You are on page 1of 11

Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375–385

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 specific 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, & Bradfield, 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 findings 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

and crime. 2005. On the other hand. 2005). resentment. Inadequate justification for a change in procedures that results in reduced outcomes fosters feelings of resentment (Folger. and effort (Cohen & Greenberg. Griffiths. such as joy and hope (Chebat & Slusarczyk. 1999. 1965. Homans. Rules that establish interactional justice that have a direct association with crime include respect and propriety. or engage in theft (Greenberg. 1965. Consistency across persons would occur if all persons applying for the same job are given the same aptitude test. & Postma. 1982). & Wright. while propriety requires that individuals should not ask any inappropriate questions or make prejudicial statements toward others (Bies. 1965. Colquitt et al. 2006). owing to feelings that one is a respected group member. 2005) and focuses on the quality of interpersonal treatment that individuals experience when organizational procedures are enacted (Bies & Moag.. Greenberg. procedure. while the bias suppression rule necessitates that personal self-interest and narrow preconceptions are suppressed when an allocation is made. and the experience of disrespect fosters the occurrence of criminal behavior (e. 2000). Underrewarded individuals may demand restitution. which are examined in this study. 1998). Agnew. 1996) and with authorities and the law (Murphy & Tyler. 2001). which in turn may lead people to retaliate against the perpetrator of injustice or to attempt to restore justice to the situation (Adams. satisfaction. I show how different forms of injustice foster intentions to engage in criminal behavior via negative emotions. while consistency across time specifies that evaluation criteria for workers remain stable. 2008). Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375–385 an emotion associated with injustice that is especially important in predicting whether or not crime occurs in response to strain. 2001). Experiencing procedural injustice reduces compliance with the groups to which individuals belong (Tyler et al. the more distress individuals experience. When perceptions of an outcome. For instance. cooperative. Fisher. strain. 2001). I detail the three central forms of injustice and their relationship to crime. & Gartner.g.. Using a vignette study of 320 undergraduate students. then bias suppression would not be met (Colquitt et al. Below. such as altruism and courtesy (Moorman. 2006). 2005) and may result in the expression of anger. The . & Robinson. If individuals perceive that they cannot alter the system that has led to their distributive injustice. 2000). Interactional injustice. in contrast. while inputs include training. Brezina. procedural injustice produces negative emotions (e. 2005). Porter.L. and the harder they will attempt to restore equity (Jasso. Yule. or treatment do not match a particular justice rule. 1980). Respect involves treating others with sincerity and dignity. Individuals value procedural fairness because it allows them to have control over the decision-making process to ensure a fair outcome (Thibaut & Walker. For instance. These rules have been judged to be the most important for determining procedural fairness in informal. The consistency rule guarantees that procedures are consistent across persons and time. 1983) and prompts corrective action to modify that procedure (Leventhal et al. 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.. Interactional justice Interactional justice is conceptually distinct from procedural justice (e. In contrast. which may mediate the relationship between procedural injustice and behavior (Murphy & Tyler. The greater the perceived inequity. 1980).. & Fry. Anderson. 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. seniority. 1961). Conlon.. 1968).. 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. while perceptions of inequity lead individuals to experience distress and dissatisfaction (Adams. I first review the social psychological literature on the association between injustice and crime and then apply GST to further clarify the link between injustice. 2002. they may inflict punishment on the party they think is the most responsible for their plight (Aquino et al. when followed. anger). 1980). Rosenfield..g.. Pride and respect cultivate group-serving behavior (Tyler. individuals experience emotional distress. 1961). 1986). Outcomes are considered to be items received from an exchange or allocation. refer to Leventhal. Cullen.. ensure that just means are used to allocate rewards or resources (Leventhal. Colquitt et al. Berscheid. Hegtvedt. 2001. Anger reduces the perceived costs of crime. These interpersonal elements of interactional justice have an important role in predicting workplace aggression and retaliation (Folger & Skarlicki. Homans.g. 2001. predicts negative emotions. Distributive justice Distributive justice refers to the fairness of the outcome of the allocation of resources in a group or exchange (Adams. Although many rules characterize procedural justice. 1975) or because they want to receive beneficial social outcomes by being perceived as valued members of their group (Lind & Tyler. interactional injustice would occur if an individual ignores the concerns of his or her coworker and insults that person (Van Yperen et al. 1999). 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. If an employer hires someone or favorably evaluates an individual because doing so in some way serves the personal self-interest of the employer. hearing the concerns a coworker may have about a policy at work and treating that person in a polite manner would uphold interactional fairness. 2008) and fosters relationships by enhancing self-esteem and pride in one’s group. In what follows. 1980). 2005) and prosocial behaviors. Zweers. Boye. Degoey. Moreover. Aquino et al. Interactional justice is associated with positive emotions.g.376 H. & Walster. Karuza. retaliate against the harmdoer (Ambrose et al. and bitterness (Stecher & Rosse.1 Perceptions of equity result in feelings of contentment. 1990). Cohen-Charash & Spector. Hagedoorn. & Zapata-Phelan. 1996) and compliance with authorities and the law. Bies. 1965). 1991). 1980). 1988). a situation resulting in the perception of distributive justice (Adams. here I focus on the rules of consistency and bias suppression (for a full discussion. 1999. which states that individuals compare the outcome-input ratio of two or more actors to determine if their rewards are commensurate with their contributions. 2005.2 Procedural justice promotes happiness (Murphy & Tyler. such as anxiety and disgust (Chebat & Slusarczyk.. & Smith. & Ng. 2005). 1988)... I conclude with the discussion of the implications of these results for understanding the injustice-crime relationship. which may consist of pay or intrinsic satisfaction. Wesson. and commitment. 2004. creates a desire for revenge. 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. and motivates an individual for action. Administering aptitude tests of varying difficulty and changing established practices of performance evaluation would violate perceptions of procedural justice (Leventhal. and unequal groups (Barrett-Howard & Tyler. This relationship is formally expressed by equity theory. Colquitt.. or vandalism (DeMore. 2008). 2011). Procedural justice Principles of procedural justice encompass rules that.. 1986) and resources are distributed (Colquitt et al. which may prompt individuals to “get even” upon the receipt of injustice (Agnew. & Baron.

