Mikula Justice and Social Conflict

European Journal of Social Psychology
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 28, 931±962 (1998)
Does it only depend on the point of view?

Perspective-related dierences in justice
evaluations of negative incidents
in personal relationships
GEROLD MIKULA,*
URSULA ATHENSTAEDT, SABINE HESCHGL
and ARNO HEIMGARTNER
University of Graz, Austria
Abstract
A series of four studies investigated systematic dierences between actor and recipient
interpretations and justice evaluations of negative incidents in interpersonal relation-
ships. Due to a re®ned methodology, each negative incident was assessed both by the
respective recipient and actor, and each participant reported incidents from both
perspectives. The studies provided clear evidence of systematic recipient-actor dier-
ences and showed that the quality of the relationship between the parties involved in the
incidents can moderate the occurrence and shape of the dierences. Signi®cant gender
dierences were found showing that women respond more accusingly than men in the
role of the recipient and more defensively than men in the role of the actor. # 1998 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The present research deals with dierences in the interpretation and justice evaluation
of negative behaviors and incidents in interpersonal relations. The focus is on
dierences between individuals who obtain dierent perspectives with relation to a
negative incident: the recipient, that is the individual who suers from the incident,
and the actor, that is the individual who caused the incident in question.1
The main goals of our series of studies were to investigate whether any systematic
dierences occur between actors' and recipients' interpretations and justice evalua-
tions, what form they take, and whether the quality of the relationship between the
*Correspondence to: Dr Gerold Mikula, Department of Psychology, University of Graz, A-8010 Graz,
Austria. e-mail: mikula@balu.kfunigraz.ac.at
1
The neutral terms `recipient' and `actor' are used in this article rather than `victim' and `transgressor',
`perpetrator', or `victimizer', because the latter terms imply responsibility and blameworthiness for the
incident in question on the side of the actor. However, according to the present approach, the responsibility
and blameworthiness of actors cannot be objectively established.
CCC 0046±2772/98/060931±32$17.50 Received 14 March 1997

# 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 3 December 1997
932 G. Mikula et al.
parties moderates their occurrence and form. Borrowing from interdependence theory
(Kelley, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Rusbult & van Lange, 1996), we assume that
the occurrence and shape of recipient±actor dierences depend on the social orienta-
tion or motivation of the involved parties. Perspective-related dierences in the
interpretation and justice evaluation of negative occurrences are particularly likely if
the parties are primarily motivated by their immediate self-interest. Perspective-
related dierences are less likely to occur if the parties are relationship-oriented and
motivated to develop or maintain a positive relationship. We further assume in line
with interdependence theory that the relative strength of self- versus relationship-
orientation depends, among others, on the quality of the relationship between the
parties, the amount of mutual trust, and parties' commitment to the relationship
(cf. Rusbult & van Lange, 1996).
The dierential implications that injustice carries for actors and recipients suggest a
particular shape of recipient-actor dierences in the case of self-oriented parties
(cf. Mikula, 1994). Actors normally do not intentionally behave unfairly, but regard
their conduct as appropriate and just. Judgments of injustice, or accusations of having
acted unfairly, may carry threats to actors' self-concepts and social images as just and
morally worthy people. In addition, actors may apprehend demands of restitution
and compensation and face the possibility of being blamed and punished in one way
or another. To protect their self-concept and social image and guard themselves
against punishment and claims for compensation, actors will frequently try to
dissociate themselves from the negative incident. This can be achieved by interpreting
the critical incident in a way that makes it appear not to be unjust and/or by denying
responsibility and blameworthiness for what has happened. For the recipients, on the
other hand, injustice means, ®rst, suering an aversive fate they would like to avoid or
change. In addition, unjust treatments can imply a threat to their self-concept and
social image if they and/or others see their aversive fate as their due. Accordingly,
recipients normally will be mainly concerned about changing their aversive fate and
convincing others (and perhaps also themselves) that they do not deserve this kind of
treatment. Interpreting the incident in question as unjust and attributing responsi-
bility and blame to some other agent can serve these goals. This reasoning leads to the
prediction that, in the case of self-oriented parties, recipients will generally perceive
negative behaviors and incidents as more unjust and attribute more responsibility and
blame to actors than actors will themselves.
If the parties are less concerned about their immediate self-interest and more
relationship-oriented, recipients' accusing and actors' defensive styles of interpret-
ation described above may be replaced by more benevolent evaluations of negative
incidents which serve the development or maintenance of a positive relationship
between the parties. Actors who behaved negatively towards the other party may be
inclined to acknowledge their wrongdoing, assume responsibility, and express regret
for their behavior. Recipients, on the other hand, may indulge the actor, play down
the injustice of the incident in question, and absolve the other party from any
malevolent intentions or negligence. As a consequence, perspective-related dierences
between recipient and actor evaluations of negative incidents may diminish or
disappear. If both parties respond in this way, the dierences may even turn and point
to the opposite direction than described above. The readiness to show such accommo-
dative responses should be stronger, the better the relationship quality, the more the
parties trust each other, and the more committed they are to their relationships.
# 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 28, 931±962 (1998)
Perspective-related dierences 933
EXISTING RESEARCH ON PERSPECTIVE-RELATED DIFFERENCES
Evidence of systematic perspective-related dierences in interpretation of behavior

