Effects of victim presence and coercion in restorative justice: An experimental paradigm.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is little experimental work examining the ways in which particular procedural features of restorative justice impact offenders. This research describes a new experimental paradigm designed to advance knowledge about causal relationships in restorative justice settings. Apologizing is a core component of restorative procedures, and can result in beneficial outcomes, but previous research suggests that coercion to apologize and the absence of victims in restorative procedures may negatively impact these outcomes. The experimental procedure elicited confessions and apologies for a transgression from participants (N = 101) in a deceptive paradigm. We manipulated coercion (coerced, not coerced) and victim presence (direct, surrogate, ambiguous) to test their effects on offenders' subjective experiences of offering an apology, as well as their effects on the quality of offenders' apologies. Findings indicated that the victim presence and coercion manipulations significantly impacted some of the subjective perceptions of apologizers, including perceptions of accountability and transgression finality. In addition, independent raters evaluated the degree to which the transgressor's apologies conveyed remorse, acceptance of guilt, and potential for dispute resolution. Victim presence and coercion consistently affected the ability of transgressors to convey high quality apologies. Implications for future research and restorative procedures are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".