2001.g. interactional injustice produces negative affect.. Kray. Broidy. 2001. 2000) and that disrespect fosters the occurrence of criminal behavior (Anderson. Mazerolle. 2000).. 1997). 1998. As studies substantiate the greater impact of interactional injustice (e. Inadequate material outcomes (distributive injustice) constitute a fundamental form of strain that can occur in combination with different levels of procedural and interactional injustice. Bies & Tripp.g. This emotion allows individuals to ignore information that may aid in resolving a stressful situation and impedes one’s ability to coherently express concern about his or her unfair treatment. These negative emotions mediate the relationship between injustice and workplace deviance (Van Yperen et al. Trevino.. Van Yperen et al. and reduce the likelihood of legal forms of coping (Agnew... if they have occurred recently (recency). 2012. undeserved punishment (distributive injustice) and unfair procedures to allocate certain outcomes (procedural injustice) (Agnew. Ganem. I expect interactional injustice to have a greater effect on crime than procedural injustice. the actual or anticipated loss of positively valued stimuli (e. & Sims. 2001). Cullen. negative relations with parents or peers). Mazerolle & Piquero. 2003. but that violations of distributive injustice must also be accompanied by interactional injustice (Greenberg & Ganegoda. In comparison to procedural and interactional injustice. values. 1994). the presentation of noxious stimuli may include negative relationships with others and victimization.. or both interactional and procedural injustice. 2010). Van Yperen et al.. Evans. which may involve workplace sabotage (Ambrose et al.e. Strains are more likely viewed as unjust when individuals perceive that a particular justice norm has been intentionally and voluntarily violated. & Piquero. and if they threaten the core goals. Broidy. 2005. 1990). Therefore. or the presentation of noxious stimuli (e. 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. and occur frequently. Burton. 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. 2005). because this type of injustice damages one’s self-view. 2001. Strains are seen as high in magnitude if they are long in duration and occur frequently (duration and frequency). and interactional injustice are present (Skarlicki & Folger.g. Mazerolle. Independent of distributive and procedural injustice. 1998).. 2007. more so than other types of injustice (Greenberg & Ganegoda. 1998. and engaging in aggression. A person may have less money (distributive injustice). and increases the likelihood that deviant behaviors will be pursued (Skarlicki & Folger. and status (interactional injustice) than is expected or desired. Even though all three forms of injustice can be recent. the various types of injustice give rise to greater negative affect (Van Yperen et al. Capowich et al. Petri. 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.H. in addition to being viewed as instances of interactional injustice (Agnew. frustration. Van Yperen et al. reduce perceived costs associated with crime. Jang & Johnson. Brezina et al. Studies show that anger mediates the relationship between strain and crime (Aseltine et al. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375–385 negative emotions associated with interactional injustice are correlated with retaliation. needs. Griffiths et al. 2004..g. 1998). Piquero & Sealock. Interactional injustice is damaging to one’s identity and psyche (Bies & Tripp.. 1996). 2000). 2000). Anger is presumed to be associated with injustice (Agnew. 2000. 2001). 1997. In combination. such as recency and centrality to self that are more likely to produce criminal coping (Agnew. 2005. Piquero & Sealock. and retaliation (Ball. fear. 2000). physical and verbal assaults) may be perceived as unjust because they illustrate the receipt of harsh or unexpected outcomes. Brezina. and crime Whether crime occurs in response to strain depends also upon on the type of emotions that occur when strain is experienced. which is not offset even in the presence of another form of justice. Brezina. Strains that are most likely to foster crime are perceived to be high in magnitude and unjust. 2006). Unjust strains that produce anger are more likely to lead to criminal behavior (Agnew. those strains that facilitate crime (e. 2001.. including disrespectful treatment (interactional injustice).. Combinations of injustice Crime is more likely when distributive. (2000) find that interactional injustice is the only significant type of injustice affecting individuals’ intentions to behave destructively upon the experience of a problematic event. which represents characteristics of strains. Mikula. . 2006).. which may involve employees stealing more (Lind. and depression. long in duration. 2001. 2000).L. which can reflect feelings of anger. 2001). These emotions will more likely produce criminal behavior as they pressure individuals to engage in corrective action.. 2001). procedural justice (Van Yperen et al.. and resentment. In addition. activities. 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. thereby producing very intense negative emotional responses (Bies. 2000. 2005. Jang & Johnson. 377 Strain. autonomy (procedural injustice). centrality is more relevant to the concept of interactional injustice. 2001. 2000). foster a disposition for crime. procedural. and/or produce severe harm to the individual represent instances of distributive injustice. 1997). 1998. Van Yperen et al.. 2007). The justice literature also finds that distributive injustice may predispose individuals to consider the prospect of reacting aggressively. Stecher & Rosse. Those strains that are viewed as undeserved. the ending of a romantic relationship). in order to facilitate aggressive acts (Skarlicki & Folger. 2011). 2003.. emotions. distributive injustice may be perceived in a wider array of situations in which a strain is intentionally and voluntarily inflicted. & Tanzer. Strains may involve the inability of individuals to achieve their goals. Strains foster the negative emotions of anger. 1999. Stecher & Rosse. 2001.. The removal of these valued rewards and treatment can also represent the loss of positively valued stimuli. & Payne. Stecher & Rosse. for exceptions see Mazerolle & Piquero. outrage. 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. revenge. 1996). not in the service of a higher cause or authority. The additional presence of interactional injustice should further increase the likelihood of criminal coping in response to strain characterized by distributive injustice. 1999.. 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. Anger is more likely to predict the occurrence of aggressive crimes than criminal acts such as shoplifting or driving while intoxicated (Capowich. Rebellon et al. 2000). 1997). and/ or identities of the victim (centrality) (Agnew. i. 2001. & Thompson. 2002) and interpersonal aggression (Skarlicki & Folger.

2004. Interested participants received a link to an online survey via email that measured perceptions of justice.10). Research on trait anger suggests it is likely to produce state anger. and Mazerolle et al. 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.. Participants evaluated their likelihood of engaging in a serious criminal response. and were confident that their responses would reflect their actual behaviors (Mean = 5. how easy it was for them to imagine being in the scenario. SD = 1. students were asked how believable the scenario was. the actor was called a “jerk” by a friend who was supposed to buy the actor a certain amount of drinks.6 Manipulated sections are presented in italics. while non-violent deviant behavior reflects the option of drinking to excess in response to perceived injustice. In this scenario. which is associated with violent and non-violent deviant behavior (Eftekhari. As the scenario depicted same-sex peer relationships. which reflected excessive drinking. 7 = very).e. . They differ from trait emotions. To ensure adequate gender representation.e. To ensure that the scenario’s behavioral responses reflect what participants would actually do in response to the unjust situation. 1993). Violent behavior is assessed by the options of hitting and pushing or shoving the perpetrator of injustice (α = . These variables ranged from “1” to “7.87). 1998. or a stable dimension of one’s personality that fosters the experience of certain emotions across situations (Deffenbacher et al. I control for sex composition of the actors with whom the respondent envisions interacting and power differences in terms of gender. 2010). 1975). The dependent variables represented criminal or deviant behavior that would allow individuals to seek retribution or to restore justice. Mazerolle & Piquero.62. 1986. Ganem. whose vignettes were informed by Capowich et al. Moreover. To ensure internal validity. Asian (n = 115).. 2000). I hypothesize that: the fact that the perpetrator of injustice. Adams. 1989) and attitudes. violence. Only 60 individuals indicated that they would respond to this scenario violently. As this affective state arose directly from the situation.3 Students were informed that the survey would assess how individuals perceive and respond to stressful situations. 2001). Intentions to offend closely reflect behavior (Green. High scorers on this measure experienced higher levels of anger in response to the scenario (Mean = 3.95. and behaviors are highly correlated (Kim & Hunter. The relationship between these various types and combinations of injustice and crime should be mediated by negative emotions (e. which represents a distributive injustice. southern university in the United States. I expect that an unjust situation is especially likely to promote the creation of emotions that may lead to criminal behavior (Agnew. 2001). were able to imagine themselves in the situation (Mean = 4. and a non-violent deviant response.. procedural and interactional injustice will interact to increase the likelihood of criminal behavior. H3. this theory focuses on the effect of state emotions on criminal coping.00 for their participation. & Piquero. respectively. while 156 individuals selected that they would drink to excess. 2010. it represents a situational emotion. I drew from Morgan (2006) and Matthews (2009).. 1996). In actuality. or other (n = 35).76). 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. 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. (2001).90).e. Under conditions of distributive injustice. Anger will mediate the relationship between injustice and crime. SD = 1.g. The sample ranges in age from 18 through 31 years with a mean of 19. 2007.. a quota sampling design was used and the survey link was deactivated when 160 males and 160 females had participated in the study. or of seeking out delinquent others who can serve as criminal models (Swatt et al.4 Mirroring the undergraduate population.54 (SD = 1. 1975). In conjunction with a distributive injustice. and how confident they were that their answers would reflect what they would actually do in the situation. Capowich et al. i. Insofar as the experience of injustice is stressful or costly for individuals. Agnew. Mazerolle and Piquero (1998). 2011.g.54)..” with higher scores indicating greater agreement between their intended and actual behaviors. Procedural justice is operationalized as any procedure used by the perpetrator of distributive injustice that did not put his or her needs first (adhering to bias suppression) and gave a person similar to the respondent the same treatment (adhering to consistency).378 H.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. and that state anger mediates the impact of strain on criminal behavior more so than trait anger does (Mazerolle. Methods A convenience sample of undergraduate students was recruited from 58 courses in the natural and social sciences and humanities at a large. the experience of interactional injustice should serve as a stronger predictor of crime than the experience of procedural injustice. Gibson. respondents perceived the scenario to be realistic (Mean = 5. & Capowich. private. SD = 1. 2003). the decision-maker. respondents took the role of a person who received fewer drinks than what he or she was promised from the perpetrator of injustice.. according to a Likert scale (1 = not at all likely. criminological studies have routinely used vignettes successfully to predict offending (e..85. State emotions are produced in response to a particular environmental trigger.. Deutsch. which reflect a dispositional tendency. Due to the fact that GST predicts a contemporaneous effect of strain on the facilitation of crime or deviance. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375–385 H1. i.. while the rest of the sample is black (n = 33). 1965. the plurality of the sample is white (n = 137). SD = 1. Thus. On average.L. (2003) to construct the scenario described below. Despite being critiqued for not assessing actual behaviors but behavioral intentions. I hypothesize that: H2.79) (see Table 1 for all descriptive statistics). multiracial. Respondents were compensated $10. Ganem. intentions.15. 2003). Matthews. 2007). Turner. and Hispanic. & Larimer. Piquero. Van Yperen et al. receiving sanctions from others) to address their unfair treatment. After reading the vignette. felt emotions. 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. and anticipated behavioral responses to strain. experiencing multiple forms of injustice should enhance one’s emotional distress (Swatt. a vignette depicting an unjust situation was randomly assigned to respondents. 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. which in turn may reduce the perceived costs of criminal responses (i. Mazerolle et al. 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. Independent variables In the vignette. 7 = very likely). 2001. Experiencing injustice from a known other produces anger.

