2008) and fosters relationships by enhancing
self-esteem and pride in ones group, owing to feelings that one is a
respected group member. Pride and respect cultivate group-serving
behavior (Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996) and compliance with authorities and the law. In contrast, procedural injustice produces negative
emotions (e.g., anger), which may mediate the relationship between
procedural injustice and behavior (Murphy & Tyler, 2008). Inadequate justication for a change in procedures that results in reduced
outcomes fosters feelings of resentment (Folger, Roseneld, &
Robinson, 1983) and prompts corrective action to modify that procedure (Leventhal et al., 1980). Experiencing procedural injustice reduces compliance with the groups to which individuals belong
(Tyler et al., 1996) and with authorities and the law (Murphy &
Tyler, 2008).
Interactional justice
Interactional justice is conceptually distinct from procedural justice (e.g., Aquino et al., 1999; Bies, 2005; Cohen-Charash & Spector,
2001; Colquitt et al., 2005) and focuses on the quality of interpersonal
treatment that individuals experience when organizational procedures are enacted (Bies & Moag, 1986) and resources are distributed
(Colquitt et al., 2001). Rules that establish interactional justice that
have a direct association with crime include respect and propriety.
These interpersonal elements of interactional justice have an important role in predicting workplace aggression and retaliation (Folger
& Skarlicki, 1998), and the experience of disrespect fosters the occurrence of criminal behavior (e.g., Anderson, 1999; Brezina, Agnew,
Cullen, & Wright, 2004; Grifths, Yule, & Gartner, 2011). Respect involves treating others with sincerity and dignity, while propriety requires that individuals should not ask any inappropriate questions
or make prejudicial statements toward others (Bies, 2005; Colquitt
et al., 2005). For instance, hearing the concerns a coworker may
have about a policy at work and treating that person in a polite manner would uphold interactional fairness. On the other hand, interactional injustice would occur if an individual ignores the concerns of
his or her coworker and insults that person (Van Yperen et al., 2000).
Interactional justice is associated with positive emotions, such as
joy and hope (Chebat & Slusarczyk, 2005) and prosocial behaviors,
such as altruism and courtesy (Moorman, 1991). Interactional injustice, in contrast, predicts negative emotions, such as anxiety and disgust (Chebat & Slusarczyk, 2005) and may result in the expression
of anger, resentment, and bitterness (Stecher & Rosse, 2005). The
negative emotions associated with interactional injustice are correlated with retaliation, which may involve workplace sabotage
(Ambrose et al., 2002) and interpersonal aggression (Skarlicki &
Folger, 1997).
Combinations of injustice
Crime is more likely when distributive, procedural, and interactional injustice are present (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). In combination,
the various types of injustice give rise to greater negative affect (Van
Yperen et al., 2000), which can reect feelings of anger, outrage, and
resentment, and increases the likelihood that deviant behaviors will
be pursued (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Van Yperen et al., 2000).
These negative emotions mediate the relationship between injustice
and workplace deviance (Van Yperen et al., 2000), which may involve
employees stealing more (Lind, Kray, & Thompson, 1998), and engaging in aggression, revenge, and retaliation (Ball, Trevino, & Sims,
1994).
Interactional injustice appears to be a more important predictor of
deviance or criminal behavior than either of the other two types of
injustice (Colquitt et al., 2001; Stecher & Rosse, 2005; Van Yperen et
al., 2000). Van Yperen et al. (2000) nd that interactional injustice
is the only signicant type of injustice affecting individuals intentions
to behave destructively upon the experience of a problematic event.
Independent of distributive and procedural injustice, interactional
injustice produces negative affect, which is not offset even in the
presence of another form of justice, i.e., procedural justice (Van
Yperen et al., 2000).
377
Strain, emotions, and crime

Whether crime occurs in response to strain depends also upon on
the type of emotions that occur when strain is experienced. Strains
foster the negative emotions of anger, frustration, fear, and depression. These emotions will more likely produce criminal behavior as
they pressure individuals to engage in corrective action, reduce perceived costs associated with crime, foster a disposition for crime,
and reduce the likelihood of legal forms of coping (Agnew, 2006).
Unjust strains that produce anger are more likely to lead to criminal behavior (Agnew, 2001; Brezina, 1998; Broidy, 2001; Mazerolle &
Piquero, 1998). Anger is presumed to be associated with injustice
(Agnew, 2001; Ganem, 2010). This emotion allows individuals to ignore information that may aid in resolving a stressful situation and
impedes ones ability to coherently express concern about his or her
unfair treatment. Anger also lessens the actual and perceived costs
of crime because individuals are less likely to feel guilty for redressing
an injustice they experience and more likely to justify the type of
criminal behavior in which they engage (Agnew, 2001). Anger is
more likely to predict the occurrence of aggressive crimes than criminal acts such as shoplifting or driving while intoxicated (Capowich,
Mazerolle, & Piquero, 2001; Jang & Johnson, 2003; Piquero &
Sealock, 2000). Studies show that anger mediates the relationship between strain and crime (Aseltine et al., 2000; Brezina, 1998; Broidy,
2001; Capowich et al., 2001; Jang & Johnson, 2003; Rebellon et al.,
2012; for exceptions see Mazerolle & Piquero, 1998; Mazerolle,
Burton, Cullen, Evans, & Payne, 2000; Piquero & Sealock, 2000).
Predictions
Justice and GST
Interactional injustice is perhaps more important for predicting
criminal behavior than other forms of injustice because it is imbued with those characteristics of strains that are more likely to
lead to crime. Strains that are most likely to foster crime are perceived to be high in magnitude and unjust. Strains are seen as
high in magnitude if they are long in duration and occur frequently
(duration and frequency), if they have occurred recently (recency),
and if they threaten the core goals, needs, values, activities, and/
or identities of the victim (centrality) (Agnew, 2001). Even though
all three forms of injustice can be recent, long in duration, and
occur frequently, centrality is more relevant to the concept of interactional injustice. Individuals may be more troubled when
being subjected to abusive behavior than with the receipt of unfair
outcomes or the experience of unfair procedures (Aquino et al.,
1999; Mikula, Petri, & Tanzer, 1990), because this type of injustice
damages ones self-view, thereby producing very intense negative
emotional responses (Bies, 2005; Bies & Tripp, 1996), more so than
other types of injustice (Greenberg & Ganegoda, 2007; Stecher &
Rosse, 2005).
Strains may involve the inability of individuals to achieve their
goals, the actual or anticipated loss of positively valued stimuli (e.g.,
the ending of a romantic relationship), or the presentation of noxious
stimuli (e.g., negative relations with parents or peers). Strains are
more likely viewed as unjust when individuals perceive that a particular justice norm has been intentionally and voluntarily violated. A
person may have less money (distributive injustice), autonomy
(procedural injustice), and status (interactional injustice) than is
expected or desired. The removal of these valued rewards and treatment can also represent the loss of positively valued stimuli. In addition, the presentation of noxious stimuli may include negative
relationships with others and victimization, including disrespectful
treatment (interactional injustice), undeserved punishment (distributive injustice) and unfair procedures to allocate certain outcomes
(procedural injustice) (Agnew, 2001).
GST and the organizational justice literature predict that injustice