has been obtained in various social psychological domains. Research on actor±
observer (or self±other) dierences in causal attribution has shown consistent
perspective-related dierences (cf. Harvey & Weary, 1984; Hewstone, 1989; van de
Pligt, 1981; Watson, 1982). These dierences are mainly due to the fact that own
behavior is more strongly attributed to situational (and less so to personal) causes
than is the behavior of others (Hewstone, 1989; Watson, 1982). Research on attribu-
tion processes in close relationships has shown that dierent causal attributions for
own and other behavior are common even among close partners. They are part-
icularly likely with negative behaviors and typically more pronounced with distressed
as compared to nondistressed couples (cf. Baucom, 1987; Bradbury & Fincham, 1990;
Fletcher & Fincham, 1991; Harvey, 1987, for reviews).
The majority of the studies in these two lines of research focused on causal attri-
butions. However, Cohen (1982) argued that related actor±observer dierences will
also occur in attributions of responsibility for injustice. Behavior that falls short of
normative standards is likely to evoke attributions of responsibility and blame from
observers, whereas actors are likely to reject personal responsibility and blame. Since
recipients of injustice are simultaneously (aected) observers of the incident, the
attributional dierences described by Cohen (1982) should also hold for actors and
recipients of injustice.
Investigations considering additional kinds of interpretation and evaluation
beyond causal attribution lend support to Cohen's (1982) proposal. Mummendey
and her coworkers studied perspective-related dierences in the interpretation and
evaluation of aggressive behavior in a role-playing setting (Mummendey, Linneweber,
& LoÈschper, 1984, Mummendey & Otten, 1989; Otten, Mummendey, & Wenzel,
1995). Participants were shown videotaped aggressive interactions between two pupils
and were then asked to take the perspective of either the actor or the recipient and to
interpret and evaluate the behavior. The studies show that actors, as compared to
recipients, tend to portray their behavior as more appropriate and justi®ed and refer
to external mitigating circumstances. Similar evidence was obtained by Baumeister,
Stillwell, & Wotman (1990) with actor- and recipient-accounts of interpersonal
episodes involving anger-evoking events: For instance, recipients depicted the anger-
provoking behavior as arbitrary, unjusti®ed, or incomprehensible, whereas actors
portrayed it as meaningful and justi®able, and referred to external or mitigating
circumstances more frequently.
MODERATOR EFFECTS OF RELATIONSHIP QUALITY
Theory and evidence from close relationship research lend support to our reasoning
about likely recipient±actor dierences in the case of less self-interested and more
relationship-oriented parties. The research on attributions in marriage mentioned
above has shown that actor±partner dierences are typically more pronounced in
distressed as compared to nondistressed couples (cf. Bradbury & Fincham, 1990, for a
review). Distressed spouses tend to make internal, stable and global attributions of
negative partner behaviors and attribute positive partner behavior to external,
unstable and speci®c causes. Recent writings by Holmes (1991; Holmes & Levinger,
1994; Holmes & Rempel, 1989) suggest that increased closeness, trust, and loyalty
among partners reduce ongoing concerns with justice and lead people to make benign
interpretations of critical incidents in their relationships which help them maintain a
positive image of the partner and their relationship. Though Holmes discussed only
recipients' interpretations of negative behaviors of their partners, the argumentation
can also be easily applied to actors. Increased closeness, trust, and loyalty should
increase the readiness of actors who behaved negatively toward their partner to
acknowledge their wrongdoing and make concessions. Empirical evidence by Rusbult,
Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lipkus (1991) is in line with the above proposals. In
an impressive series of studies these authors showed that strong commitment to a
relationship promotes the willingness to accommodate, that is, to react constructively
rather than destructively, when a partner has engaged in potentially destructive
behavior.
MAIN GOALS AND METHODOLOGY OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH
The main goals of the present series of studies were to investigate dierences between
actors' and recipients' interpretations and justice evaluations of negative incidents
and test the predicted moderator eect of relationship quality on the occurrence and
form of perspective-related dierences. Our research was stimulated by the following
facts. First, social-psychological research on justice has not paid much attention to
the dierential evaluations made by recipients and actors of injustice. Some authors
have suggested that the experience of and response to injustice will dier depending
on the perspective one takes to the event (e.g., Deutsch, 1985; Mikula, 1984, 1987;
Reis, 1984; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). But systematic empirical data are
sparse.
Second, most of the available studies of perspective-related dierences in other
social psychological domains focused on causal attributions and neglected other
kinds of interpretations and evaluations. However, attributions of responsibility and
blame are more relevant than causal attributions in relation to morally reprehensible
occurrences such as negative interpersonal behaviors and wrongdoings (cf. Cohen,
1982; Fincham & Bradbury, 1988; 1991).2 The types of interpretations and evalua-
tions which are studied in the present research were chosen with reference to recent
conceptualizations of judgments of injustice as a particular instance of blaming
(cf. Mikula, 1993; Montada, 1991), For instance, Mikula (1993) distinguished three
basic components in his attribution-of-blame model of judgments of injustice: the
2 Although both attributions of responsibility and blame refer to morally reprehensible incidents, it is
important to distinguish between the two concepts. Responsibility refers to agents' answerability or
accountability for given actions or omissions and/or the outcomes of those actions or omissions.
Blameworthiness of individuals refers to individuals' liability to sanctions. Assignment of responsibility is a
necessary but insucient condition for the attribution of blame. Blame is the attribution made to agents if
their justi®cations or excuses for the morally reprehensible action or omission in question are not accepted
by the respective perceiver (cf. Shaver, 1985, Chapter 8, for a more detailed treatment).
observation that somebody's entitlement has been violated, the attribution of respon-
sibility to some agent other than the person aected, and the attribution of blame to
that agent. Violation of entitlement means that recipients do not get what they are due
by virtue of who they are and what they have done (cf. Lerner, 1991). Responsibility
and blame are conceptualized in the model in accordance with Heider (1958) and
Shaver (1985). The attribution of responsibility implies that the violation of entitle-
ment has been caused by an action or omission of an agent who was able to foresee the
consequences of his or her conduct, had control over his or her behavior (i.e. could
have acted otherwise), and behaved intentionally in the given way.3 Attribution of
blame presupposes the attribution of responsibility to the actor and perceived lack of
justi®cation for the violation of the entitlement.
A further purpose of the present research was to develop and employ a more re®ned
methodology of studying perspective-related dierences in interpretations and
evaluations of behaviors and incidents than has been used to date. A large number
of available studies. and many ®eld studies in particular, suered from methodo-
logical shortcomings that prevented unequivocal interpretations of the ®ndings. For
one thing, except for experimental role-playing studies (e.g., Mummendey et al., 1984,
Mummendey & Otten, 1989; Otten et al., 1995), many studies failed to consider both
parties' views of one and the same incident (cf. Baumeister et al., 1990; Bradbury &
Fincham, 1990). In this case, it is not clear whether the dierences observed between
actor and recipient evaluations are due to genuine perspective-related eects or simply
follow from the fact that actors and recipients select dierent kinds of events which
they report. Second, participants in most of the studies were asked to describe and
evaluate incidents either from the perspective of the recipient or from that of the
actor, but not from both perspectives. If the assignment of participants to the dier-
ent perspectives is not randomized, as it is frequently the case in non-experimental
studies, one cannot rule out the possibility that the observed dierences between
actors and recipients are due to dierences in the personalities of people who become
victims (i.e. recipients) and those who are perpetrators (i.e. actors) of negative
incidents (cf. Baumeister et al., 1990, whose study is a notable exception in this
regard). To overcome these problems of interpretation, we employed the following
methodology in our studies: (1) actors and recipients in a given pair refer to the same
incidents, and (2) all participants respond to two dierent incidents, one they suered
as the recipient and another one they committed as the actor.
The methodology described above leads to two dierent sets of incidents:
(1) incidents which are introduced and ®rst evaluated by the recipients and sub-
sequently by the actors (recipient-reported incidents) and (2) incidents which are
introduced and ®rst evaluated by the actors and subsequently by the recipients (actor-
reported incidents). There are reasons to assume that perspective-related dierences
will be less likely to occur, or smaller in size, with actor-reported than with recipient-
reported incidents. In the case of actor-reported negative incidents, actors necessarily
admit to have behaved inappropriately and admit a certain amount of responsibility
and blameworthiness. Accordingly, there may be no (or less) need on the part of the
recipients to accentuate the wrongfulness of the actors' conduct. In contrast, in the
3 Althoughit is part of Shaver's (1985) list of constituents of the attribution of responsibility, foreseeability
has not been considered in the original version of Mikula's (1993) attribution-of-blame model of
judgments of injustice and is also not considered in the present research.
case of recipient-reported events, recipients may feel the need to establish their
inappropriate treatment and, thus, give more severe ratings. At the same time,
actors may feel accused by the recipients' reports and, consequently, respond more
defensively. Taken together, due to the described tendencies, perspective dierences
should be increased with recipient-reported events. But the dierences may diminish,
disappear, or even point to the opposite direction with actor-reported incidents.
GENDER DIFFERENCES
Since our methodology requires pairs of participants who are involved in ongoing
relationships, we decided to study evaluations of unjust incidents in close relation-
ships, because it was deemed easier to get the necessary set of data in this case than
in other social settings. Part of our studies were conducted with heterosexual
close relationships. This gave the opportunity of analyzing gender dierences in
addition to the main goals discussed above. Although not fully consistent, the avail-
able evidence on gender dierences in the interpretation of and response to
relationship con¯ict suggests that women are more sensitive to relationship problems
than men. For instance, women are more likely than men to report problems in a
relationship (Brehm, 1992), confront relational con¯icts and attempt to resolve them
(cf. Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Lloyd, 1987; Rusbult, Johnson, & Morrow, 1986;
Sprecher, 1992), and initiate relationship breakup (e.g., Gray & Cohen Silver, 1990;
Hill, Rubin, & Peplau, 1976).4 This leads to the prediction that female recipients will
be inclined to judge negative incidents as more unjust and attribute more respons-
ibility and blame to the actors than male recipients will. No clear predictions are
possible with regard to gender dierences in actor interpretations.
STUDY I
Study 1 was planned and conducted with two major goals in mind. First to put the
re®ned methodology to the test and ®nd whether any perspective-related dierences
can be observed when the actor and recipient evaluations refer to the same incident
and each participant reports and evaluates an incident both from the actor and the
recipient perspective. Second, the study was considered as a ®rst test of the hypo-
theses. Other than in our later studies, only part of the evaluations and attributions of
interest (injustice, causation, intention, and justi®cation) were considered in this
investigation.
4
Studies dealing with gender dierences in the perception of and response to inequity are less relevant to
the present discussion. Their focus was on dierential reactions of women and men to dierent types of
inequity such as overbene®ting versus underbene®ting inequity and the evidence is far from being
consistent (cf. Sprecher, 1992; van Yperen & Buunk, 1994).
Method
Sample
The study was run with marital couples. Both partners participated in each case.
Subjects were recruited by a snowball method in a small Austrian town. The ®nal
sample comprised the male and female partners of 51 couples. Participants' ages were
between 18 and 60 years, with a mean age of M 38.0 years (SD 8.90). Length of
marriage varied between 2 and 30 years, with a mean length of M 15.00 years
(SD 7.70).
Procedure
Data were collected in two sessions that were held with each participant independent
of his or her partner. In the ®rst session, participants were ®rst asked to describe and
evaluate an incident in which they had felt unjustly treated by their partners. Then,
they had to describe and evaluate an incident where they felt their partner had been
unjustly treated by them. The second session with each participant took place after
the ®rst session had been held with the participant's partner. In this second session
participants were brie¯y informed about the two incidents that had been introduced
by their partner. This was typically done by mentioning a few catchwords which had
been provided by the original reporter of the event for that purpose. Participants were
then asked to describe and evaluate the incidents from their own view.
After each of the four reports, participants responded to a questionnaire containing
various 9-point rating scales (1: not at all, 9: very much). One rating referred to the
amount of perceived injustice (`How unjust did you regard the incident?'). One item
referred to the extent to which the incident was causally attributed to the actor
(`To what extent was the incident due to your partner/you?'). The remaining items
referred to the extent to which the critical action was regarded as justi®ed (`To what
extent was it justi®ed that your partner/you acted in that way?') and intended by the
actor (`To what extent did your partner/you do it on purpose?'). Finally, participants'
relationship satisfaction was assessed with a three-item measure asking the
participants to indicate on 9-point scales how good (1: poor, 9: very good), happy
(1: unhappy, 9: very happy), and strong (1: weak, 9: very strong) they regarded their
relationships. The reliability of this measure was satisfactorily high (a 0.90). The
relationship satisfaction scores were extremely skewed, as it is frequently the case
(e.g., Norton, 1983): 53% of the participants marked the maximum scores. Therefore,
instead of making a median split of the sample, the participants were classi®ed in
following analyses of variance into those who marked the maximum score and those
who marked lower scores.5
5 Dueto the skewed distribution of the relationship satisfaction scores, the majority of participants in the
group with lower scores still had high levels of relationship satisfaction. Taking this into consideration, we
speak of lower rather than low relationship quality in this paper.
Results
Multivariate Analysis6
A 2 (perspective of judge: recipient versus actor) 2 (source of the report: recipient