18. α = . 2005). are aggressive. Paul says to you. SD = 7. α = .73).50 0. SD = 4.18 16. Storms & Spector.90).50 0.02. Negative emotionality is a 15-item scale that assesses the extent individuals experience stress. Peer criminal beliefs represent eight items that assess how wrong an individual’s peers think it is to violate the law.29 17. Matt decided he needs to get those drinks for James tonight. SD = 4.96 44. 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. Paul says to you.39 0. Curtin.75.63. Respondents read: When you insist that Matt owes you three drinks. “Don’t worry about Matt. & Wang.79 1 7 320 320 0. 2006.50 0.23 18. α = . Lin. he’s just drunk.7 Gender and race are dichotomous variables with males and non-whites serving as the reference categories. Minimum Maximum 318 320 0. he promised James that night that he would buy him more drinks. α = . Higher scores specify that respondents have an external locus of control or that powerful others. Opera. locus of control.33. 1 = female) Race (0 = non-white.. When you ask if Matt could buy you a drink. and feel exploited by others (Mean = 39.H.75 12. SD = 15. and commitment to conventional institutions (Agnew. the perceived criminal or deviant beliefs of peers and whether they support crime or deviance in response to injustice. Twenty-five items measured respondents’ prior crime and deviance for drug use. drink or use drugs. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375–385 Table 1 Descriptive statistics Dependent Variables (0 = not likely.45 5. Constraint is a 12-item scale that measures the degree to which respondents are adventurous and engage in risky behaviors (Mean = 44.85 1. Hirschi. 1994.” Legitimacy of deviant behavior thus serves as a dummy variable with “1” representing low conventional legitimacy.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 It’s a typical Friday night and you and your friend Paul have just agreed to meet your friend Matt at the club. in the scenario a peer actor either supported conventional behavior by endorsing the actions of the perpetrator of injustice (high conventional legitimacy). Matt tells you that he decided he’ll buy both you and James one drink and will make it up to you another time. Wang. I control for factors that may affect whether one perceives injustice and would engage in crime upon experiencing strain. Locus of control was measured using Rotter’s (1966) Locus of Control Scale. These items come from a version of the National Youth Survey. In contrast. He can buy your other drinks another time. negative emotionality. & Langton. prior delinquency. family attachment. SD = 4.Upon entering the club. α = . Matt had told you that he would buy you three drinks tonight because you bought him three drinks last Friday. constraint.” In contrast. You should just hit him. Gomez-Smith. 5 = once a week or more) in the past year (Mean = 39.83. Tata.96. hit another.8 Respondents indicated how frequently they perpetrated those acts (1 = never. the perpetrator of injustice appeared to adhere to the rules of respect and propriety. & Tellegen. as adapted by Matthews (2009). Piquero. and cheating.49 2. minor assault.75 16. 1987. 1990. In addition.18. Speilberger’s (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). Gottfredson & Hirschi. 2002).29.33 15. And. Shi. Negative emotionality and constraint are assessed by The Iowa Personality Questionnaire (IPQ) (Donnellan.L. Eight-items assess whether respondents express their anger outwardly (Mean = 16.19 0. Before you went out.04. Matt politely agrees with you and thanks you for buying him the other drinks last week. Mean S.04 4.80) (1 = almost never. 1 = likely) Violent Behavior Drinking Mediating Variables Anger Independent Variables (0 = justice. “I can’t believe you’re taking this crap from Matt. 4 = almost always). Interactional injustice. Interactional justice was manipulated by having the perpetrator of injustice show concern for the actor and be polite in the described situation. 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. Piquero & Sealock. By doing so.81 6. or chance determine events (Mean = 12.18 4.50 7. 1969. forgetting about you. High scores indicate frequent engagement in prior crime or deviance. or supported deviant or criminal behavior by suggesting the respondent engage in crime or deviance in response to injustice (low conventional legitimacy). Let it go.74) (Patrick. . for the low conventional legitimacy condition respondents read: While this is happening. he owes you a lot of drinks. 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. These include gender. however.15 0.50 0 0 1 1 318 3.50 0 0 1 1 320 320 302 299 305 304 306 302 320 305 320 320 0. SD = 6. 2010.D. Respondents read: When you insist that Matt owes you some drinks. & Burzette. Caspi et al. sexual violence.81) while eight-items assess whether participants keep things in (Mean = 18.81.50 0. 2004. steal. or cheat (1 = always wrong.72).87). 2000). α = .50 39.23. 5 = never wrong) (Mean = 17. Higher scores reflect higher than average levels of negative emotionality and constraint.49 0. SD = 5. 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. Matt calls you a jerk and then blatantly ignores you. Matt tells you that he can’t because he wants to get James more drinks.50 15.66 4.63 0. 2000).83 3.49 0.43 39.45. for a few drinks. procedural injustice occurred when the respondent failed to receive an outcome because the perpetrator of distributive injustice put his or her needs first (violating bias suppression) and gave a person similar to the respondent the expected outcome (violating consistency).. Conger.02 0. race. respondents read: While this is happening. Respondents read: When you ask if Matt could buy you a drink. High scorers on these items either are more likely to express their anger or to keep their anger in. trait anger. 1 = injustice) Procedural Justice Interactional Justice Control Variables Gender (0 = male. α = 0. For the high conventional legitimacy condition. fate. theft. High scores on this measure reveal that the respondent perceived his or her friends to be tolerant of criminal or deviant behavior. 2009. vandalism.66.