will foster crime through the production of negative affect and allude
to types or combinations of injustice that may be more criminogenic
than others. Inadequate material outcomes (distributive injustice)
constitute a fundamental form of strain that can occur in combination
with different levels of procedural and interactional injustice. I take
the experience of a distributive injustice as a given and build upon
GST by examining whether additional types of injustice affect the
likelihood of intentions to offend. In comparison to procedural and interactional injustice, distributive injustice may be perceived in a
wider array of situations in which a strain is intentionally and voluntarily inicted. Those strains that are viewed as undeserved, not in the
service of a higher cause or authority, and/or produce severe harm to
the individual represent instances of distributive injustice. Therefore,
those strains that facilitate crime (e.g., physical and verbal assaults)
may be perceived as unjust because they illustrate the receipt of
harsh or unexpected outcomes, in addition to being viewed as
instances of interactional injustice (Agnew, 2001, 2006). The justice
literature also nds that distributive injustice may predispose individuals to consider the prospect of reacting aggressively, but that violations of distributive injustice must also be accompanied by
interactional injustice (Greenberg & Ganegoda, 2007), or both interactional and procedural injustice, in order to facilitate aggressive
acts (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997).
The additional presence of interactional injustice should further
increase the likelihood of criminal coping in response to strain characterized by distributive injustice. Interactional injustice is damaging
to ones identity and psyche (Bies & Tripp, 1996), which represents
characteristics of strains, such as recency and centrality to self that
are more likely to produce criminal coping (Agnew, 2001). As studies
substantiate the greater impact of interactional injustice (e.g., Stecher
& Rosse, 2005; Van Yperen et al., 2000) and that disrespect fosters the
occurrence of criminal behavior (Anderson, 1999; Brezina et al., 2004;
Grifths et al., 2011), I expect interactional injustice to have a greater
effect on crime than procedural injustice.
378
H1. In conjunction with a distributive injustice, the experience of interactional

injustice should serve as a stronger predictor of crime than the experience of
procedural injustice.
Insofar as the experience of injustice is stressful or costly for individuals, experiencing multiple forms of injustice should enhance
ones emotional distress (Swatt, Gibson, & Piquero, 2007; Van
Yperen et al., 2000), which in turn may reduce the perceived costs
of criminal responses (i.e., receiving sanctions from others) to address
their unfair treatment, or of seeking out delinquent others who can
serve as criminal models (Swatt et al., 2007). Thus, I hypothesize that:
H2. Under conditions of distributive injustice, procedural and interactional
injustice will interact to increase the likelihood of criminal behavior.
The relationship between these various types and combinations of
injustice and crime should be mediated by negative emotions (e.g.,
Adams, 1965; Agnew, 2001). Due to the fact that GST predicts a contemporaneous effect of strain on the facilitation of crime or deviance,
this theory focuses on the effect of state emotions on criminal coping.
State emotions are produced in response to a particular environmental trigger. They differ from trait emotions, which reect a dispositional tendency, or a stable dimension of ones personality that fosters the
experience of certain emotions across situations (Deffenbacher et al.,
1996). Research on trait anger suggests it is likely to produce state
anger, and that state anger mediates the impact of strain on criminal
behavior more so than trait anger does (Mazerolle, Piquero, &
Capowich, 2003). I expect that an unjust situation is especially likely
to promote the creation of emotions that may lead to criminal behavior (Agnew, 2001). Experiencing injustice from a known other produces anger, which is associated with violent and non-violent
deviant behavior (Eftekhari, Turner, & Larimer, 2004; Ganem, 2010).
I hypothesize that:
the fact that the perpetrator of injustice, i.e., the decision-maker, consistently failed to give a promised or expected reward to the actor
may have led this individual to have more power over resources in
the scenario (Barrett-Howard & Tyler, 1986; Deutsch, 1975).
Despite being critiqued for not assessing actual behaviors but behavioral intentions, the use of vignettes is an appropriate methodology to assess which factors increase the likelihood that individuals will
respond to injustice in a deviant or criminal manner. Intentions to offend closely reect behavior (Green, 1989) and attitudes, intentions,
and behaviors are highly correlated (Kim & Hunter, 1993). Intentions
to offend should also more closely match behavior when scenarios
are presented that are relevant to the students in my sample (refer
to Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Moreover, criminological studies have
routinely used vignettes successfully to predict offending (e.g.,
Capowich et al., 2001; Ganem, 2010; Matthews, 2011; Mazerolle &
Piquero, 1998; Mazerolle et al., 2003).
To ensure that the scenarios behavioral responses reect what
participants would actually do in response to the unjust situation,
students were asked how believable the scenario was, how easy it
was for them to imagine being in the scenario, and how condent
they were that their answers would reect what they would actually
do in the situation. These variables ranged from 1 to 7, with
higher scores indicating greater agreement between their intended
and actual behaviors. On average, respondents perceived the scenario
to be realistic (Mean = 5.15; SD = 1.54), were able to imagine
themselves in the situation (Mean = 4.62; SD = 1.87), and were
condent that their responses would reect their actual behaviors
(Mean = 5.95; SD = 1.10).5
Measures
Vignettes
Mediating and dependent variables

The mediating variable of anger was assessed by asking participants how angry the scenario made them feel according to a Likert
scale (1 = not at all; 7 = very). As this affective state arose directly
from the situation, it represents a situational emotion. High scorers
on this measure experienced higher levels of anger in response to
the scenario (Mean = 3.85; SD = 1.79) (see Table 1 for all descriptive statistics).
The dependent variables represented criminal or deviant behavior
that would allow individuals to seek retribution or to restore justice.
Participants evaluated their likelihood of engaging in a serious criminal response, i.e., violence, and a non-violent deviant response, which
reected excessive drinking, according to a Likert scale (1 = not at all
likely; 7 = very likely). Violent behavior is assessed by the options of
hitting and pushing or shoving the perpetrator of injustice ( = .90),
while non-violent deviant behavior reects the option of drinking to
excess in response to perceived injustice. Only 60 individuals indicated that they would respond to this scenario violently, while 156 individuals selected that they would drink to excess. The skewed nature
of these responses led to recoding them as dummy variables with
anything above a 1 coded 1 indicating some likelihood of
responding to injustice with crime or deviance.
To ensure internal validity, a vignette depicting an unjust situation

was randomly assigned to respondents. In this scenario, the actor was
called a jerk by a friend who was supposed to buy the actor a certain
amount of drinks. After reading the vignette, respondents were asked
to indicate the emotions they would experience and behaviors they
would engage in if they were the main actor in the scenario. I drew
from Morgan (2006) and Matthews (2009), whose vignettes were informed by Capowich et al. (2001), Mazerolle and Piquero (1998), and
Mazerolle et al. (2003) to construct the scenario described below.
As the scenario depicted same-sex peer relationships, I control for
sex composition of the actors with whom the respondent envisions
interacting and power differences in terms of gender. In actuality,
Independent variables
In the vignette, respondents took the role of a person who received fewer drinks than what he or she was promised from the perpetrator of injustice, which represents a distributive injustice. The
measures of procedural and interactional justice were manipulated
and serve as dummy variables with a 1 indicating the presence of
procedural or interactional injustice, respectively. Procedural justice
is operationalized as any procedure used by the perpetrator of distributive injustice that did not put his or her needs rst (adhering to bias
suppression) and gave a person similar to the respondent the same
treatment (adhering to consistency).6 Manipulated sections are
presented in italics.
H3. Anger will mediate the relationship between injustice and crime.
Methods
A convenience sample of undergraduate students was recruited
from 58 courses in the natural and social sciences and humanities at
a large, private, southern university in the United States.3 Students
were informed that the survey would assess how individuals perceive
and respond to stressful situations. Interested participants received a
link to an online survey via email that measured perceptions of justice, felt emotions, and anticipated behavioral responses to strain.
To ensure adequate gender representation, a quota sampling design
was used and the survey link was deactivated when 160 males and
160 females had participated in the study. The sample ranges in age
from 18 through 31 years with a mean of 19.54 (SD = 1.76).4
Mirroring the undergraduate population, the plurality of the sample
is white (n = 137), while the rest of the sample is black (n = 33),
Asian (n = 115), and Hispanic, multiracial, or other (n = 35). Respondents were compensated $10.00 for their participation.