versus actor) 2 (relationship quality: high versus lower) 2 (gender of judge)
MANOVA on the rating data revealed signi®cant multivariate main eects of
perspective of judge (F(4,388) 13,68, p 5 0.01) and relationship quality (F(4,388)
9.11, p 5 0.01) and signi®cant multivariate two-way interactions of perspective of
judge and source of report (F(4,388) 2.51, p 5 0.05) and perspective of judge and
gender of judge (F(4,388) 4.46, p 5 0.01). The remaining multivariate eects were
not signi®cant.
Univariate Analyses
Perspective-related dierences Subsequent univariate between-subject analyses

of variance (ANOVAs) revealed signi®cant main eects of the perspective of judge
for all dependent variables. Recipients rated the incidents more unjust (5.84
versus 4.82; F(1,391) 17.43, p 5 0.01), attributed more causality (3.43 versus 1.68;
F(1,391) 10.63, p 5 0.01) and intention (3.26 versus 2.65; F(1,391) 6.26, p 5 0.05)
to the actors, and regarded actors' actions less justi®ed (4.14 versus 5.76;
F(1,391) 35.23, p 5 0.01) than actors did themselves. These eects were independ-
ent of the source of the report with one exception: With the intention ratings, the two-
way interaction of perspective of judge and source of the report was signi®cant
(F(1,391) 4.96, p 50.05). This was due to the fact that actors rated their intention
lower (2.29) than the remaining three groups (Ms between 3.01 and 3.47) in the case of
actor-reported incidents. The remaining interaction eects including the source of the
report, and the main eects of this variable, were not signi®cant.
Relationship quality eects The observed perspective-related dierences were

unaected by participants' assessment of the quality of their relationships. Neither of
the two-way and three-way interaction eects including relationship quality were
signi®cant. However, signi®cant main eects of relationship quality were obtained
with three of the four dependent variables. Participants with high relationship quality
scores regarded the incidents less unjust (5.09 versus 5.60; F(1,391) 4.23, p 5 0.05)
and attributed less intention (2.31 versus 3.69; F(1,391) 31.44, p 5 0.01) and,
marginally signi®cant, less justi®cation (4.65 versus 5.22; F(1,391) 3.80, p 5 0.06) to
the actors than participants who evaluated their relationship less favorably.
Gender dierences The analyses of variance also revealed signi®cant gender

dierences (Table 1). The two-way interaction of gender and perspective of judge was
signi®cant with the ratings of injustice, causal attribution, and justi®cation. Female
recipients regarded the incidents as more unjust and less justi®ed, and attributed more
causality to the actor than did male recipients. With actors, the dierences between
6 The present and all following analyses of variance are based on between-subject designs in which the
incidents served as units of observation.
Table 1. Study I: Two-way interactions of perspective of judge and gender of judge

Recipient Actor
Women Men Women Men F df p
a b c b,c
Injustice 6.28 5.41 4.62 5.02 6.87 1;391 50.01
Causality 4.45a 2.41b 0.68c 2.69b 10.62 1;391 50.01
Intention 3.11 3.42 2.44 2.86 0.04 1;391 n.s.
Justi®cation 3.60c 4.69b 5.83a 5.69a 4.63 1;391 50.05
Note: Means with dierent superscripts dier signi®cantly ( p 5 0.05).
women and men pointed in the opposite direction. They were signi®cant only with the
causality ratings. Female actors attributed less causality to themselves than did male
actors.
The data in Table 1 further reveal that the perspective-of-judge main eects which
were described above were quali®ed by the signi®cant two-way interactions of
perspective and gender of judge with three of the four ratings. With the ratings of
injustice and causality, the perspective dierence was signi®cant for women but not
for men. With the justi®cation ratings, the perspective dierence was signi®cant for
both sexes but was larger for women than for men. The perspective dierences in the
ratings of intention were not aected by the gender of judge.
Discussion
The study provided evidence of perspective-related dierences between recipients and

actors. Participants in the role of the recipient evaluated the incidents as more unjust
and attributed more causality and intention, and less justi®cation, to the actors than
participants in the role of the actor. This was independent of whether the incident had
been introduced by the recipient or the actor. The clear dierences between the two
perspectives are impressive if one considers that they were obtained with partners in
close relationships who regarded the quality of their relationships as very positive.
The relationship quality results did not meet our expectations. Relationship quality
did not aect the perspective-related dierences but yielded signi®cant main eects.
The incidents were regarded as less serious and involving less responsibility in high-as
compared to lower-quality relationships; only the justi®cation ratings did not ®t into
this picture. Three dierent, but not mutually exclusive, explanations of the relation-
ship quality main eects come to mind. They could be due either to dierences in the
nature of the negative incidents that actually occur in the two types of relation-
ships, dierences in the nature of events that are selected to report, or to dierences in
interpretation and evaluation. We will take up this issue again in the General
Discussion.
The observed gender dierences were mostly due to the fact that female recipients'
ratings were more accusing than those of male recipients. Female recipients regarded
the incidents as more unjust and less justi®ed and made more causal attributions to
their partners as compared with men. In addition, there was some indication that
female actors' ratings were slightly more defensive than the ratings of male actors, As
a consequence, the recipient±actor dierences were more clearly established with
women than with men.
STUDY 2
Our second study was conducted as a further test of perspective-related dier-

ences between actor and recipient evaluations of negative incidents. The study was
carried out with same-sex friendships to ascertain whether the perspective-dierences
observed in Study 1 can be replicated with another kind of close relationship.
Furthermore, since the ®rst study had considered only part of the components of the
attribution-of-blame model of judgments of injustice, it seemed desirable to obtain
ratings of actors' controllability of the critical incident, and perceived violation of
recipients' entitlement and deserving, in addition to the ratings of injustice, causality,
intention, and justi®cation.
Method
Sample
The study was conducted with 44 pairs of female close friends in a secondary school in
Austria. The girls were approached in their class and invited to nominate a close
friend with whom they would like to participate in a study which deals with their
relationship. Participants' ages were between 12 and 17 years, with a mean age
of M 15.00 years (SD 1.30). Length of relationship ranged from 5 months to
11 years, the mean time being M 46 months (SD 30.80).
Procedure
The methodology was the same as in the ®rst study. The ratings resembled those of the
®rst study, although the wording was slightly dierent in some cases and a few items
were added. The ratings were again obtained on 9-point scales (1: not at all, 9: very
much). One rating referred to the perceived injustice of the incident (`in your opinion,
how unjust was it what has happened?'). One item referred to the extent to which the
incident was causally attributed to the actor (`To what extent can it be attributed to
your friend/you that the incident has happened?'). Four additional items referred to
the extent to which the participants perceived the incident as being deserved by the
recipient (`To what extent did you/your friend deserve what happened?'), the intention
of the actor (`To what extent did you/your friend deliberately behave in the way she
did?'), the justi®cation of the actor's way of acting (`To what extent was your/your
friend's behavior justi®ed?'), and actor's controllability (`To what extent did you/your
friend have the possibility of acting in a dierent way?'). Relationship satisfaction was
assessed by the same three items as in Study 1. The reliability of the scale was again
high (a 0.92) and the distribution of the scores was very skewed. Nevertheless, it was
possible to make a median split of the sample.
Results
Multivariate Analysis
A 2 (perspective of judge: recipient versus actor) 2 (source of the report: recipient