45 0. Anger also increases the odds of intending to respond violently to an unjustified affront by 2.04 0.10 Three conditions must be met in order to detect a mediation effect: injustice must be significantly associated with violence and anger.04 0.08* 0. which are interpreted in terms of odds ratios. Interactional injustice affects the likelihood of intending to drink. 2008).10* 0.04 0.51 0. participants are indicating their likelihood of responding to a distributive injustice with criminal or deviant behavior when procedural injustice.31 0.03 0.12 Results Table 2 presents the results for the relationship between injustice and crime.000) (Model 3).63 0. 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) Negative Emotionality Constraint Locus of Control Anger Expressed Outwardly Anger Expressed Inwardly Peer Criminal Beliefs Low Legitimacy Prior Crime Family Attachment Commitment N LR χ2(df) Log Likelihood McFadden R2 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Odds Ratios SE Odds Ratios SE Odds Ratios SE Odds Ratios SE 2.04 0.21 0.91 2.10(14)** -153.80* 0.95 250 40.05 0. Also. moreover.34 (Model 4).07 0.09 250 58.05 0. failing to support Hypothesis 2 (Table 2).06* 0. .20** 1.82 1. 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. Rather.70 0.14 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.05 0.32 0. suggesting a substantial mediation effect. Then. when a distributive injustice is experienced.28 0.05) (Model 1).80 0.96 250 41. p ≤ . Hypothesis 3 is supported as anger does mediate the relationship between injustice and crime.71 0. Females and those who are highly constrained are less likely to indicate they would engage in violence than males and those low in constraint.94+ 0. family attachment is assessed by four items that asked respondents how close they are to their parents/stepparents (1 = strongly disagree.13 1.09 250 58.04 0. As shown in Table 3.04 0.06 p ≤ . the effect of procedural injustice on violence is reduced to non-significance with the odds ratio decreasing from 2. p ≤ 0.93+ 1. 5 = strongly agree) (Mean = 15.05 0.95 0.04 0.11 Examination of correlation matrices and variance inflation factors (VIF) for the major variables reveal that multicollinearity is not a problem.20** 1.380 H.02 0.16*** 0.26 0. 1986).04 0. Analytic strategy I first 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.03 0.03 0.01 0. p ≤ . with females and those high in constraint being less likely to use violence than males and those low in constraint.80 times (p ≤ 0.05 0. when anger is present. 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.12 0.25 0.04 0.01**.10 1.03 0.04 0.83 0.02 0.10 1.70 0.94 1.75.13 times (p ≤ 0. Mean = 2.88(14)*** -89.16*** 0.25 2.04 0.25 0.52(15)** -152. 1997). in fact.03 0.62).9 High scorers on these measures indicate individuals who are highly attached to their parents/stepparents or to conventional institutions.55. Hypothesis 1 is partially supported. the presence of procedural injustice increases the odds of intending to respond violently by 2.12 0.10* 0.15.40 times (p ≤ 0.13 Despite the fact that distributive injustice is always present in the vignette.08 0.80*** 1.98 1. The interaction between procedural and interactional injustice.04 0. and enhances anger (b = 1.L.06 0.51 1. is also present.20 0.04 0. procedural injustice has a much stronger relationship with violence than interactional injustice. but not engaging in violence (Table 2). In combination with a distributive injustice.40* 1. perceive their friends to have criminal or deviant attitudes.97 1.01 1.95 0.25 0.99 0.83*** 1.55 to 1.96(15)*** -89. SD = 3.76).91 0.87 0.06* 0.09 0. in reporting the results I emphasize that participants are not only responding to manipulations of procedural and interactional injustice. constraint. does not predict crime in response to a distributive injustice.000*** (two-tailed tests).03 0.82 0. 5 = strongly agree) (Mean = 16. and family attachment also influence whether one intends to respond to injustice with violence.03 0. individuals who are high in negative emotionality.01 1.26 0.05 0.08* 0.03 0.02+ 1. Furthermore.10+. interactional injustice. 2012). Results are based on a total of 320 respondents. or a combination of the two. and are attached to their family are more likely to intend to engage in violence than those who do not share these traits.02 0.21 0.94+ 0.08 0.28 0.05).01 0.04 0. In contrast. and anger must significantly predict violence when controlling for injustice (Baron & Kenny. Gender. In contrast. Surprisingly.04 0. the experience of procedural injustice increases the propensity for violence (OR = 2.13.86** 0.69+ 2.02+ 1. anger must be significantly associated with violence.05*.93+ 1.03 0.07 0. Attachment to conventional institutions is measured by four items that asked students about their educational and occupational goals and plans (1 = strongly disagree. interactional injustice facilitates the likelihood of drinking by increasing the odds of this behavior by 1. p ≤ 0. p ≤ . peer criminal beliefs. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375–385 Last.03 0.000) (Model 2).88 1.87 1. the effect of the control variables on the various behavioral responses to injustice holds when accounting for the interaction between procedural and interactional injustice.31 1.51 1.05).69.99 0.97 1. α = .53 1.51 1.49. robust ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions are performed when this emotion serves as a dependent variable (Acock. As anger is slightly negatively skewed and has thick tails.98 1.86** 0.16 0.04 0.90 2.80 0. α = . In addition.94 1.

02+ 1.02 0.03 0.06 0.06* 0.25 0. anger.00 1.07 1. When a distributive injustice is experienced.05* 0.66 0.13*** 0.19 0.03 0.03 0.59 1.02 -0. anger does appear to mediate the effect of interactional injustice on the intention to engage in drinking.12.83(15)*** -77.04 0.02 1.01) (Model 2).21 0.21 – 0.01 0.25 0.11 249 249 42. when anger is present.81 0. As illustrated in Table 4.89 1.12 44.26 0. respectively.99 0.88 – 0.04*** 0.21 0.08 0.02 0.88 1.07 0.44(14)** -152.97 1.L.28 0.34 p ≤ .24 2.25 0.01**. and violence PJ IJ Anger Female Race (White) Negative Emotionality Constraint Locus of Control Anger Expressed Outwardly Anger Expressed Inwardly Peer Criminal Beliefs Low Legitimacy Prior Crime Family Attachment Commitment Constant N R2 F(df) LR χ2(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 b β SE Odds Ratios SE Odds Ratios SE 2. p ≤ .04 0.91 1.03 0.58 0.06 0.21 – 0.04 0.02 0.13*** 0.93+ 1.02 0.28 0.98 1.22 0.02 0.06 -0.H.01 0.02 0. p ≤ . Note.99 0.01 0.54 1.45+ 1.14 -0.04 0.10 0.02 0.00 1.234)*** 0.03 – – 0.94 – – 0.04 0.10 0. 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.59 (Model 4). Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375–385 381 Table 3 Logit and OLS regressions of the relationship between injustice.04 0.02 0.17*** 0.94+ 0.18 and 0. p ≤ .06 0.02 0. p ≤ .97+ 1.94 1.20 0.05*.06* 0.02 -0.06 0.09 0. p ≤ .67** 1.01 0.05+ 0.89 2.60 0.21 0.00 0. anger.09* 0.19 0.24 0.75 – 0.24 0.73.85 2.234)*** 0.10+.000*** (two-tailed tests).01 0.85** 0. in comparison to procedural injustice.06 0.34 80.31 0.02 0.94+ 0.54 0.04 0.03 0. p ≤ .02(13)** -151.10+.92(14.01 0.04 0.05*.24 0.51 – 0.25 0.55 – – 2.02* -0.03 0. Anger also increases the odds of intending to drink in response to injustice by 1. this effect is modest. the total indirect and direct effects of procedural injustice on violence are 0.15 0.05 1.08* 0.01**.03 0.10* 0. When a distributive injustice is experienced.000*** (two-tailed tests).26** 1.09 0.03 and 0.63.24 249 249 80.20 0.46 0.03 0.06 0.06 -0.00 0.93+ 1.01 0.26 0.53 0.34 0.08 0.06 -0.63** – 0.05 0.92(14. The proportion of the total effect of procedural injustice on violence that is mediated by anger is 0.93+ 1.18 – 0.03 0. The experience of interactional injustice increases the propensity for drinking (OR = 1.06 1.01 1.10 249 57.05 0.10 1.10 1.24** 0.13*** 0.32 0.04 0.95 0.05 0.04 0. the total indirect and direct effects of interactional injustice on drinking are 0.05 0.78. In addition.04 0.26** 1.04 0.20 0.45+ 1.96 0.34 1.05 0.10 0.62** 1.77 0.05+ 0.55 – – 1.01 -0.03 0.55* 1.03 0.01 -0.03 0.79 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.94 0.04 0.82*** 0.01) (Model 3).84 2.23 6.11 1.03 0.77** 1. p ≤ 0. The proportion of the total effect of interactional injustice on drinking that is mediated by anger is 0.97+ 1.04 0.08 0.26 0.90 1.10 0.03 0.34 0.82*** 0.02 1.63** – 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.78(15)** -150.05 0.04 0.13 p ≤ .18 – 0.12*** 0.23 6.05 0.78 to 1.19** 1.73 249 0.03 0.02 0.73 249 0.06 