Table 1
Descriptive statistics
Dependent Variables (0 = not likely;

1 = likely)
Violent Behavior
Drinking
Mediating Variables
Anger
Independent Variables (0 = justice;
1 = injustice)
Procedural Justice
Interactional Justice
Control Variables
Gender (0 = male, 1 = female)
Race (0 = non-white, 1 = white)
Negative Emotionality
Constraint
Locus of Control
Anger Expressed Outwardly
Anger Expressed Inwardly
Peer Criminal Beliefs
Legitimacy of Crime or Deviance
Prior Crime
Family Attachment
Commitment
Obs.
Mean
S.D.
Minimum
Maximum
318
320
0.19
0.49
0.39
0.50
0
0
1
1
318
3.85
1.79
320
320
0.49
0.50
0.50
0.50
0
0
1
1
320
320
302
299
305
304
306
302
320
305
320
320
0.50
0.43
39.96
44.75
12.18
16.23
18.29
17.63
0.50
39.33
15.75
16.15
0.50
0.50
7.45
5.04
4.18
4.66
4.81
6.02
0.50
15.83
3.49
2.69
0
0
19
29
3
8
8
8
0
25
4
4
1
1
59
56
23
31
31
40
1
109
20
20
Its a typical Friday night and you and your friend Paul have just
agreed to meet your friend Matt at the club, Opera, for a few
drinks. Before you went out, Matt had told you that he would
buy you three drinks tonight because you bought him three drinks
last Friday.Upon entering the club, you and Paul discover that Matt
is with your mutual friend James and has spent most of his cash on
drinks for himself and for James. When you ask if Matt could buy
you a drink, Matt tells you that he decided hell buy both you and
James one drink and will make it up to you another time.
In contrast, procedural injustice occurred when the respondent
failed to receive an outcome because the perpetrator of distributive
injustice put his or her needs rst (violating bias suppression) and
gave a person similar to the respondent the expected outcome
(violating consistency). Respondents read:
When you ask if Matt could buy you a drink, Matt tells you that he
cant because he wants to get James more drinks. And, he promised
James that night that he would buy him more drinks, forgetting about
you. Matt decided he needs to get those drinks for James tonight.
Interactional justice was manipulated by having the perpetrator of
injustice show concern for the actor and be polite in the described situation. By doing so, the perpetrator of injustice appeared to adhere to
the rules of respect and propriety. Respondents read:
When you insist that Matt owes you some drinks, Matt politely
agrees with you and thanks you for buying him the other drinks last
week.
Interactional injustice, however, entailed the perpetrator of injustice violating the rules of respect and propriety by ignoring the
concerns of the main actor and calling him or her a name (refer to
Van Yperen et al., 2000). Respondents read:
When you insist that Matt owes you three drinks, Matt calls you a
jerk and then blatantly ignores you.
Control variables
Although the randomized design of the survey suggests that
individual-level differences between treatment groups would not affect how likely individuals are to respond to injustice with the
379
intention to commit crime or deviance, I control for factors that may

affect whether one perceives injustice and would engage in crime
upon experiencing strain. These include gender, race, negative emotionality, constraint, locus of control, trait anger, the perceived criminal or deviant beliefs of peers and whether they support crime or
deviance in response to injustice, prior delinquency, family attachment, and commitment to conventional institutions (Agnew, 2006;
Caspi et al., 1994; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Hirschi, 1969;
Piquero, Gomez-Smith, & Langton, 2004; Piquero & Sealock, 2010;
Shi, Lin, Wang, & Wang, 2009; Storms & Spector, 1987; Tata, 2000).7
Gender and race are dichotomous variables with males and
non-whites serving as the reference categories. Negative emotionality
and constraint are assessed by The Iowa Personality Questionnaire
(IPQ) (Donnellan, Conger, & Burzette, 2005). Negative emotionality
is a 15-item scale that assesses the extent individuals experience
stress, are aggressive, and feel exploited by others (Mean = 39.96;
SD = 7.45; = .74) (Patrick, Curtin, & Tellegen, 2002). Constraint
is a 12-item scale that measures the degree to which respondents
are adventurous and engage in risky behaviors (Mean = 44.75;
SD = 5.04; = .72). Higher scores reect higher than average levels
of negative emotionality and constraint. Locus of control was measured using Rotters (1966) Locus of Control Scale. Higher scores
specify that respondents have an external locus of control or that
powerful others, fate, or chance determine events (Mean = 12.18;
SD = 4.18; = .73).
Speilbergers (1999) State Trait Anger Expression Inventory 2
(STAXI-2) measures whether individuals express their anger outwardly (anger expression-out: AX/O) or inwardly (anger expression-in:
AX/I). Eight-items assess whether respondents express their anger
outwardly (Mean = 16.23; SD = 4.66; = .81) while eight-items
assess whether participants keep things in (Mean = 18.29; SD =
4.81; = .80) (1 = almost never; 4 = almost always). High scorers
on these items either are more likely to express their anger or to keep
their anger in.
Peer criminal beliefs represent eight items that assess how wrong
an individuals peers think it is to violate the law, hit another, drink or
use drugs, steal, or cheat (1 = always wrong; 5 = never wrong)
(Mean = 17.63; SD = 6.02; = 0.87). High scores on this measure
reveal that the respondent perceived his or her friends to be tolerant
of criminal or deviant behavior. In addition, in the scenario a peer
actor either supported conventional behavior by endorsing the
actions of the perpetrator of injustice (high conventional legitimacy),
or supported deviant or criminal behavior by suggesting the respondent engage in crime or deviance in response to injustice (low conventional legitimacy). For the high conventional legitimacy condition,
respondents read:
While this is happening, Paul says to you, Dont worry about Matt,
hes just drunk. Let it go. He can buy your other drinks another time.
In contrast, for the low conventional legitimacy condition respondents read:
While this is happening, Paul says to you, I cant believe youre
taking this crap from Matt, he owes you a lot of drinks. You should
just hit him.
Legitimacy of deviant behavior thus serves as a dummy variable
with 1 representing low conventional legitimacy.
Twenty-ve items measured respondents prior crime and deviance for drug use, minor assault, theft, vandalism, sexual violence,
and cheating.8 Respondents indicated how frequently they perpetrated those acts (1 = never; 5 = once a week or more) in the past year
(Mean = 39.33; SD = 15.83; = .90). High scores indicate frequent engagement in prior crime or deviance. These items come
from a version of the National Youth Survey, as adapted by
Matthews (2009).
380
Last, family attachment is assessed by four items that asked respondents how close they are to their parents/stepparents (1 =
strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) (Mean = 15.75; SD = 3.49;
= .76). Attachment to conventional institutions is measured by
four items that asked students about their educational and occupational goals and plans (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree)
(Mean = 16.15; Mean = 2.69; = .62).9 High scorers on these
measures indicate individuals who are highly attached to their parents/stepparents or to conventional institutions.
Analytic strategy
I rst test whether different types and combinations of injustice
produce differential effects on the likelihood of crime by conducting
a series of logit regressions due to the dichotomous nature of my behavioral measures (Long, 1997). Then, I conduct a mediation analysis
that accounts for the presence of binary variables to test whether
anger mediates the effect of injustice on crime (STATA, 2012).10
Three conditions must be met in order to detect a mediation effect:
injustice must be signicantly associated with violence and anger,
anger must be signicantly associated with violence, and anger
must signicantly predict violence when controlling for injustice
(Baron & Kenny, 1986). As anger is slightly negatively skewed and
has thick tails, robust ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions are
performed when this emotion serves as a dependent variable
(Acock, 2008). Results are based on a total of 320 respondents.11
Examination of correlation matrices and variance ination factors
(VIF) for the major variables reveal that multicollinearity is not a
problem.12
Results
Table 2 presents the results for the relationship between injustice
and crime, which are interpreted in terms of odds ratios.13 Despite
the fact that distributive injustice is always present in the vignette,
in reporting the results I emphasize that participants are not only
responding to manipulations of procedural and interactional injustice. Rather, participants are indicating their likelihood of responding
to a distributive injustice with criminal or deviant behavior when
procedural injustice, interactional injustice, or a combination of the
two, is also present. Hypothesis 1 is partially supported. Interactional
injustice affects the likelihood of intending to drink, but not engaging