versus actor) 2 (relationship quality: high versus lower) MANOVA on the rating
data revealed signi®cant multivariate main eects of perspective of judge (F(6,339)
64.84, p 5 0.01) and relationship quality (F(6,339) 8.94, p 5 0.01) and signi®-
cant multivariate two-way interactions of perspective of judge and source of report
(F(6,339) 19.30, p 5 0.01) and perspective of judge and relationship quality
(F(6,339) 15.05, p 5 0.01). The remaining multivariate eects were not signi®cant.
Univariate Analyses
Perspective-related dierences Subsequent univariate between-subjects analyses

of variance (ANOVAs) again yielded signi®cant main eects of perspective of judge
for all dependent variables: Recipients rated the incidents more unjust (6.51 versus
3.98; F(1,344) 147.12, p 5 0.01) and undeserved (2.62 versus 5.41; F(1,344)
173.06, p 5 0.01), and attributed more causality (7.18 versus 4.67; F(1,344) 129.99,
p 5 0.01), controllability (7.63 versus 4.65; F(1,344) 202.72, p 5 0.01), intention
(6.14 versus 2.77; F(1,344) 217.27, p 5 0.01), and less justi®cation (3.14 versus 6.12;
F(1,344) 196.06, p 5 0.01) to the actors than actors did themselves.
The two-way interactions of perspective of judge and source of report were
signi®cant for all dependent variables. The recipient±actor dierences described above
were obtained with both recipient-reported and actor-reported incidents. But they
were more pronounced in the former as compared with the latter case (cf. Table 2(a)).
Recipients regarded actor-reported incidents as less unjust, more deserved, and more
justi®ed than the incidents which they themselves had introduced, and attributed less
causality, controllability, and intention to actors in the former than in the latter case.
Actors rated actor-reported as compared with recipient-reported incidents as more
unjust, less deserved, and less justi®ed, and regarded their own causal contribution,
controllability, and intention as larger with the former than with the latter examples.
Relationship quality eects The two-way interaction of perspective of judge and

relationship quality was also signi®cant for all dependent variables. The dierences
between recipient and actor ratings of the incidents were more pronounced with
participants who evaluated their relationship less favorably but they were signi®cant
even with high relationship quality (cf. Table 2(b)). Recipients with lower relationship
quality ratings regarded the incidents more unjust, and attributed more causality,
more intention, and less justi®cation to the actors than recipients with higher ratings.
The dierences with the ratings of deserving and controllability pointed to the same
direction but were not signi®cant. Actors with lower relationship quality ratings
considered the incidents as less unjust and more deserved, and regarded their own
causal contribution, controllability, and intention as smaller, and their justi®cation as
higher than actors with high relationship quality scores.
In addition, signi®cant main eects of relationship quality were obtained with some
of the ratings. Participants with higher relationship quality ratings regarded the
Table 2. Study II: Two-way interactions

(a) Two-way interactions of perspective of judge and source of report
Recipient-reported Actor-reported
Recipient Actor Recipient Actor F df p
Injustice 7.40a 2.86c 5.63b 5.09b 94.51 1;344 50.01
Deservedness 1.92d 6.19a 3.33c 4.64b 50.08 1;344 50.01
Causality 7.77a 3.70d 6.58b 5.65c 51.95 1;344 50.01
Control 8.33a 3.84d 6.63b 5.47c 53.60 1;344 50.01
Intention 6.67a 1.88d 5.60b 3.67c 39.80 1;344 50.01
Justi®cation 2.30d 7.06a 3.98c 5.18b 71.21 1;344 50.01
(b) Two-way interactions of perspective of judge and relationship quality

High relationship Lower relationship
quality quality
Injustice 5.78b 5.06c 7.21a 2.90d 76.76 1;344 50.01
Deservedness 2.81c 4.43b 2.44c 6.40a 31.27 1;344 50.01
Causality 6.79b 5.42c 7.54a 3.93d 27.31 1;344 50.01
Control 7.55a 5.88b 7.71a 3.43c 39.86 1;344 50.01
Intention 5.21b 3.11c 7.02a 2.43d 31.19 1;344 50.01
Justi®cation 3.61c 5.36b 2.68d 6.88a 34.38 1;344 50.01
incidents less deserved (3.63 versus 4.40; F(1,344) 14.82, p 5 0.01), more con-
trollable (6.70 versus 5.60; F(1,344) 30.56, p 5 0.01), and less intended (4.15 versus
4.75; F(1,344) 5.76, p 5 0.05) than participants with lower relationship quality
ratings.
The three-way interaction, although only marginally signi®cant in the MANOVA
(F(6,339) 1.91, p 50.08), was signi®cant with attributed causality (F(1,344) 5.82,
p 5 0.02), controllability (F(1,344) 8.05, p 5 0.01), and intention (F(1,344) 4.72,
p 5 0.05), and approached signi®cance with deserving (F(1,344) 3.71, p 5 0.06).
The shape of the interaction was the same with all these variables. In the case of actor-
reported events and high relationship quality, the recipient and actor ratings did not
signi®cantly dier from each other (for attributed causality, controllability, and
deserving) or, in the case of intention, were signi®cantly smaller than in the remaining
conditions, which showed the typical actor-recipient dierences (cf. Table 3). The
actor±observer dierences were most pronounced with recipient-reported incidents
and lower relationship quality.
Discussion
The results of Study 2 corroborate and extend the evidence obtained in Study 1.
Clear perspective-related dierences were again observed between recipient and actor
evaluations of the negative incidents. In addition to the ®ndings of Study 1, the
dierences were more pronounced with recipient-reported as compared with actor-
reported events for all dependent variables. This corresponds with what has been
discussed in the introductory section. Similar evidence was also obtained with the
Table 3. Study II: Three-way interaction of perspective of judge, source of report and
relationship quality
quality quality
Causality
Recipient-reported 7.02b 4.62c 8.49a 2.74d 5.82 1;344 50.05
Actor-reported 6.56b 6.26b 6.60b 5.07c
Deservedness
Recipient-reported 2.33d 5.02b 1.53d 7.42a 3.71 1;344 50.06
Actor-reported 3.30c 3.81c 3.36c 5.42b
Control
Recipient-reported 8.00a 5.40c 8.64a 2.21d 8.05 1;344 50.01
Actor-reported 7.09b 6.37b 6.78b 4.60c
Intention
Recipient-reported 5.39b,c 2.38e 7.89a 1.35f 4.72 1;344 50.05
Actor-reported 5.02c 3.88d 6.16b 3.47d
ratings of injustice and causality in Study 1, but it was only marginally signi®cant
( p 5 0.10) there.
Study 2 has additionally shown that relationship quality can moderate the
dierences between actor and recipient evaluations of negative incidents in close
relationships. It is important to note, however, that high relationship quality only
reduced the size of the perspective-related dierences but did not completely remove
them. This means that perspective-related dierences in the evaluations of negative
incidents among female friends prevailed even with high relationship quality. The
dierences disappeared in only one of the conditions, namely with high relationship
quality and actor-reported incidents, as the three-way interactions indicated. The
signi®cant relationship quality main eects which were obtained with some of the
dependent variables were quali®ed by the two-way interactions described above and
could not be meaningfully interpreted.
STUDY 3
Study 3 was conducted as a further test of perspective-related dierences with another