0.41(14)*** -88.03 0.01 0.07.61 0.11 0.97 1.06 249 39.02 0.91 1.23* 0.05) (Model 1) and enhances anger (b = 0.12*** 0.94+ 0.99 0. suggesting a partial mediation effect.03 0.04 0.32 0.06 0.21 0.05 1.04 0.02 0. respectively.25 0.06 0.05+ 0. the effect of interactional injustice on drinking is reduced to non-significance with the odds ratio decreasing from 1.03 0.02 -0.82 0.03 0.03 0.26 0.02 0.14 -0.04 0. Note.20 0.02* -0. and drinking Logit Regression Injustice on Drinking OLS Regression Injustice on Anger Model 1 PJ IJ Anger Female Race (White) Negative Emotionality Constraint Locus of Control Anger Expressed Outwardly Anger Expressed Inwardly Peer Criminal Beliefs Low Legitimacy Prior Crime Family Attachment Commitment Constant N R2 F(df) LR χ2(df) Log Likelihood McFadden R2 Logit Regression Anger on Drinking Logit Regression Anger and Injustice on Drinking Model 2 Model 4 Odds Ratios SE b β SE Odds Ratios SE Odds Ratios SE 1.96 1.03 0.04 0.89 1.27 0.05* 0.03 0.06 0.78* – 0.05 0.05 0.22. p ≤ 0.06 0. did not have as great of an effect on the experience of anger.03 0.06 -0.10 0.03 0. however.14(13)*** -77.24 times (p ≤ 0.01 0. This small reduction in odds ratios may be due to the fact that interactional injustice.21 0.05 0. .02 -0. they would engage in violence than those who do not perceive their peers approve of crime and are not strongly attached to their families.59 0.10* 0.21 0.

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. Jang & Johnson. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375–385 emotionality. 1997). 2001. and separately by interactional injustice.. however. 2006. anger more strongly mediated the relationship between procedural injustice and violence. In support of Hypothesis 3. & Boden. Smart. Women tend to experience depression and anxiety in addition to anger in response to strain. 2010). This study also finds that procedural injustice predicts the intention to engage in violence in response to a distributive injustice.g. These findings suggest that the combined presence of procedural and distributive injustice. & Schroeder. For instance.. interactional injustice may have fostered the likelihood of drinking due to the experience of other types of emotions. is just as likely to promote sabotage for restoration or retaliation (Ambrose et al. Van Yperen et al. 2005). slight differences remain in terms of more serious and arrestable offenses (Weicko. 2010). Certain limitations of this study. 2009a). 2005).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. 1996). a form of aggression (Neuman & Baron. suggesting that more strained populations would respond to the experience of interactional injustice with violence. while interactional injustice facilitates this deviant act for the purpose of retaliation. Yet. As measured in this study. as it supports the internal validity of the results. Yet. Although college students are similar to their non-college counterparts in terms of self-reported criminal and delinquent acts and attitudes. 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. 2005). Francis & Barling. a larger sample size might have produced a significant effect of interactional injustice on violence. procedural injustice (in combination with distributive injustice) emerged as a stronger predictor of violence than did interactional injustice. as is the case when various types of injustice are experienced (e.L. Although the relationship between injustice and crime may largely be contemporaneous (Agnew. 2010). Interestingly. may then increase the perceived severity of current injustices. Experiencing disrespect may lead individuals to internalize their negative treatment. Considering past injustices. the sample used was composed of student volunteers who most likely do not reflect individuals who typically criminally cope with the experience of injustice (Agnew. Therefore. but was unable to test the unique influence of interactional injustice on criminal or deviant behavior. especially when distributive injustice is also present. 1999. anger does mediate the relationship between injustice and crime. the distress associated with injustice could take longer to manifest (Francis & Barling. Bies & Tripp. 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. family attachment reflected the cognitive-affective dimension of attachment. thus failing to support Hypothesis 2. 2000). 2011. and interactional injustice does not predict either destructive behaviors or psychological strain (Ambrose et al.. 2011). 2005). Other studies have shown that the interaction between distributive. 1998). When a distributive injustice is experienced. (2000) find that the major forms of injustice appear to operate on two different pathways to predict workplace deviance. Van Yperen et al. Studies in criminology that examine instances of injustice largely find that disrespect facilitates violence among individuals who are impoverished. Research in social psychology also finds that low status groups are concerned more so . 2007. 2002). differentially predict certain criminal or deviant behaviors. as the addition of interactional injustice did not emerge as a stronger predictor of crime or deviance when a distributive injustice is experienced. may facilitate violence when one’s ego is threatened (Baumeister. In addition. Hypothesis 1 was not fully supported. procedural. 2000). The presence of procedural injustice increased the likelihood that one would engage in violence upon the receipt of a distributive injustice. even though access to 24 hour computer labs was available (Couper. Messerschmidt. Researchers may wish to consider how other emotions produced by unjust strains relate to criminal or deviant acts (Agnew. in prison. 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. research suggests that women may respond to interactional injustice with violence (Griffiths et al. 2005). High self-esteem. Beike. Bembenek. Moreover. Finally. Findings of prior research that support the effect of three major types of injustice on deviance may thus reflect the context and conditions manipulated in particular studies (Francis & Barling. 2002. 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 one’s self-concept (Agnew. which hinders the expression of criminal responses (Broidy & Agnew. The role of emotions in the injustice-crime relationship also identifies the need for future scholarship. 1996). Destructive acts are predicted through an increase in negative affect by the interaction between procedural and distributive injustice. 2009b). The use of random assignment for disseminating unjust conditions to respondents represents a major strength of this study. 1993). thus promoting depression and this form of deviant coping (Agnew. thus promoting the likelihood of criminal or deviant coping (Agnew.382 H. Distributive injustice promotes sabotage in the attempt to restore equity. Procedural injustice. The finding that procedural and interactional injustice variably influence criminal or deviant behavior may also help to explain why the interaction between these forms of injustice was not significant. while interactional injustice was associated with the intention to engage in drinking. may have influenced some of the findings.. 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 positive relationship between family attachment and violence was unexpected. In this study. or experiencing multiple injustices in a short time frame. 2002. Future work is needed to disentangle the influence of procedural and interactional injustice on criminal and deviant behavior. Ambrose et al. each type of injustice may have lagged effects on crime and one another (Tepper. however. however.. The relationship between causes of crime and criminogenic responses may be nonlinear. Slocum. 2005. 2006). 2005). 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. (2002) note that each form of injustice is associated with specific motivations for organizational sabotage. than between interactional injustice and drinking. Perhaps. or minorities (Anderson. Griffiths et al. longitudinal or simultaneous (Ambrose et al. 2006.. and that of interactional and distributive injustice. the dual motivations associated with procedural injustice explain why it predicts violence more strongly. 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. 2003).. The use of a web-based survey also may have attracted those individuals who have continuous access to the internet. Jacobs & Wright. Francis & Barling. which represents the quality of affect toward one’s parents and has been found to enhance self-esteem among adolescents.