in violence (Table 2). In combination with a distributive injustice, interactional injustice facilitates the likelihood of drinking by increasing
the odds of this behavior by 1.80 times (p 0.05). In addition, whites
and those high in negative emotionality are more likely to indicate
they would drink in response to a distributive injustice than minorities and those low in negative emotionality.
Surprisingly, procedural injustice has a much stronger relationship with violence than interactional injustice; in fact, when a distributive injustice is experienced, the presence of procedural injustice
increases the odds of intending to respond violently by 2.40 times
(p 0.05). Females and those who are highly constrained are less
likely to indicate they would engage in violence than males and
those low in constraint. In contrast, individuals who are high in negative emotionality, perceive their friends to have criminal or deviant
attitudes, and are attached to their family are more likely to intend
to engage in violence than those who do not share these traits.
The interaction between procedural and interactional injustice,
moreover, does not predict crime in response to a distributive injustice, failing to support Hypothesis 2 (Table 2).14 It appears that only
one form of injustice in addition to the experience of a distributive injustice is necessary to increase the likelihood of criminal or deviant
behavior in response to the scenario. Furthermore, the effect of the
control variables on the various behavioral responses to injustice
holds when accounting for the interaction between procedural and
interactional injustice.
Hypothesis 3 is supported as anger does mediate the relationship
between injustice and crime. As shown in Table 3, the experience
of procedural injustice increases the propensity for violence (OR =
2.55; p 0.05) (Model 1), and enhances anger (b = 1.13;
p 0.000) (Model 2). Anger also increases the odds of intending to
respond violently to an unjustied affront by 2.13 times (p 0.000)
(Model 3). Also, when anger is present, the effect of procedural injustice on violence is reduced to non-signicance with the odds ratio decreasing from 2.55 to 1.34 (Model 4), suggesting a substantial
mediation effect. Gender, constraint, peer criminal beliefs, and family
attachment also inuence whether one intends to respond to injustice with violence, with females and those high in constraint being
less likely to use violence than males and those low in constraint. In
contrast, those who perceive that their peers condone crime and deviance and are attached to their families are more likely to indicate
Table 2
Logit regressions of the effects of procedural (PJ) and interactional injustice (IJ) on violence and drinking behavior
Violence
Drinking
Model 1
PJ
IJ
PJ x IJ
Female
Race (White)
Constraint
Locus of Control
Low Legitimacy
Prior Crime
Family Attachment
Commitment
N
LR 2(df)
Log Likelihood
McFadden R2
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Odds
Ratios
SE
Odds
Ratios
SE
Odds
Ratios
SE
Odds
Ratios
SE
2.40*
1.80
0.95
0.71
0.31
0.51
0.07
0.21
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.28
0.02
0.08
0.10
1.53
1.20
0.63
0.07
0.21
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.28
0.02
0.08
0.10
1.13
1.80*
0.16***
0.51
1.08*
0.86**
0.97
1.04
0.94
1.10*
0.70
0.98
1.20**
1.09
250
58.88(14)***
-89.91
0.25
2.69+
2.04
0.80
0.16***
0.51
1.08*
0.86**
0.97
1.03
0.94
1.10*
0.70
0.98
1.20**
1.09
250
58.96(15)***
-89.87
0.25
0.90
2.80***
1.06*
0.94+
0.99
0.93+
1.01
1.03
0.87
1.02+
1.03
0.95
250
40.10(14)**
-153.16
0.12
0.26
0.82
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.25
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.82
1.31
1.95
0.91
2.83***
1.06*
0.94+
0.99
0.93+
1.01
1.02
0.88
1.02+
1.03
0.96
250
41.52(15)**
-152.45
0.12
0.32
0.51
1.09
0.26
0.83
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.25
0.01
0.04
0.06
p .10+, p .05*, p .01**, p .000*** (two-tailed tests).
381
Table 3
Logit and OLS regressions of the relationship between injustice, anger, and violence
PJ
IJ
Anger
Female
Race (White)
Constraint
Locus of Control
Low Legitimacy
Prior Crime
Family Attachment
Commitment
Constant
N
R2
F(df)
LR 2(df)
Log Likelihood
McFadden R2
Logit Regression Injustice

on Violence
OLS Regression Injustice

on Anger
Logit Regression Anger on

Violence
Logit Regression Anger

and Injustice on Violence
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Odds Ratios
SE
SE
Odds Ratios
SE
Odds Ratios
SE
2.55*
1.88
0.17***
0.54
1.08*
0.85**
0.96
1.03
0.94
1.09*
0.66
0.98
1.19**
1.07
1.03
0.75
0.08
0.22
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.26
0.02
0.08
0.10
1.13***
0.63**
0.24
0.28
0.05*
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
-0.02
-0.02
0.02*
-0.05+
0.06
-0.73
249
0.23
6.92(14,234)***
0.32
0.18
0.07
0.08
0.19
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.02
-0.06
-0.00
0.14
-0.10
0.09
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.21
0.01
0.03
0.05
1.55
2.13***
0.12***
0.45+
1.05
0.82***
0.97
1.06
0.91
1.10*
0.61
0.97+
1.26**
1.03
0.34
0.06
0.20
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.26
0.02
0.10
0.10
1.34
1.24
2.04***
0.12***
0.45+
1.05
0.82***
0.97
1.06
0.91
1.10*
0.59
0.97+
1.26**
1.03
0.60
0.53
0.34
0.06
0.20
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.25
0.02
0.10
0.10
249
57.41(14)***
-88.94
0.24
249
249
80.14(13)***
-77.58
0.34
80.83(15)***
-77.24
0.34