kind of heterosexual relationship in order to substantiate the gender dierences found
in Study 1.
Method
Sample
The study was run with heterosexual romantic pairs. Both partners participated in
each case. Participants were partly recruited by advertisements on the university
campus and partly by a snowball method. The ®nal sample comprised the female
and male partners of 40 couples. Most of them were students. Participants' ages
were between 19 and 31 years, with a mean age of M 24.75 years (SD 2.84).
Length of relationship varied between 6 months and 10 years, with a mean length of
M 3.50 years (SD 2.39).
Procedure
A number of changes were made in the procedure of this study. First, written instead
of oral descriptions of the incidents were gathered from the participants this time.
Second, rather than informing the participants about the incidents which had been
reported by their partners by means of a few catchwords, the written descriptions (but
not the ratings of the incidents!) were handed on to the partners in the second session
of the procedure. Third, the order in which the incidents were to be described was
systematically varied. Half of the participants ®rst described an unjust event in which
they were the recipients and afterwards an incident in which they were the actors. The
other half of the participants described the two incidents in reverse order. Since no
order eects were found, this variable is not further considered. Fourth, a German
version of Hendrick's (1988) seven-item relationship assessment scale was used as a
relationship satisfaction measure instead of the three-item scale which was employed
in the ®rst two studies. The new measure, which has been translated into German by
Hassebrauck (1991), has a high internal consistency (a 0.87) and satisfactory
discriminant validity. A median split of the sample was used to classify the partici-
pants into those with high versus lower relationship satisfaction.
The ratings of the unjust incidents which were obtained from the participants were
largely the same as in Study 2. Only the wording of the intention item was slightly
dierent (`To what extent was it intended by you/your partner?').
Results
A 2 (perspective of judge) 2 (source of report) 2 (relationship quality) 2

(gender) MANOVA revealed a signi®cant multivariate main eect of source of report
(F(6,275) 3.57, p 5 0.01) and a signi®cant multivariate two-way interaction of
perspective of judge and source of report (F(6,275) 6.07, p 5 0.01). The remaining
multivariate eects were not signi®cant.
Univariate Analyses
Perspective-related dierences The main eects of perspective of judge were

not signi®cant in the ANOVAs this time. The two-way interactions of perspective of
judge and source of report were signi®cant with all ratings except for intention
(Table 4). The means again showed systematic dierences between recipients' and
actors' evaluations of recipient- and actor-reported incidents. However, the shape of
Table 4. Study III: Two-way interactions of perspective of judge and source of report
b b b a
Injustice 6.00 5.40 5.47 6.73 14.35 1;281 50.01
Deservedness 2.41b 3.32a 3.04a,b 2.66b 7.34 1;283 50.01
Causality 6.55b 5.58c 6.33b 7.38a 19.75 1;283 50.01
Control 7.27a 6.29b 6.81a,b 7.21a 9.65 1;282 50.01
Intention 3.01 4.11 3.39 3.56 2.62 1;282 n.s.
Justi®cation 3.85b,c 4.97a 3.99b 3.33c 14.11 1;283 50.01
the dierences between the two perspectives diered depending on the source of the
report. In the case of recipient-reported incidents, actors rated the events less unjust
( p 5 0.10) and more deserved and attributed less causality and controllability and
more justi®cation to themselves than recipients did. In the case of actor-reported
events, the dierences went into the opposite direction: actors rated the incidents
more unjust and attributed more causality and less justi®cation to themselves than
recipients did. The dierences with the ratings of deserving and controllability
pointed in the same direction but were not signi®cant. The data in Table 4 also reveal
that the source-of-report eects were signi®cant with actors only. Actors judged
actor-reported as compared with recipient-reported incidents to be more unjust, less
deserved and less justi®ed, and rated their own causality and control as higher with
the former than with the latter examples. The recipient ratings did not dier depend-
ing on the source of the report.
Dierent from the previous two studies, the main eect of source of report was
signi®cant with some ratings. Participants attributed more causality (6.86 versus 6.08;
F(1,283) 11.34, p 5 0.01), more intention (3.83 versus 3.20; F(1,283) 4.25,
p 5 0.05), and less justi®cation (3.65 versus 4.39; F(1,283) 9.80, p 5 0.01) to the
actors in the case of actor-reported as compared to recipient-reported incidents.
However, the main eects for causality and justi®cation were quali®ed by the above-
mentioned two-way interaction and held for actors only.
Relationship quality eect The quality of the relationship had no impact at all on
the ratings in this study. Neither the main eects nor any of the interactions involving
relationship quality were signi®cant with any of the ratings.
Gender dierences Only one signi®cant gender eect was obtained in this study:
Women attributed more intention to actors than men did (4.00 versus 3.08;
F(1,283) 8.19, p 5 0.01). All other main eects and interaction eects involving
gender were not signi®cant.
Discussion
Although the present ®ndings dier from those of the previous two studies in several
respects, one result clearly corroborates the earlier evidence. In the case of recipient-
reported incidents, the ratings showed the usual perspective-related dierences.
Recipients regarded the incidents more unjust and undeserved and attributed more
causality and control and less justi®cation to actors than actors did themselves.
With actor-reported incidents, the dierences were completely reversed. Actors
regarded the incidents more unjust and attributed more responsibility and blame to
themselves than recipients did. This pattern corresponds to the accommodative, or
relationship-enhancing, way of responding to negative incidents discussed in the
introduction. We predicted this pattern would be particularly likely with high
relationship quality. Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove that the reversal of the
actor and recipient ratings of actor-reported incidents was due to a better quality of
the relationships of the participants in this study as compared with the ®rst two
studies because a dierent measure of relationship quality was used in Study 3.
Taking the types of relationships which existed between the partners in the three
studies (long-standing couples in Study 1, close friendships among girls in Study 2,
and romantic relationships in Study 3) into account, it seems at least possible that the
quality of the relationship was better among the partners in Study 3 than in the
previous studies. Interestingly, relationship satisfaction did not aect the ratings made
by recipients and actors, neither with recipient-reported nor with actor-reported
incidents. The lack of any relationship satisfaction eects could be due to the high
level and the extreme skewness of the satisfaction scores of the participants in this
study.
The reversal of the perspective dierences was observed only with actor-reported
but not with recipient-reported incidents. This corresponds to our proposal that it will
be easier to respond in an accommodative and benevolent way with actor-reported
incidents. In this case, actors necessarily admit, at least to a certain degree, to have
behaved inappropriately. Interestingly, the reversal was completely due to the actor
ratings which diered depending on the source of report while the recipient ratings did
not dier. Thus, the accommodative tendencies occurred with actors only.
Last but not least, other than in Study 1, the present data did not reveal any
relevant gender dierences. This can presumably be explained with the dierent
samples studied. Participants in Study 1 were married people with a variety of pro-
fessions and an extended range of ages, whereas participants in Study 3 were
predominantly university students. It seems reasonable that gender dierences are less
pronounced in samples of students than in the general population. Thus, in retro-
spect, the sample of the present study was not well chosen for the aim of sub-
stantiating the gender dierences found in Study 1.
STUDY 4
Compared to the largely consistent evidence of perspective-related dierences with

recipient-reported incidents, the actor-reported incidents revealed a less clear picture
in our ®rst three studies. In Study 1, the dierences between recipient and actor
evaluations of actor-reported events were similar in shape and size to those obtained
with recipient-reported incidents. In Study 2, the shape was again the same but the
size of the dierences was smaller with actor- as compared to recipient-reported
incidents. Finally, in Study 3, the shape of the dierences was completely reversed. It
is reasonable to attribute these inconsistencies to dierences in the quality of the
relationships of the partners in the three studies. Evaluations of actor-reported events