which would have significant implications for how various ethnic groups may interpret and respond to injustice. Although drinking to excess may not be considered “deviant” in light of the binge drinking that occurs on college campuses (O’Malley & Johnston.. In addition. 3. 2010). researchers may wish to employ vignettes that are more applicable to a general population. should be investigated. Various improvements can also be made regarding the study design. ANOVAs revealed that procedural injustice predicted subjective perceptions of procedural injustice. How injustice facilitates other more serious forms of non-violent and violent crimes. Despite some of its limitations. Based on extant research (Bies & Moag. 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. 2010.” “I work much harder than my classmates at school. the large number of Asian participants reflects something unique about the research location.H. 2011. 2005). thereby introducing the possibility that their responses to items that assess the control variables could have been altered. 2012. p ≤ 0. 2005. 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. 2002).e. than those assigned a vignette illustrating procedural justice (mean = 16. & Kleck. The vignette presented represents the male version of this scenario. 2012). & Wilke. Group mean-comparison tests reveal no significant differences between each of the vignette groups on control variables. 4. 9. subjective perceptions of interactional injustice were affected by the manipulations of procedural and interactional injustice. Barn & Tan. Simpson & Kaminski. This individual is counted as having 31 years of age. This is especially relevant when considering how respondents assessed the criminal beliefs of their peers. 12. The largest VIF for these models was three. In the female version.” 10.01). 500 bootstrap replications were done in order to obtain standard errors for the direct and indirect effects and 95 percentile confidence intervals (STATA. Although college students are not entirely representative of the general population. Heine. 11. Although Tyler and Lind’s (1992) relational model of procedural justice encompasses respect.08) than those who received a vignette depicting interactional justice (mean = 40. 2007). 1993. Yet. cross-cultural differences remain regarding fairness and moral reasoning (Henrich. As no standard errors and confidence intervals are produced by the binary mediation program. Moreover. 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.L. DeLisi. this study crucially highlights the theoretical and empirical relevance of distinguishing between types of injustice in order to predict crime. Cohen-Charash & Spector. DeLisi. Although it is often not possible to change one’s outcomes. I consider the fairness of interpersonal treatment by authorities or peers in the decision-making process to constitute interactional justice. Moon & Jonson. Yet. 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. suggesting that although conceptually distinct. Weicko. whether peers supported or failed to support a criminal or deviant response to injustice). 1997). the behavioral options available to respondents may be altered in future studies. 2012. 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. 2010). 14. Foster. The finding that whites were more likely to indicate that they would engage in drinking in comparison to non-whites. 2001. the pronouns are changed and Matt is portrayed as Michelle. Excluding gender and the manipulation of legitimacy (i. the criminological literature on procedural justice does not make this distinction.81. 7. When a predictor is continuous..g. 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 reflected across models. p ≤ 0. 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. 2012). College samples have been previously used to empirically investigate GST (DeLisi. Nagin & Paternoster. Moreover. foster youth. The only exceptions to this trend occur with negative emotionality and commitment. Respectively. Supplemental analyses were performed to assess whether the interaction between strain and negative emotions increased the likelihood of criminal and deviant . Vermunt. Notes 1. 1992). inmates. One respondent was over 30 years old.. 2007). the odds ratio identifies the likelihood of an outcome for a one unit change in the predictor (Crawford. 2012. Distributive.000). Correlations are available upon request. Even though an unjust situation of a peer reneging on buying drinks was appropriate for the college sample that was used. or as low as four. this act is still considered a crime for students under the legal drinking age. thus preventing definitive conclusions on which type of injustice is more criminogenic than others.51. The total sample size is reduced in the analyses due to the presence of missing values. The measurement of certain control variables used in this study occurred after respondents read the vignettes. Furthermore. 2012. Similar to other studies that expand the application of GST to various strained populations (e. those who were assigned a vignette characterized by procedural injustice were lower on commitment (mean = 15.” “I want to go to graduate school or professional school after graduation. Chiricos. 13.25. further research should examine the relationship between the major forms of injustice and crime among the disadvantaged (Agnew & DeLisi.. 1986. these types of injustice do overlap to some degree (Bies. 2010). Colquitt et al. police) (Agnew & DeLisi. although the racial characteristics of the sample reflect the demographics of the undergraduate population where the study was conducted. Morris et al. 8.. procedural. may indicate problems with collinearity (O’Brien. 1998). A VIF of 10. engaging in prior acts of violence and drinking are significantly and positively associated with the intention to engage in violence (r = 0. In spite of the similarities that college students share with other populations. the odds ratio indicates the likelihood of an outcome for one category over another. p ≤ 0. 15.” Items that assess commitment to conventional institutions consist of: “I try my best at school.30.” and “I plan on having a career after I graduate. respectively.000) and drinking (r = 0.g. Weicko.05). & Norenzajan. control variables were measured after respondents read the vignettes. this study expands upon the criminological literature by further specifying how 383 different types and combinations of injustice influence the likelihood that individuals respond to their unfair treatment with criminal or deviant behavior. 5. The order in which various measures of the survey were presented may also be altered in the future. Future studies should attempt to address this potential shortcoming by measuring theoretically relevant controls prior to the introduction of the vignette. however. 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. A dichotomous interaction term was created by multiplying the variables of procedural and interactional injustice together. which is an aspect of interactional justice. When a predictor is dichotomous. Tyler & Lind. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375–385 with interactional rather than procedural and distributive injustice (e. and Paul as Paula. Individuals who received a vignette depicting interactional injustice were lower in negative emotionality (mean = 39. findings 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. 2001. 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. 6. 2012. The significant effects of injustice on crime found in this study reflect a cumulative effect between distributive injustice and procedural and interactional injustice. p ≤ 0. it is unclear whether certain minority participants are foreign nationals. Even though (in)justice can occur in any situational context. 2011). I illustrate the various forms of (in)justice via the use of workplace examples.. suggests the need for future research to assess how culture influences the injustice crime-relationship. The findings from this project help to refine 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.78). James as Jessica. 2. for consistency and in keeping with the organizational justice literature. Odds ratios represent the antilogs of logit coefficients. 2011) and college students are similar to noncollege others in terms of their self-reported criminal and delinquent behavior and attitudes (Weicko.