Note. When a distributive injustice is experienced, the total indirect and direct effects of procedural injustice on violence are 0.18 and 0.07, respectively. The proportion of the total
effect of procedural injustice on violence that is mediated by anger is 0.73.
they would engage in violence than those who do not perceive their
peers approve of crime and are not strongly attached to their families.
As illustrated in Table 4, anger does appear to mediate the effect of
interactional injustice on the intention to engage in drinking; however, this effect is modest. The experience of interactional injustice increases the propensity for drinking (OR = 1.78; p 0.05) (Model
1) and enhances anger (b = 0.63; p 0.01) (Model 2). Anger also
increases the odds of intending to drink in response to injustice by
1.24 times (p 0.01) (Model 3). In addition, when anger is present,

the effect of interactional injustice on drinking is reduced to
non-signicance with the odds ratio decreasing from 1.78 to 1.59
(Model 4), suggesting a partial mediation effect. This small reduction
in odds ratios may be due to the fact that interactional injustice, in
comparison to procedural injustice, did not have as great of an effect
on the experience of anger. The effect of injustice on drinking may
also be explained through the control variables of race and negative
Table 4
Logit regressions of the relationship between injustice, anger, and drinking
Logit Regression
Injustice on Drinking
OLS Regression Injustice

on Anger
Model 1
PJ
IJ
Anger
Female
Race (White)
Constraint
Locus of Control
Low Legitimacy
Prior Crime
Family Attachment
Commitment
Constant
N
R2
F(df)
LR 2(df)
Log Likelihood
McFadden R2

on Drinking

and Injustice on Drinking
Model 2
Model 4
Odds Ratios
SE
SE
Odds Ratios
SE
Odds Ratios
SE
1.11
1.78*
0.89
2.77**
1.06*
0.94+
0.99
0.93+
1.01
1.03
0.89
1.02+
1.03
0.96
0.31
0.51
0.26
0.81
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.25
0.01
0.04
0.06
1.13***
0.63**
0.24
0.28
0.05*
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
-0.02
-0.02
0.02*
-0.05+
0.06
-0.73
249
0.23
6.92(14,234)***
0.32
0.18
0.07
0.08
0.19
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.02
-0.06
-0.00
0.14
-0.10
0.09
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.21
0.01
0.03
0.05
1.55
1.24**
0.85
2.62**
1.05+
0.94+
0.99
0.93+
1.00
1.03
0.90
1.02
1.04
0.94
0.10
0.25
0.77
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.26
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.88
1.59
1.23*
0.84
2.67**
1.06*
0.94+
0.99
0.93+
1.00
1.03
0.89
1.02
1.04
0.95
0.27
0.46
0.11
0.25
0.79
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.25
0.01
0.05
0.06
249
39.44(14)**
-152.82
0.11
249
249
42.02(13)**
-151.54
0.12
44.78(15)**
-150.15
0.13

Note. When a distributive injustice is experienced, the total indirect and direct effects of interactional injustice on drinking are 0.03 and 0.12, respectively. The proportion of the
total effect of interactional injustice on drinking that is mediated by anger is 0.22.
382
emotionality, with whites and those high in negative emotionality

being more likely than non-whites and those low in negative emotionality to intend to respond to strain with drinking.15
Discussion and conclusions
This study sought to enhance the criminological and social psychological literatures by examining the effect of procedural and interactional injustice on the likelihood of criminal and deviant behavior
when a distributive injustice is present. The use of random assignment for disseminating unjust conditions to respondents represents
a major strength of this study, as it supports the internal validity of
the results. The presence of procedural injustice increased the likelihood that one would engage in violence upon the receipt of a distributive injustice, while interactional injustice was associated with the
intention to engage in drinking. Yet, Hypothesis 1 was not fully supported, as the addition of interactional injustice did not emerge as a
stronger predictor of crime or deviance when a distributive injustice
is experienced.
These ndings suggest that the combined presence of procedural
and distributive injustice, and that of interactional and distributive injustice, differentially predict certain criminal or deviant behaviors.
Van Yperen et al. (2000) nd that the major forms of injustice appear
to operate on two different pathways to predict workplace deviance.
Destructive acts are predicted through an increase in negative affect
by the interaction between procedural and distributive injustice,
and separately by interactional injustice. This study also nds that
procedural injustice predicts the intention to engage in violence in response to a distributive injustice, but was unable to test the unique
inuence of interactional injustice on criminal or deviant behavior.
Interestingly, procedural injustice (in combination with distributive injustice) emerged as a stronger predictor of violence than did interactional injustice. Ambrose et al. (2002) note that each form of
injustice is associated with specic motivations for organizational
sabotage, a form of aggression (Neuman & Baron, 1998). Distributive
injustice promotes sabotage in the attempt to restore equity, while
interactional injustice facilitates this deviant act for the purpose of retaliation. Procedural injustice, however, is just as likely to promote
sabotage for restoration or retaliation (Ambrose et al., 2002). Perhaps,
the dual motivations associated with procedural injustice explain
why it predicts violence more strongly.
The nding that procedural and interactional injustice variably inuence criminal or deviant behavior may also help to explain why the
interaction between these forms of injustice was not signicant, thus
failing to support Hypothesis 2. The relationship between causes of
crime and criminogenic responses may be nonlinear, and the amount
or type of injustice one experiences may need to reach a tipping point
before it promotes anger and crime or deviance (Agnew, 2005). Other
studies have shown that the interaction between distributive, procedural, and interactional injustice does not predict either destructive
behaviors or psychological strain (Ambrose et al., 2002; Francis &
Barling, 2005; Van Yperen et al., 2000). Findings of prior research
that support the effect of three major types of injustice on deviance
may thus reect the context and conditions manipulated in particular
studies (Francis & Barling, 2005).
The null effects of the combination of procedural and interactional
injustice on crime or deviance when a distributive injustice is present
may also depend on how injustice is experienced. The justice literature is mostly inconsistent regarding how different forms of injustice
interact to predict behavior and it is unclear whether the effect of
multiple forms of injustice on crime or deviance are additive or interactive, longitudinal or simultaneous (Ambrose et al., 2002; Francis &
Barling, 2005). Although the relationship between injustice and
crime may largely be contemporaneous (Agnew, 2005), the distress
associated with injustice could take longer to manifest (Francis &
Barling, 2005). In addition, each type of injustice may have lagged
effects on crime and one another (Tepper, 2001; Slocum, 2010). Considering past injustices, or experiencing multiple injustices in a short
time frame, may then increase the perceived severity of current injustices, thus promoting the likelihood of criminal or deviant coping
(Agnew, 2005). Future work is needed to disentangle the inuence
of procedural and interactional injustice on criminal and deviant behavior, especially when distributive injustice is also present.
The role of emotions in the injustice-crime relationship also identies the need for future scholarship. In support of Hypothesis 3,
anger does mediate the relationship between injustice and crime.
When a distributive injustice is experienced, anger more strongly mediated the relationship between procedural injustice and violence,
than between interactional injustice and drinking. Researchers may
wish to consider how other emotions produced by unjust strains relate to criminal or deviant acts (Agnew, 2009a). In this study, interactional injustice may have fostered the likelihood of drinking due to
the experience of other types of emotions. Experiencing disrespect
may lead individuals to internalize their negative treatment, thus
promoting depression and this form of deviant coping (Agnew,
2006; Jang & Johnson, 2003).
The experience of certain types and combinations of emotions can
also explain why females were less likely than males to indicate they
would engage in violence in response to injustice (De Coster & Zito,
2010). Women tend to experience depression and anxiety in addition
to anger in response to strain, which hinders the expression of criminal responses (Broidy & Agnew, 1997). Yet, research suggests that
women may respond to interactional injustice with violence
(Grifths et al., 2011). Understanding the emotions that result from
the experience of unjust strains can therefore assist in identifying
the types of criminal acts individuals may engage in upon the experience of injustice and when females may respond to injustice with
violence.
Finally, the positive relationship between family attachment and
violence was unexpected. As measured in this study, family attachment reected the cognitive-affective dimension of attachment,
which represents the quality of affect toward ones parents and has
been found to enhance self-esteem among adolescents. High
self-esteem, however, may facilitate violence when ones ego is
threatened (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996), as is the case when
various types of injustice are experienced (e.g., Bembenek, Beike, &
Schroeder, 2007; Bies & Tripp, 1996). Studies should investigate
how this typically protective factor may facilitate certain criminal or
deviant responses when different types and combinations of injustice
occur that may damage ones self-concept (Agnew, 2006).
Certain limitations of this study, however, may have inuenced
some of the ndings. For instance, a larger sample size might have
produced a signicant effect of interactional injustice on violence.
Moreover, the sample used was composed of student volunteers
who most likely do not reect individuals who typically criminally
cope with the experience of injustice (Agnew, 2009b). The use of a
web-based survey also may have attracted those individuals who
have continuous access to the internet; even though access to
24 hour computer labs was available (Couper, 2000).
Although college students are similar to their non-college counterparts in terms of self-reported criminal and delinquent acts and attitudes, slight differences remain in terms of more serious and
arrestable offenses (Weicko, 2010). Therefore, the use of a random
sample or a non-college sample may produce different results, especially in regard to the association between interactional injustice
and violence. Studies in criminology that examine instances of injustice largely nd that disrespect facilitates violence among individuals
who are impoverished, in prison, or minorities (Anderson, 1999;
Grifths et al., 2011; Jacobs & Wright, 2006; Messerschmidt, 1993),
suggesting that more strained populations would respond to the experience of interactional injustice with violence. Research in social
psychology also nds that low status groups are concerned more so
with interactional rather than procedural and distributive injustice