may be particularly sensitive to relationship quality eects, with the reversal found in
Study 3 being typical for couples with very high relationship quality. If evaluations of
actor-reported incidents by recipients and actors are indeed more strongly in¯uenced
by the relationship quality than evaluations of recipient-reported incidents, this
should be re¯ected in a three-way interaction of perspective of judge, source of report,
and relationship quality.
Inconsistent evidence was also obtained in the three studies with regard to the
moderating eect of relationship quality and gender dierences. Some of the incon-
sistencies may have been due to dierences in the socio-demographic characteristics of
the participants and the types of relationships under investigation. The relatively small
size of the samples studied may have additionally contributed to the inconsistencies.
Therefore, it seemed appropriate to run an additional study with a larger sample of
participants. To provide a more adequate test of possible gender dierences, we
decided to study a non-student sample, with a more extended age range. Furthermore,
to obtain a larger variance of relationship quality, we decided to focus on married and
cohabitating couples with an extended range of relationship length rather than on
romantic relationships of young people.
An additional goal of the present study was to analyze the moderating eects of
more speci®c features of the partner relationship than global relationship quality.
Towards this end, we chose a number of dierent relationship measures which,
according to the work of Holmes (1991; Holmes & Levinger, 1994), Rusbult and
colleagues (Rusbult et al., 1991; van Lange, Rusbult, Drigotas, Arriaga, Witcher, &
Cox, 1997) and others, could be expected to moderate the occurrence and form of
perspective-related dierences between actor and recipient evaluations of negative
relationship incidents. Finally, the evaluation and attribution variables of interest
should each be measured with more than one single item in order to increase the
reliability of the measures.
Method
Sample
Participants were 116 cohabitating and married couples. Both partners participated
in each case. Participants were partly recruited by means of an advertisement placed
in a local parish newspaper and partly by a snowball method. The professions of
the participants covered a wide range. Upper-middle-class professions were slightly
overrepresented in the sample as compared with the population. Ages were between
26 and 56 years, with a mean age of M 37.38 years (SD 6.82). Length of
relationship ranged from 4 to 27 years, the mean time being M 11.47 (SD 6.27).
Procedure
With the exceptions described below, the procedure was the same as in our ®rst two
studies. Dierent from our previous studies, participants were not asked to describe
unjust incidents but rather incidents or behaviors which made them (or their partners)
feel angry, disappointed, oended, or hurt. This change in the instruction was made
because some participants of the earlier studies had said they had diculties to ®nd
examples of unjust incidents in their relationships.
Measures
Evaluations and interpretations of the incident Except for perceived injustice which
was assessed with the same item as in the previous studies, we tried to measure each
dependent variable with two or more items this time. Violation of entitlement was
measured with the items `To what extent did you/your partner deserve what
happened?' and `To what extent was your/your partner's entitlement violated in that
situation?' (reversed). The inter-item correlation was r 0.71. Causal attribution was
assessed with four items (`To what extent was it due to you yourself/your partner/the
relationship between you and your partner/situational circumstances/ that the
incident happened?') (rs between 0.09 and ÿ0.36). Controllability was measured with
the items `To what extent did you/your partner have the possibility of acting in a
dierent way?' and `To what extent were you/your partner somehow forced to behave
in the way you/your partner did?' (r 0.63). The two items which were formulated as
measures of intention were `To what extent did you/your partner intentionally
perform the action which led to the incident' and `To what extent did you/your
partner inadvertently behave in the way you/your partner did?' (reversed). The
correlation of the two items was only r 0.13. The items measuring justi®cation were
`To what extent did you/your partner have good reasons to behave in the way you/
your partner did?' and `To what extent was it justi®ed that you/your partner acted in
that way?' (r 0.83). All ratings were on 7-point scales. Scoring was such that higher
scores indicated more injustice, less violation of entitlement (i.e. more deserving),
more causation by the respective agent, more controllability, more intention, and
more justi®cation. The intercorrelations of the ratings of violation of entitlement,
controllability, and justi®cation were suciently high to calculate indices of these
variables by averaging the scores of the respective items. For intention and causal
attributions the low item intercorrelations did not allow calculation of indices. In
these cases those items of which the wording corresponded most closely to the
de®nition of the respective variable in the attribution-of-blame model were chosen
(intention: `To what extent did you/your partner intentionally perform the action
which lead to the incident?'; causal attribution: `To what extent was it due to you/your
partner that the incident happened?').
Relationship measures We measured ®ve dierent relationship features: commit-

ment to the relationship, willingness to sacri®ce, trust in the partner, caring for the
partner, and perception of the relationship as an identity, unit, and nonunit relation.
Level of commitment was measured with an 8-item scale developed in the work of
Rusbult and colleagues (Rusbult, 1983; Rusbult et al., 1991) which was translated
into German for the present purpose. Alpha of the German version was a 0.90.
Willingness to sacri®ce was measured with a scale developed by van Lange et al.
(1997). In this instrument, participants are ®rst asked to list the four `most important
activities in your life other than your relationship with your partner'. Then, for each
activity they are asked to indicate the extent to which they would consider ending their
relationship if it turned out that it would not be possible to engage in that activity and
maintain the relationship with their partner. Alpha of the German version of the
4-item scale was a 0.87.
Perception of the relationship as an identity, unit, or nonunit relation was measured
with an instrument reported in Desmarais and Lerner (1994). It consists of three
paragraphs designed to portray a prototypical identity relation, unit relation, and non-
unit relation. Participants rated the extent to which each of the three prototypes
described the relationship with their partner. Since there was only one item per proto-
type, no reliability could be assessed for these measures.
The scales measuring trust in the partner and caring for the partner were developed
for the present purpose by Heschgl (in preparation). The 18 items for the trust scale
were partly taken from existing scales (Larzelere & Huston, 1980; Rubin, 1970;
Sternberg, 1986; Tesch, 1985) and partly newly developed. Alpha of the scale was
a 0.97 in the present sample. The items for the caring scale were partly taken from
Rubin (1970), Sternberg (1986), and Tesch (1985) and partly formulated by the
author. The ®nal version of the caring scale was composed of 12 items. Alpha of the
scale was a 0.94.
Unexpectedly, the relationship variables were highly correlated in our sample.
The correlations ranged from 0.72 to 0.82. Only the 1-item scale measuring percep-
tion of the relationship as a unit relation was less highly correlated with the remaining
variables (rs between 0.29 and 0.42). The high correlations prevented investigating
which of the features of the relationship between the partners is the most relevant
moderator of the occurrence and form of perspective-related dierences in the
evaluation and interpretation of negative incidents. Consequently, we decided to
calculate a composite measure of relationship quality which included all relationship
variables except the unit relation scale. The composite measure was calculated as the
sum total of the participants' standardized z-scores in the individual scales (the non-
unit scale being reversed). A median split of the sample was used to classify the
participants into those with high versus lower relationship quality.
Results
A 2 (perspective of judge) 2 (source of report) 2 (relationship quality) 2

(gender) MANOVA revealed signi®cant multivariate main eects of perspective of
judge (F(6,907) 22.68, p 5 0.01), source of report (F(6,907) 6.52, p 5 0.01),
relationship quality (F(6,907) 147.83, p 5 0.01), and gender of judge
(F(6,907) 9.20, p 5 0.01), and signi®cant multivariate two-way interactions of
perspective of judge and source of report (F(6,907) 6.00, p 5 0.01), perspective of
judge and relationship quality (F(6,907) 207.63, p 5 0.01), perspective of judge and
gender of judge (F(6,907) 16.93, p 5 0.01), and relationship quality and gender
(F(6,907) 3.26, p 5 0.01). In addition, the multivariate three-way interaction
perspective of judge, relationship quality and gender of judge proved to be signi®cant
(F(6,907) 2.83, p 5 0.05). The remaining multivariate eects were not signi®cant.
Table 5. Study IV: Two-way interactions

(a) Two-way interactions of perspective of judge and source of report
a b b a
Injustice 4.14 3.49 3.44 3.89 28.23 1;912 50.01
Deservedness 3.50c 3.77a,b 3.97a 3.58b,c 13.14 1;912 50.01
Causality 4.28 3.31 3.95 3.11 0.39 1;912 n.s.
Control 4.52a 3.84c 4.18b 4.07b,c 8.69 1;912 50.01
Intention 3.49b 3.46b 3.60b 4.23a 6.86 1;912 50.01
Justi®cation 4.40c 5.21a 4.63b,c 4.81b 10.57 1;912 50.01
(b) Two-way interactions of perspective of judge and relationship quality

quality quality
d b a c
Injustice 2.45 4.53 5.13 2.86 419.71 1;912 50.01
Deservedness 4.99a 2.60b 2.48b 4.74a 605.23 1;912 50.01
Causality 5.66 4.62 2.56 1.81 2.08 1;912 n.s.
Control 3.13c 4.95b 5.57a 2.96c 527.29 1;912 50.01
Intention 3.43c 4.26b 5.02a 2.07d 222.75 1;912 50.01
Justi®cation 5.65a 4.21b 3.37c 5.82a 403.80 1;912 50.01
(c) Two-way interactions of perspective of judge and gender of judge