Bies.. 303–328. Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. D.. S. NJ: Transaction. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. S. Reading. Broidy. L. G. 10. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375–385 coping. R. Journal of Criminal Justice. The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Self-complexity and crime: Extending general strain theory. R. J. Criterion-related validity.)College Station. Smart. 246–260). NC: Information Age Publishing. 80–91. 261–292). Lewis. Journal of Criminal Justice. Jr. In G.. J. 35. I.. Causes of delinquency. 464–494. D.. M. London. In P.... Karuza. Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. Henrich. 253–275. 79–105. (2001). K. L. V.. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Criminology. & Spector. (1993). Justice and affect: Where do we stand? In D. The role of negative emotion in general strain theory. Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. M. S. Colquitt (Eds. Why do criminals offend? A general theory of crime and delinquency. Adams.. (2003). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. Public Opinion Quarterly. Charlotte. England: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Greenberg. & Schminke. B. 1–75. 174–175. 212–220. (2010). 331–364. & K. L. American Sociological Review. Strain. 137–149. & Ganegoda. K. E. R... F. 28. R. 195–211. M. Justice frameworks. R. P.). D. CA: Sage Publications. Brezina. Greenberg. L. The weirdest people in the world? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences. S. Cohen. Baumeister. L. Agnew. racial threat. J. (1998). Retaliation as a means of restoring equity. 19. M. T. In R.. M. 86. L. How general is general strain theory? Journal of Criminal Justice. Bazerman (Eds. 561–568. & Gartner. 64. Oetting. J. attitude. Agnew. J. Charlotte. (1988). (1999). Folger. Greenberg. 1–22. Mikula (Ed. (2004). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. B.. & Gordon. Los Angeles. (2005). Psychological Review. Deffenbacher. H. J. In F.. A. 89. Justice constructs. Jr. Donnellan. Green. H. Deutsch. (1983). L. 458–485. New York: Academic Press. C. (1986).. Stamford. T. E. (2000). Journal of Research in Personality. Equity. CA: Sage Publications. & Ng. (1988). 1073–1091. E. 1001–1008. Atlanta. Rosenfield. General strain theory. Y. How emotions mediate the effects of perceived justice on loyalty in service recovery situations: An empirical study.. Race. 31. R. The code of the street. M. Cullen. D. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 49.. (1961). & Kenny. D.. S.. L. K. (pp. (1980). D. Advances in the psychology of justice and affect (pp. 32.. (2001). 664–673. J. A. The strains of maternal imprisonment: Importation and deprivation stressors for women and children. 43–55). R. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.. Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. R. 29. Greenberg. 445–461. (2009a). 163–195. A. The equity-control model as a predictor of vandalism among college students. Norton and Company. L. Relationships among attitudes. (2005). -S. R. NC: Information Age Publishing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Aquino. Boye. & Sims. & Thompson.. Justice and social interaction (pp. 2. 167–185. Couper. Stouthamer-Loeber.W. Anderson. (2011). anger. Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 3–56). 26. (2009). CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.. K. A. & J. 1173–1182. 299–322. (2006). 131–148. (2000). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. (1975). R. A popcorn metaphor for employee aggression.. A. Newbury Park.. Wright. A. A new theory of distributive justice. (2005). DeMore. A.. F. J. P. DeLisi. & Wright. R. R. (1990). Barrett-Howard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 10. H. & Norenzajan. D. A general theory of crime..). Jang. (2006). Barn. (1998). (1999). A. R.. (1980). J. General strain theory. (1998). J. & Boden.). Y. C. What should be done with equity theory? In K. 221–229. H. Beyond distrust: “Getting even” and the need for revenge. Baker. Moffitt... Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. The interaction between the various forms and combinations of injustice with anger did not significantly affect the likelihood of choosing to engage in violence or drinking. 167–218). M. J. 26. (1994). the criminal justice system and beyond: Introduction to the special issue. A.. Hirschi. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 15–36). Porter. L. Beike. J. P. Crawford. In L. J. A. NY: Plenum. Berkeley: University of California Press. De Cremer (Ed. In D. De Coster. General strain theory: Current status and directions for further research.. MA: Addison-Wesley. Journal of Criminal Justice.). Bies. R. R. G. & Zapata-Phelan. W. Cullen. R. T. & Bradfield. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. W. Stark. & Slusarczyk. M. & Piquero.L. Wesson. Gender and general strain theory: The gendering of emotional experiences and expressions. T. Francis. J. S. (1969). Gerben. & Zito.. 58... (2000). Stamford. Social behaviour: Its elementary forms. Handbook of organizational justice (pp. equality. The justice concept in social psychology. J. genders. Are some people crime-prone? Replications of the personality-crime relationship across countries.. 37. R. B. R. S.). (2004). T. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual. Long. P. and deviant coping among African-Americans: A test of general strain theory. Dysfunctional behavior in organizations. Research on negotiations in organizations (pp.. Collins (Eds. D. Colquitt. (1989). Los Angeles. CA: Stanford University Press. T. Heine. E. T. E. K. & Robinson. (1975).. emotional reactions. E. 101–123). Communication Research. and behavior.. J. 50. 278–321. & J.. E. 3–32. Krueger.. J. M.. Bembenek. 51. C. (1986). 272–306. & J. 38. and delinquency: An Empirical test of general strain theory. A. Griffiths. Cullen. Eftekhari. P. C. Lynch. A. M. Organizational injustice and psychological strain. 75. C. R. Blevins (Eds. Greenberg. 43–82). & Baron. Trust in organizations (pp.. Juvenile delinquency: Causes and control (3rd ed. 40. Code of the street: Decency. D. P. S.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. and methods. and statistical considerations.)New York: Oxford University Press. Strain. New Brunswick. Foster. Jacobs. (2009b). Linking exposure to strain with anger: An investigation of deviant adaptations. O’Leary-Kelly. C. (2001). (2011). K. T.. Greenberg. A. & Tripp. 40.. Lind. GA: Emory University. P. Part A: Violent and deviant behavior (pp. Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. (2012). Journal of Criminal Justice. A. Self-complexity and crime: Extending general strain theory. II. & Schmutte. J. Criminology.. Addictive Behaviors. P. Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Leventhal. CT: JAI Press. 1–2. (2005). 85–112). New York: Springer-Verlag. .384 H. 26. Brezina. Journal of Criminal Justice. A. M. Yule. Aseltine. (2001). and sentencing of habitual offenders.. F. Journal of Criminal Justice. Mahwah. R.. 28. A. Inequity in social exchange.. anger and anxiety. R. A. Baron. R. (2008). CA: Stanford University Press. Berscheid. L. 103.. (1982). Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. R. coping. M. (1980). 20. Lind. E. Thousand Oaks. 256–275. Bies. S. N. Ganem. & Payne. and social networks: An assessment of conditioning influences. Broidy. & Hirschi. 39. 267–299)New York: Academic Press. Jasso. 34. (2010). J. (2011). 75. Journal of Business Research. R. (1968). R. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Silve. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. & Moag. (1996). R. 39. 43. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. E. & Greenberg. Chebat. TX: Stata Press.. and justice-seeking responses. D.). 1–41). Mazerolle. Handbook of organizational justice (pp. (2006). 863–902. S.. 250–261. 296–304. R.. Matthews. M. H. Belief. J. T. D. (2012).. S. New York: W. J. Academy of Management Journal. strategic. & Skarlicki. & Schroeder. B. Lewicki. S. A. M. A. and delinquent adaptations: Specifying general strain theory. T. J. Chiricos. J. 947–965. Stanford. 45. Justice Quarterly. Kramer. Fishbein. H. Colquitt (Eds. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. G. intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. H. and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis for distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues. A.. Folger. (1997). 41. G. J. F. Anger expression. Homans. R. (2007). In J. Mahwah. 39. W. Kim. Journal of Applied Psychology. 319–361. Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions. & Barling. Street justice: Retaliation in the criminal underworld. The social psychology of procedural justice. 481–511. J. W. Capowich. and longitudinal analyses for the Iowa personality questionnaire: A short alternative to the MPQ. CT: JAI Press.. (1998).. Leventhal. Seabright. S. Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp.. behavioral intentions. et al.). & Tan. & DeLisi. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. & Tyler. F. 29.). (1986). Journal of Applied Social Psychology.. Greenberg. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.). Gottfredson. U. B. G. (1996). Weiss (Eds. Youth Violence and Culture. & Hunter. M. Conger. M. Agnew.. (1994). & Burzette. A test of general strain theory. J. Berkowitz (Ed. A. 370–376. J. A. Vol. P. Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational justice. In R. Thwaites. Cohen (Eds. G. (1996). & Wright. Just and unjust punishment: Influences on subordinate performance and citizenship.. -P. Mazerolle. J. & Fry. Relative deprivation and procedural justifications. & Walster. Hegtvedt. L. Justice violations. -C. (2012). Fisher. (Doctoral dissertation).. S. In R. G. A. O. Foster youth and crime: Employing general strain theory to promote understanding. Trevino.. 26. R. 89–101. & Larimer... Agnew. & Agnew. 86. (1998).. T. M. 18. R.. CA: Roxbury Publishing Company. E. Cohen-Charash. Agnew. Evans. Criminology. P. C. R. P.. (1997).). Kray. S. Gore. (2005). Inc. State-trait anger theory and the utility of the trait anger scale. and the moral life of the inner city.. S. & T.. Life stress. G. (1965). L. races.. Colquitt. A gentle introduction to stata (2nd ed. & R. R. Ball. Agnew. S. Sheppard. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 268–273. Agnew. (2001).. (2002). E... Advances in the psychology of justice and affect (pp. Turner. (2007). The social construction of injustice: Fairness judgments in response to own and others’ unfair treatment by authorities. P. 40. De Cremer (Ed. self-other agreement. New York: Cambridge University Press. M. E. Tyler (Eds. New York: Plenum. G. negative affectivity. Inc. G. 46–69). T. Griffin. T. (2005). 27–55). Fighting over trivial things: Explaining the issue of contention in violent altercations. A. B.. 71–99.. Stanford. M. (2010). Journal of Organizational Behavior. 224–245. T. 37. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. J. References Acock. Matthews. M. Conlon. R. & Kleck. M.. Ambrose. M. Adolescent maltreatment and delinquency: The question of intervening processes. (1990). R. In J. & Piquero. J. Are procedural justice and interactional justice conceptually distinct? In J. & Ajzen. Measures of illegal behavior in individual-level deterrence research.. and substance use in adolescent offenders. 20. situational anger. negative emotions. 5–33.. Burke (Ed. D. M. & M. Burton.). 425–445. & Johnson. 45. Criminology. & R. 38. M.). E. Jr. Journal of Applied Psychology. Caspi. violence. D. 9–35. Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. 61–94. & Tyler. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.). E. Contemporary Social Psychological Theories (pp. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.. Mazerolle.

(2005). M. D. & Tellegen. Storms. The influence of occupational strain on organizational commitment among police: A general strain theory approach. Moorman. potential causes.. 291–312. (1993). (1997).. J. Thibaut. 76. L. & Wang. 170–186. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. M. 197–215. D. Zweers. GA: Emory University. 35. (2000). (2009). 13. L. Perceived injustice and delinquency: A test of general strain theory. van den Bos. Neuman. N. J. Journal of Criminal Justice.. Carriaga. R. & Piquero. J..H. & Capowich. R. L. Wang. & Johnston. (2012). 82. Slocum. Gomez-Smith. 35. 24. European Journal of Social Psychology... (1966). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence concerning specific forms. and preferred targets. Generalizing general strain theory: An explanationof an offending population.. M. Patrick. 17.. J.edu/stat/stata/faq/binary_mediation. N. N. R. H. Petri. (1996). & Cohn. Zanna (Ed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. A. M. H. E. (2007). L. Development and validation of a brief form of the multidimensional personality questionnaire. S.. 20. and union organizing. R. M. 14.. (2012). Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal. 1186–1190. N. 134.. R. 95–104. R. B. & Lind.ats. The distributive side of interactional justice: The effects of interpersonal treatment on emotional arousal. Degoey.. P. Piquero. E. M.. D. M. & Jonson. L. R. C. 209–222. & Sealock. Examining the links between strain. N. P. Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use among American college students. L. & Sealock. R. & Kaminski. 40. L. Hillsdale. Skarlicki. (1991). D. Tata. 845–855. 37. MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers. & Tanzer. 72. Journal of Criminal Justice.. Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. Social Justice Research. (2001). W. A relational model of authority in groups. What people regard as unjust: Types and structures of everyday experiences of injustice.L.. E. Quality and Quantity. Youth and Society. A. 57–72.htm Stecher. Scheuerman / Journal of Criminal Justice 41 (2013) 375–385 Mazerolle. A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. (1990). G.. Diamond. Inc. (2010). 40. H.. J. A. 261–268.. A. Research Note: Assessing the validity of college samples: Are students really that different? Journal of Criminal Justice. M. & Piquero.. Psychological Monographs. & Wilke. General strain theory and continuity in offending over time: Assessing and extending GST explanations of persistence. 42. 133–149. Piquero. Van Gundy. 204–223. 467–496. 20. (2008). Journal of Criminal Justice. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Morris. P. 194–201. Rebellon. Murphy. organizational justice perceptions. 249–258. (2006).ucla. Morgan.). Swatt. (1987). Piquero. G. Advances in experimental social psychology. A.. & Walker. Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Lanham. Gibson. R. situational and dispositional anger. P. & Langton. H. 227–234. 115–191)New York: Academic Press. Piquero. Tyler.. & Rosse. 27. K.. Linking the big five personality constructs to organizational justice.. 86. S. 26. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology. Lutz. B. (1993). (1997). A. G. & Paternoster. S. M. Rotter. http://www. O’Brien. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. 23–39. K. L. & Postma. & Baron. (2000). Criminology. C.. Tepper. J. Van Yperen. T. M. Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters. 150–163. Simpson. C. 673–690. Does prison strain lead to prison misbehavior? An application of general strain theory to inmate misconduct. B. J. J. Nagin. 19. (Doctoral dissertation). 17. Tyler. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol. . (2012). N. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 8. Z. Stata faq: How can I perform mediation with binary variables? Retrieved from. 391–419. Whole No. 913–930.. P. STATA (2012). (2002). J. A. 434–443. 80(1. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. L. Health consequences of organizational injustice: Tests of main and interactive effects. (2002). O’Malley. 699–733. Journal of Criminal Justice. & Tyler. R. & Smith. K. 229–246. (1998). Procedural and distributive justice: What is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. L. 230–237. procedural. J. (2004). D. H. In M. (2010). G. P.. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. T.. Injustice and employees’ destructive responses: The mediating role of state negative affect. Psychological Assessment. and general strain theory. 449–484. 38. (2000). E. European Journal of Social Psychology. F. crime. Vermunt. R.. M. (pp. Relationships of organizational frustration with reported behavioral reactions: The moderating effect of perceived control. M. J. E. Exploring the utility of general strain theory in explaining problematic alcohol consumption by police officers. Speilberger. D. 41. 131–157. T. Journal of Managerial Issues. T. 38. P. & Folger. and interactional justice.. (1975).. J.. A. (2007). Law and Society Review. Journal of Applied Psychology. Justice Quarterly. 40. Journal of Psychology. M. Gender. Messerschmidt. (1992). Journal of Management. 652–668. Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive. C. 14. Mikula. Hagedoorn.. B. L... L. L. 25. M.. R. Moon. N. (1999). P. Weicko. (2007). Race. M.. Atlanta. D. Discerning unfairness where others may not: Low self-control and unfair sanction perceptions. A.. Manasse. 385 Shi. Piquero. 70. and crime. 609). The role of negative emotion in general strain theory. W. STAXI-2: Professional manual. (2010). 596–611. Social Behavior and Personality.. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. Procedural justice and compliance behaviour: The mediating role of emotions. M.. W. & Spector. Lin. Inc. Influence of role and gender on the use of distributive versus procedural justice principles. L.. C. Curtin. J. (2003).