(e.g., Simpson & Kaminski, 2007). Similar to other studies that expand
the application of GST to various strained populations (e.g., inmates,
foster youth, police) (Agnew & DeLisi, 2012; Barn & Tan, 2012;
DeLisi, 2011; Foster, 2012; Moon & Jonson, 2012; Morris et al.,
2012), further research should examine the relationship between
the major forms of injustice and crime among the disadvantaged
(Agnew & DeLisi, 2012; DeLisi, 2011).
Moreover, although the racial characteristics of the sample reect
the demographics of the undergraduate population where the study
was conducted, the large number of Asian participants reects something unique about the research location. Yet, it is unclear whether
certain minority participants are foreign nationals. The nding that
whites were more likely to indicate that they would engage in drinking in comparison to non-whites, suggests the need for future research
to assess how culture inuences the injustice crime-relationship. In
spite of the similarities that college students share with other populations, cross-cultural differences remain regarding fairness and moral
reasoning (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzajan, 2010; Weicko, 2010),
which would have signicant implications for how various ethnic
groups may interpret and respond to injustice.
Even though an unjust situation of a peer reneging on buying
drinks was appropriate for the college sample that was used, researchers may wish to employ vignettes that are more applicable
to a general population. Moreover, the behavioral options available
to respondents may be altered in future studies. Although drinking
to excess may not be considered deviant in light of the binge
drinking that occurs on college campuses (OMalley & Johnston,
2002), this act is still considered a crime for students under the
legal drinking age. How injustice facilitates other more serious
forms of non-violent and violent crimes, however, should be
investigated.
Various improvements can also be made regarding the study design. The fact that distributive injustice was always present in this
study and occurred prior to procedural and interactional injustice
serves as a limitation that future research should attempt to address
(van den Bos, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997). The signicant effects of
injustice on crime found in this study reect a cumulative effect between distributive injustice and procedural and interactional injustice, respectively, thus preventing denitive conclusions on which
type of injustice is more criminogenic than others. Distributive, procedural, and interactional injustice should therefore be separated
and randomly ordered so as to determine whether the experience
of interactional injustice before that of a distributive or procedural
injustice better promotes crime or deviance.
The order in which various measures of the survey were presented may also be altered in the future. The measurement of certain
control variables used in this study occurred after respondents read
the vignettes, thereby introducing the possibility that their responses to items that assess the control variables could have been
altered. This is especially relevant when considering how respondents assessed the criminal beliefs of their peers. Being presented
with a vignette in which a peer legitimated crime or deviance in
response to injustice may have led respondents to indicate that
their own peers were more accepting of criminal or deviant behavior. Future studies should attempt to address this potential shortcoming by measuring theoretically relevant controls prior to the
introduction of the vignette.
Despite some of its limitations, this study crucially highlights the
theoretical and empirical relevance of distinguishing between types
of injustice in order to predict crime. Although it is often not possible
to change ones outcomes, ndings suggest that the procedures
and interpersonal treatment involved when those outcomes are received may be altered in order to limit the occurrence of crime and
deviance in response to unjust strains. Furthermore, this study expands upon the criminological literature by further specifying how
383
different types and combinations of injustice inuence the likelihood