Recipient Actor
Women Men Women Men F df p
a b b a
Injustice 4.15 3.44 3.35 4.03 48.29 1;912 50.01
Deservedness 3.39b 4.08a 4.14a 3.21b 86.98 1;912 50.01
Causality 4.33a 3.90b 3.72b 2.70c 8.68 1;912 50.01
Control 4.49a 4.21b 3.81c 4.09b 9.27 1;912 50.01
Intention 3.56 3.95 3.53 3.74 0.55 1;912 n.s.
Justi®cation 4.26c 4.77b 5.30a 4.72b 34.89 1;912 50.01
Univariate Analyses
Perspective-related dierence Subsequent univariate between-subjects ANOVAs

revealed signi®cant perspective-of-judge main eects for causation (F(1,912) 81.21,
p 5 0.01), control (F(1,912) 18.53, p 5 0.01), intention (F(1,912) 5.77, p 5 0.02),
and justi®cation (F(1,912) 29.82, p 5 0.01). Recipients attributed more causality
(4.11 versus 3.21), more controllability (4.35 versus 3.95), less justi®cation (4.51 versus
5.01) and, surprisingly, less intention (3.55 versus 3.84) to the actors than the actors
did themselves.
Signi®cant two-way interactions of perspective of judge and source of report were
obtained for all dependent variables except for causality (cf. Table 5(a)). In the case of
recipient-reported incidents, the ®ndings resembled those of our previous studies.
Recipients regarded the incidents as more unjust and less deserved and attributed
more control and less justi®cation to the actors than the actors did themselves.
The ratings of intention did not dier between recipients and actors. In the case of
actor-reported incidents, the recipient±actor dierences were reversed and point in

the opposite direction with the ratings of injustice, deserving and intention: recipients
rated the incidents less unjust and more deserved and attributed less intention to
actors than actors did. The ratings of controllability and justi®cation did not dier
between actors and recipients. In addition, and dierent from Study 3, the dierences
between recipient-reported and actor-reported incidents were signi®cant this time
both with part of the actor ratings (injustice, intention, justi®cation) and recipient
ratings (injustice, deserving, control).
The main eect source of report was signi®cant with attributed causality
(F(1,912) 6.77, p 5 0.01) and intention (F(1,912) 12.80, p 5 0.01): Participants
attributed less causality (3.53 versus 3.79) and more intention (3.92 versus 3.47) to the
actors in the case of actor-reported as compared to recipient-reported events.
However, with the intention ratings, the main eect was quali®ed by the two-way
interaction of perspective of judge and source of report and signi®cant only with
actors but not with recipients (cf. Table 5(a)).
Relationship quality eects The main eects of relationship quality were signi®-
cant for all dependent variables. Participants with high relationship quality ratings
regarded the incidents less unjust (3.49 versus 3.99; F(1,912) 25.19, p 5 0.01)
and more deserved (3.81 versus 3.60; F(1,912) 5.39, p 5 0.05) and attributed less
causation (2.19 versus 5.14; F(1,912) 869.48, p 5 0.01), control (4.06 versus
4.25; F(1,912) 4.07, p 5 0.02), and intention (3.14 versus 4.25; F(1,912) 78.63,
p 5 0.01), and more justi®cation (4.93 versus 4.59; F(1,912) 13.68, p 5 0.01) to the
actors than participants with lower relationship quality ratings.
The two-way interaction of perspective of judge and relationship quality was
signi®cant for all ratings except causality (cf. Table 5(b)). The pattern of the means is
very consistent. Recipients with lower relationship quality ratings regarded the
incidents as more unjust and less deserved and attributed more control and intention
and less justi®cation to actors than actors did themselves. In the case of high
relationship quality, the pattern was exactly the opposite: recipients regarded the
incidents less unjust and more deserved, and attributed less control and intention and
more justi®cation than actors did. The non-signi®cant trends of the causality ratings
were also in line with the above patterns: High relationship quality recipients
attributed less causality and lower relationship quality recipients more causality to the
actors than did the respective actors.
Gender dierences The gender main eect was signi®cant with the causality
ratings (F(1,912) 24.38, p 5 0.01): Female participants attributed more causality to
actors than men (4.02 versus 3.30).
The two-way interaction of perspective and gender of judge was signi®cant for the
ratings of injustice, deserving, causality, control, and justi®cation (cf. Table 5(c)).
Female recipients regarded the incidents as more unjust and less deserved and
attributed more causality, more control, and less justi®cation to the actors than male
recipients did. Female actors regarded the incidents less unjust and more deserved and
attributed less control and more justi®cation to themselves than male actors did. Only
the causality attributions of female actors did not ®t in this general pattern. In this
case, women attributed more causality to themselves than did their male counter-
parts. The data in Table 5(c) further reveal that the perspective dierences between
female actors and female recipients were signi®cant and in line with the hypotheses
for all ratings. With male actors and male recipients, only the justi®cation ratings
re¯ect the predicted perspective dierences.
The three-way interaction perspective of judge, relationship quality, and gender of
judge was signi®cant with the ratings of deserving (F(1,912) 9.87, p 5 0.01) and
causality (F(1,912) 5.10, p 5 0.05), However, these interactions did not change the
basic patterns of the two-way interactions of perspective of judge and relationship
quality, and perspective of judge and participants' gender, which were described
above.
Finally, the two-way interaction of relationship quality and gender was signi®cant
with the causality ratings (F(1,912) 16.18, p 5 0.01). However, this eect is not
relevant for the present purpose and cannot be meaningfully interpreted.
Discussion
The main aims of the present study were to avoid some weaknesses of the previous
studies and to provide additional tests of the moderating eects of relationship quality
and gender, which were found in some but not all of our earlier studies. Findings from
our Study 4 yielded clear evidence for the existence of perspective-related dierences
between recipient and actor evaluations of negative relationship incidents. But the
shape and size of the dierences was moderated in multiple respects. First, the shape
of the perspective dierences diered depending on whether the critical incidents had
been introduced by recipients or actors. With recipient-reported incidents, the ®nd-
ings were in line with the results of our previous studies. Recipients regarded these
incidents more unjust and less deserved and attributed more control and less
justi®cation to the actors than actors did themselves. With actor-reported incidents,
the recipient and actor evaluations revealed a partial reversal and resembled those
observed in Study 3. Recipients regarded the incidents less unjust and more deserved
and attributed less intention to actors than actors did themselves. The reversal of the
perspective dierences with actor-reported incidents resulted from changes in the
ratings of both actors and recipients this time. Our assumption that the reversal of
recipient and actor evaluations in the case of actor-reported incidents would occur
only in the case of high relationship quality did not prove correct. Contrary to our
expectation, the three-way interaction of perspective of judge, source of report, and
relationship quality was not signi®cant.
The prediction that the size and/or shape of the perspective dierences would be
moderated by relationship quality was clearly con®rmed in the present study.
Dierent from Study 2, it was not only the size but rather the direction of the
dierences between actor and recipient evaluations which diered between partici-
pants with high and lower relationship quality ratings this time. High relationship
quality recipients perceived less injustice and attributed less responsibility and blame
to the actors than actors did themselves, while recipients and actors with lower
relationship quality ratings showed the usual recipient±actor dierences.
As in Studies 1 and 2, we found signi®cant main eects of relationship quality.
The pattern was consistent with all dependent variables. Participants from high-
quality relationships regarded the negative incidents as less unjust and as involving
less responsibility and blame of the actor than participants from lower-quality
relationships. Possible interpretations of these ®ndings will be considered in the