that individuals respond to their unfair treatment with criminal or
deviant behavior. The ndings from this project help to rene the
breadth of GST by identifying strains that promote criminal or deviant
coping and increase the scope of the organizational justice literature
by examining how experiences of injustice outside of the work context may encourage criminal or deviant acts.
Notes
1. Even though (in)justice can occur in any situational context, for consistency and
in keeping with the organizational justice literature, I illustrate the various forms of
(in)justice via the use of workplace examples.
2. Although Tyler and Linds (1992) relational model of procedural justice encompasses respect, which is an aspect of interactional justice, the criminological literature
on procedural justice does not make this distinction. Based on extant research (Bies &
Moag, 1986; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2005), I consider the fairness of interpersonal treatment by authorities or peers in the decision-making process
to constitute interactional justice.
3. Although college students are not entirely representative of the general population, they are appropriate for this study because they are in a new and stressful environment and engage in various criminal and deviant acts (Capowich et al., 2001;
Nagin & Paternoster, 1993; Weicko, 2010). College samples have been previously used
to empirically investigate GST (DeLisi, 2011) and college students are similar to noncollege others in terms of their self-reported criminal and delinquent behavior and attitudes (Weicko, 2010). Thirty-four percent of students in this sample indicated that
they have engaged in violence or threatened to engage in violence and 58% admit to
drinking more than four alcoholic beverages in less than two hours.
4. One respondent was over 30 years old. This individual is counted as having
31 years of age.
5. Respondents were also asked to assess their subjective perceptions of injustice
in order to ensure the proper manipulation of procedural and interactional injustice
in the vignette. ANOVAs revealed that procedural injustice predicted subjective perceptions of procedural injustice. Yet, subjective perceptions of interactional injustice
were affected by the manipulations of procedural and interactional injustice,
suggesting that although conceptually distinct, these types of injustice do overlap to
some degree (Bies, 2005; Tyler & Lind, 1992).
6. The vignette presented represents the male version of this scenario. In the female version, the pronouns are changed and Matt is portrayed as Michelle, James as
Jessica, and Paul as Paula.
7. Excluding gender and the manipulation of legitimacy (i.e., whether peers supported or failed to support a criminal or deviant response to injustice), control variables were measured after respondents read the vignettes. Group mean-comparison
tests reveal no signicant differences between each of the vignette groups on control
variables. The only exceptions to this trend occur with negative emotionality and commitment. Individuals who received a vignette depicting interactional injustice were
lower in negative emotionality (mean = 39.08) than those who received a vignette
depicting interactional justice (mean = 40.81; p 0.05). In addition, those who were
assigned a vignette characterized by procedural injustice were lower on commitment
(mean = 15.78), than those assigned a vignette illustrating procedural justice
(mean = 16.51; p 0.01).
8. Respectively, engaging in prior acts of violence and drinking are signicantly
and positively associated with the intention to engage in violence (r = 0.25;
p 0.000) and drinking (r = 0.30; p 0.000), suggesting that those respondents
who have engaged in crime and deviance in the past will also be more likely to engage
in these behaviors in the future when experiencing injustice.
9. Family attachment is measured by the items: I feel close to my father/stepfather and mother/stepmother and I want to be like my father/stepfather and mother/stepmother. Items that assess commitment to conventional institutions consist
of: I try my best at school, I work much harder than my classmates at school, I
want to go to graduate school or professional school after graduation, and I plan on
having a career after I graduate.
10. As no standard errors and condence intervals are produced by the binary mediation program, 500 bootstrap replications were done in order to obtain standard errors for
the direct and indirect effects and 95 percentile condence intervals (STATA, 2012).
11. The total sample size is reduced in the analyses due to the presence of missing
values. When running the models the e(sample) command in STATA was used to ensure
that only those cases that were used to estimate the full model are reected across models.
12. A VIF of 10, or as low as four, may indicate problems with collinearity (OBrien,
2007). The largest VIF for these models was three. Correlations are available upon request.
13. Odds ratios represent the antilogs of logit coefcients. When a predictor is dichotomous, the odds ratio indicates the likelihood of an outcome for one category over another. When a predictor is continuous, the odds ratio identies the likelihood of an outcome
for a one unit change in the predictor (Crawford, Chiricos, & Kleck, 1998).
14. A dichotomous interaction term was created by multiplying the variables of procedural and interactional injustice together.
15. Supplemental analyses were performed to assess whether the interaction between strain and negative emotions increased the likelihood of criminal and deviant
384
coping. The interaction between the various forms and combinations of injustice with anger did not signicantly affect the likelihood of choosing to engage in violence or drinking.
References
Acock, A. C. (2008). A gentle introduction to stata (2nd ed.)College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. II. (pp. 267299)New York: Academic Press.
Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the
types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 319361.
Agnew, R. (2005). Why do criminals offend? A general theory of crime and delinquency.
Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Los Angeles,
CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.
Agnew, R. (2009a). General strain theory: Current status and directions for further
research. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status
of criminological theory (pp. 101123). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Agnew, R. (2009b). Juvenile delinquency: Causes and control (3rd ed.)New York: Oxford
University Press.
Agnew, R., & DeLisi, M. (2012). General strain theory, the criminal justice system and
beyond: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 174175.
Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace:
The role of organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 89, 947965.
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner
city. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradeld, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative affectivity,
and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 10731091.
Aseltine, R. H., Gore, S., & Gordon, J. (2000). Life stress, anger and anxiety, and delinquency:
An Empirical test of general strain theory. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41,
256275.
Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1994). Just and unjust punishment: Inuences
on subordinate performance and citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 37,
299322.
Barn, R., & Tan, J. -P. (2012). Foster youth and crime: Employing general strain theory
to promote understanding. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 212220.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.
Barrett-Howard, E., & Tyler, T. R. (1986). Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation
decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 296304.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to
violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review,
103, 533.
Bembenek, A. F., Beike, D. R., & Schroeder, D. A. (2007). Justice violations, emotional
reactions, and justice-seeking responses. In D. De Cremer (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of justice and affect (pp. 1536). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Berscheid, E., Boye, D., & Walster, E. (1968). Retaliation as a means of restoring equity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 370376.
Bies, R. J. (2005). Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J.
Greenberg, & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 85112).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness.
In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in
organizations (pp. 4355). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust: Getting even and the need for revenge.
In R. M. Kramer, & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 246260). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Brezina, T. (1998). Adolescent maltreatment and delinquency: The question of intervening processes. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 7199.
Brezina, T., Agnew, R., Cullen, F. T., & Wright, J. P. (2004). The code of the street. Youth
Violence and Culture, 2, 303328.
Broidy, L. (2001). A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39, 935.
Broidy, L., & Agnew, R. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 272306.
Capowich, G. E., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (2001). General strain theory, situational
anger, and social networks: An assessment of conditioning inuences. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 29, 445461.
Caspi, A., Moftt, T., Silve, P. A., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Krueger, R. F., & Schmutte, P. S.
(1994). Are some people crime-prone? Replications of the personality-crime relationship across countries, genders, races, and methods. Criminology, 32, 163195.
Chebat, J. -C., & Slusarczyk, W. (2005). How emotions mediate the effects of perceived
justice on loyalty in service recovery situations: An empirical study. Journal of Business Research, 58, 664673.
Cohen, R. L., & Greenberg, J. (1982). The justice concept in social psychology. In J.
Greenberg, & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 141).
New York: Academic Press.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A
meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278321.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice
at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice
research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425445.
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A
historical overview. In J. Greenberg, & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational
justice (pp. 356). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Couper, M. (2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 64, 464494.
Crawford, C., Chiricos, T., & Kleck, G. (1998). Race, racial threat, and sentencing of
habitual offenders. Criminology, 38, 481511.
De Coster, S., & Zito, R. C. (2010). Gender and general strain theory: The gendering of
emotional experiences and expressions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,
26, 224245.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Oetting, E. R., Thwaites, G. A., Lynch, R. S., Baker, D. A., Stark, R. S.,
et al. (1996). State-trait anger theory and the utility of the trait anger scale. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 43, 131148.
DeLisi, M. (2011). How general is general strain theory? Journal of Criminal Justice, 39,
12.
DeMore, S. W., Fisher, J. D., & Baron, R. M. (1988). The equity-control model as a predictor of vandalism among college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18,
8091.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be
used as the basis for distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137149.
Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Burzette, B. G. (2005). Criterion-related validity, self-other
agreement, and longitudinal analyses for the Iowa personality questionnaire: A short
alternative to the MPQ. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 458485.
Eftekhari, A., Turner, A. P., & Larimer, M. E. (2004). Anger expression, coping, and substance use in adolescent offenders. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 10011008.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Folger, R., Roseneld, D., & Robinson, T. (1983). Relative deprivation and procedural
justications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 268273.
Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. (1998). A popcorn metaphor for employee aggression. In R.
W. Grifn, A. OLeary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional behavior in organizations, Part A: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. 4382). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Foster, H. (2012). The strains of maternal imprisonment: Importation and deprivation
stressors for women and children. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 221229.
Francis, L., & Barling, J. (2005). Organizational injustice and psychological strain.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 37, 250261.
Ganem, N. M. (2010). The role of negative emotion in general strain theory. Journal of
Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26, 167185.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Green, D. E. (1989). Measures of illegal behavior in individual-level deterrence
research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 253275.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The
hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561568.
Greenberg, J., & Ganegoda, D. B. (2007). Justice and affect: Where do we stand? In D. De
Cremer (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of justice and affect (pp. 261292).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Grifths, E., Yule, C., & Gartner, R. (2011). Fighting over trivial things: Explaining the
issue of contention in violent altercations. Criminology, 49, 6194.
Hegtvedt, K. A. (2006). Justice frameworks. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary Social
Psychological Theories (pp. 4669). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzajan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? The
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 175.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. London, England: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Jacobs, B. A., & Wright, R. (2006). Street justice: Retaliation in the criminal underworld.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jang, S. J., & Johnson, B. R. (2003). Strain, negative emotions, and deviant coping among
African-Americans: A test of general strain theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
19, 79105.
Jasso, G. (1980). A new theory of distributive justice. American Sociological Review, 45,
332.
Kim, M. -S., & Hunter, J. E. (1993). Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior. Communication Research, 20, 331364.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gerben, M. S.
Greenberg, & R. H. Weiss (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research
(pp. 2755). New York: Plenum.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., Jr., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167218).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Lind, A. E., Kray, L., & Thompson, L. (1998). The social construction of injustice: Fairness
judgments in response to own and others unfair treatment by authorities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 122.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. NY: Plenum.
Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Matthews, S. K. (2009). Self-complexity and crime: Extending general strain theory.
(Doctoral dissertation). Atlanta, GA: Emory University.
Matthews, S. K. (2011). Self-complexity and crime: Extending general strain theory.
Justice Quarterly, 28, 863902.
Mazerolle, P., Burton, V. S., Jr., Cullen, F. T., Evans, D. T., & Payne, G. L. (2000). Strain,
anger, and delinquent adaptations: Specifying general strain theory. Journal of
Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Linking exposure to strain with anger: An investigation of deviant adaptations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 195211.

Mazerolle, P., Piquero, A. R., & Capowich, G. E. (2003). Examining the links between strain,
situational and dispositional anger, and crime. Youth and Society, 35, 131157.
Messerschmidt, J. W. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of
theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littleeld Publishers, Inc.
Mikula, G., Petri, B., & Tanzer, N. (1990). What people regard as unjust: Types and structures of everyday experiences of injustice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20,
133149.
Moon, M. M., & Jonson, C. L. (2012). The inuence of occupational strain on organizational commitment among police: A general strain theory approach. Journal of
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions inuence employee citizenship?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845855.
Morgan, N. W. (2006). The role of negative emotion in general strain theory. (Doctoral
dissertation). Atlanta, GA: Emory University.
Morris, R. G., Carriaga, M. L., Diamond, B., Piquero, N. L., & Piquero, A. R. (2012). Does
prison strain lead to prison misbehavior? An application of general strain theory
to inmate misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 194201.
Murphy, K., & Tyler, T. R. (2008). Procedural justice and compliance behaviour: The
mediating role of emotions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 652668.
Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational
choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review, 27, 467496.
Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression:
Evidence concerning specic forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. Journal
of Management, 24, 391419.
OBrien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance ination factors.
Quality and Quantity, 41, 673690.
OMalley, P. M., & Johnston, L. D. (2002). Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use
among American college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 14, 2339.
Patrick, C. J., Curtin, J. J., & Tellegen, A. (2002). Development and validation of a brief form of
the multidimensional personality questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 14, 150163.
Piquero, A. R., Gomez-Smith, Z., & Langton, L. (2004). Discerning unfairness where others
may not: Low self-control and unfair sanction perceptions. Criminology, 42, 699733.
Piquero, N. L., & Sealock, M. D. (2000). Generalizing general strain theory: An
explanationof an offending population. Justice Quarterly, 17, 449484.
Piquero, N. L., & Sealock, M. D. (2010). Race, crime, and general strain theory. Youth
Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8, 170186.
Rebellon, C. J., Manasse, M. E., Van Gundy, K. T., & Cohn, E. S. (2012). Perceived injustice
and delinquency: A test of general strain theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40,
230237.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1, Whole No. 609).
385
Shi, J., Lin, H., Wang, L., & Wang, M. (2009). Linking the big ve personality constructs
to organizational justice. Social Behavior and Personality, 37, 209222.
Simpson, P. A., & Kaminski, M. (2007). Gender, organizational justice perceptions, and
union organizing. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 19, 5772.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434443.
Slocum, L. A. (2010). General strain theory and continuity in offending over time:
Assessing and extending GST explanations of persistence. Journal of Contemporary
Speilberger, C. D. (1999). STAXI-2: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
STATA (2012). Stata faq: How can I perform mediation with binary variables? Retrieved
from. http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/faq/binary_mediation.htm
Stecher, M. D., & Rosse, J. G. (2005). The distributive side of interactional justice:
The effects of interpersonal treatment on emotional arousal. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 17, 229246.
Storms, P. L., & Spector, P. E. (1987). Relationships of organizational frustration with
reported behavioral reactions: The moderating effect of perceived control. Journal
of Occupational Psychology, 20, 227234.
Swatt, M. L., Gibson, C. L., & Piquero, N. L. (2007). Exploring the utility of general strain
theory in explaining problematic alcohol consumption by police ofcers. Journal of
Tata, J. (2000). Inuence of role and gender on the use of distributive versus procedural
justice principles. Journal of Psychology, 134, 261268.
Tepper, B. J. (2001). Health consequences of organizational injustice: Tests of main
and interactive effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86,
197215.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tyler, T., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. J. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group
procedures matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913930.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 25. (pp. 115191)New York:
Academic Press.
van den Bos, K., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). Procedural and distributive justice:
What is fair depends more on what comes rst than on what comes next. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 95104.
Van Yperen, N. W., Hagedoorn, M., Zweers, M., & Postma, S. (2000). Injustice and
employees destructive responses: The mediating role of state negative affect.
Social Justice Research, 13, 291312.
Weicko, F. M. (2010). Research Note: Assessing the validity of college samples: Are
students really that different? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 11861190.

The Relationship Between Injustice and Crime

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Relationship Between Injustice and Crime

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375385

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Criminal Justice

The relationship between injustice and crime: A general strain

Available online 13 September 2013

of injustice with crime or deviance (Aquino, Lewis, & Bradeld, 1999;

H.L. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375385

an emotion associated with injustice that is especially important in

H.L. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375385

Strain, emotions, and crime

GST and the organizational justice literature predict that injustice

H.L. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375385

H1. In conjunction with a distributive injustice, the experience of interactional

Mediating and dependent variables

To ensure internal validity, a vignette depicting an unjust situation

H.L. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375385

Dependent Variables (0 = not likely;

intention to commit crime or deviance, I control for factors that may

H.L. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375385

injustice affects the likelihood of intending to drink, but not engaging

p .10+, p .05*, p .01**, p .000*** (two-tailed tests).

H.L. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375385

Logit Regression Injustice

OLS Regression Injustice

Logit Regression Anger on

Logit Regression Anger

p .10+, p .05*, p .01**, p .000*** (two-tailed tests).

1.24 times (p 0.01) (Model 3). In addition, when anger is present,

OLS Regression Injustice

Logit Regression Anger

Logit Regression Anger

p .10+, p .05*, p .01**, p .000*** (two-tailed tests).

H.L. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375385

emotionality, with whites and those high in negative emotionality

H.L. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375385

with interactional rather than procedural and distributive injustice

different types and combinations of injustice inuence the likelihood

H.L. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375385

H.L. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375385

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

p .10+, p .05, p .01, p .000 (two-tailed tests).

p .10+, p .05, p .01, p .000 (two-tailed tests).

p .10+, p .05, p .01, p .000 (two-tailed tests).