General Discussion.
Our attempt to decompose relationship quality in more speci®c components and
analyze their relative importance for the moderating eect of relationship quality was
not successful. The component measures of trust, caring, commitment, willingness to
sacri®ce, and orientation toward the partner were too highly correlated to allow any
dierentiated conclusions. The fact that these relationship variables can be dier-
entiated on a conceptual level does not necessarily mean that they also are empirically
distinguishable in each case. It is an interesting question under which conditions
dierent aspects of relationship can be expected to be highly correlated and when not.
High correlations may be more typical for long-lasting relationships as they have been
studied here.
The gender dierences which were obtained in the present study revealed a clear
and consistent picture. Female recipients rated the incidents as more unjust and
undeserved than male recipients did and attributed more causation, more control, and
less justi®cation to the actors. This is in line with the results of Study 1. Female actors
rated the incidents as less unjust and more deserved by the recipient and perceived
less control and more justi®cation for their conduct than male actors did. The relevant
data in Study 1 pointed in the same direction but were not signi®cant. Since the
ratings made by female participants were more polarized in both perspectives than
those of male participants, the recipient±actor dierences were more clearly
established with women as compared to men.
Two dierent interpretations of the gender dierences are possible. They could
re¯ect dierential evaluative responses of male and female recipients and actors, as
has been implicitly assumed thus far, or they could follow from the fact that the
reported incidents with male actors and female recipients were of a dierent nature
from incidents with female actors and male recipients. If incidents with male actors
and female recipients were more serious and involved more responsibility and blame
of the actor than incidents with female actors and male recipients, one would get
exactly the pattern of results we have obtained. If the dierences are indeed due to
the dierent nature of events and not to dierential response tendencies of women
and men, they should be re¯ected not only in women's but also in men's ratings. In
order to test this possibility, we rearranged our data in a 2 (type of event: female
recipient and male actor versus male recipient and female actor) 2 (gender of
judge) design and conducted between-subject ANOVAs with all ratings. These
analyses yielded signi®cant eects of type of event for all ratings (Fs between 5.44
and 45.50), except for causality and intention. Incidents with male actors and
female recipients were rated as being more unjust (4.09 versus 3.39), less deserved
(3.30 versus 4.11), more strongly controlled by the actor (4.29 versus 4.01), and less
justi®ed (4.49 versus 5.03) than incidents with female actors and male recipients.7
Thus, the incidents with male actors and female recipients were indeed more serious
and involved more responsibility and blame of the actors than incidents with female
actors and male recipients. This shows that the gender dierences described above
follow at least in part from the dierent nature of events with male versus female
7
Equivalent re-analyses have also been conducted with the data of Study 1. In line with the present analyses
they showed that incidents with male actors and female recipients were rated as being more unjust (5.65
versus 5.01), more strongly caused by the actor (6.90 versus 5.99), and less justi®ed (4.64 versus 5.26) than
incidents with female actors and male recipients.
actors.8 We cannot ascertain whether there are any dierential evaluative responses
of male and female recipients and actors above and beyond the described dierences
between the events because the variables of interest are partly confounded in
our studies. But the dierential explanations of our ®ndings, and the underlying
processes, are not mutually exclusive. They may well combine and complement each
other.
Based on the last-mentioned evidence, it seemed worth while to explore whether the
shape and/or size of the perspective-related dierences between recipients and actors
were moderated not only by the source of the report and relationship quality as
discussed above but also by the type of event. The data in Table 5(c) do not support
this. With male actor±female recipient incidents, perspective dierences were signi®-
cant for the ratings of causality, control, and justi®cation. In the case of incidents with
female actors and male recipients, recipient±actor dierences occurred with the
ratings of control and justi®cation.9
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The present series of studies was designed to investigate systematic dierences between
actor and recipient interpretations and justice evaluations of negative incidents, and
whether the quality of the relationship between the parties involved in the incidents
moderates the occurrence, size, and shape of the dierences. The theoretical frame-
work borrowed from interdependence and justice theory. We assumed that perspect-
ive-related dierences would be particularly likely with lower relationship quality
between the parties involved because their interpretations and justice evaluations
of the incident in question would be primarily motivated by immediate self-
interest and less guided by relationship concerns. As will be discussed in more
detail below, the current ®ndings are generally congruent with the theoretical
predictions. An additional aim of the studies was to develop and use a re®ned
methodology which allows a more stringent test of perspective-related dierences than
in previous research.
Perspective-related Dierences
Most importantly, our studies provided clear evidence of systematic dierences

between recipient and actor interpretations and justice evaluations. Recipients
regarded the negative incidents as more unjust and attributed more responsibility and
blame to actors than actors did themselves. The relevant main eects of perspective of
judge were signi®cant in three of our four studies.
Our methodology of testing perspective-related dierences was superior to that of
many previous studies in so far as each negative incident was assessed by both the
8
However, we cannot decide whether incidents with male versus female actors are actually of a dierent
nature, as opposed to merely being experienced or interpreted dierently.
9 The same holds for Study 1. Equivalent analyses showed that the perspective dierences were signi®cant
for all ratings both with male actor±female recipient incidents and with female actor±male recipient
incidents.
recipient and the actor, and each participant reported incidents from both perspect-
ives. As a consequence, we can rule out that the observed dierences follow from a
dierential selection of negative incidents that are reported by actors and recipients,
or from the particular nature of people who occupy the roles of actors and recipients.
Unfortunately, the present research suers from another methodological weakness.
In three of the four studies, perspective of judge is systematically confounded by order
of presentation of the dierent incidents. In Studies 1, 2 and 4 all subjects ®rst
responded to an incident in the role of the recipient and, afterwards, they evaluated an
incident in which they were involved as actors. Only Study 3 avoided this confound
and systematically counterbalanced the order. Since Study 3 is the only one which did
not ®nd any perspective dierences, one might be tempted to conclude that the
signi®cant dierences found in the other three studies are based on order of response,
not role perspective. However, two facts at least speak against this possibility. First,
the order eects turned out to be insigni®cant in Study 3. Second, the present evidence
of perspective-related dierences converges with previous work that avoided the
confound. Thus, it seems one can safely conclude that the observed dierences can be
attributed to interpretation biases which are inherent in the dierent perspectives.
People tend to interpret negative incidents dierently depending on the perspective
they have in relation to the incident.
The present proof of systematic perspective dierences is particularly notable
because it was obtained with members of close relationships of generally high
relationship quality and, thus, provides a rather conservative test. For a proper
interpretation of our ®ndings it is important to keep in mind that the participants of
our studies were explicitly invited to report examples of injustice (or negative
incidents, in Study 4) from their relationships. Thus, one must not conclude from
the ®ndings that the observed interpretative dierences are typical for close
partners. Our evidence only shows that perspective dierences of this kind may
and do occur even among close partners when one of them feels that injustice has
occurred. Accordingly, the ®ndings are not at variance with previous theorizing and
evidence that close partners are inclined to make benign rather than self-serving
interpretations of negative incidents in their relationships and, as a consequence, are
less likely to experience any injustice than participants of other kinds of relationships
(cf. Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Holmes & Levinger, 1994; Rusbult et al., 1991).
Relationship Quality Eects
The evidence that the quality of the relationship between parties can moderate the
occurrence and form of the dierences between actor and recipient interpretations of
negative incidents is another important result of the present research. The interaction
between perspective of judge and relationship quality was signi®cant in two of our
studies (Studies 2 and 4). The pattern of results is in line with our theoretical
predictions and agrees with empirical evidence of Rusbult et al. (1991) showing that
strong relationship commitment promotes people's willingness to cope with
potentially destructive relationship problems in an accommodative way. Our ®ndings
also extend previous work on attribution dierences in marriage showing that happy
and distressed couples make partly dierent attributions for negative (and positive)
own and partner behavior (cf. Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Fincham and Bradbury,
1991; for reviews).
Since the participants in our studies could freely choose the negative incidents they
reported, dierent explanations are possible for the moderator eect of relationship
quality. The ®rst explanation is in line with our theorizing in the introductory section:
People with lower levels of trust, caring, and commitment to their relationship tend to
interpret the negative incidents in a self-serving way which is advantageous to their
own outcome, self-concept, and social image. Recipients emphasize the inappropri-
ateness of what has happened and their partners' responsibility and blameworthiness.
Actors tend to deny any misconduct and minimize their responsibility and blame-
worthiness for what has happened. In contrast, the interpretations made by people
with high levels of trust, caring, and commitment show a strong concern for
maintaining a close, loyal, and trustful relationship, and a positive image of their
partner. Actors admit the wrongfulness of their conduct and blame themselves for
their failure. Recipients, on the other hand, play down the signi®cance of what has
happened and exonerate their partner.
Alternatively, the dierential ratings in high versus lower quality relationships
may be explained by dierences in the nature of incidents which were reported
rather than by dierent interpretative and evaluative sets. Two dierent possibilities
are conceivable. The dierential ratings could be due to dierences in the nature of
events that actually occur in relationships with high and lower relationship quality or
to dierences in the nature of events that participants with high and lower relationship
quality selected to report.
Eects which follow from dierences in the nature of (actually occurring or
selected) events rather than from dierential interpretations should be re¯ected ®rst in
signi®cant relationship quality main eects. Such eects were indeed obtained in
Studies 1, 2, and 4, but they were not fully consistent. For instance, in study 1, high
relationship quality participants did not only rate the incidents as less unjust and
attributed less causality to actors as one would predict but also attributed less
justi®cation to the actor. The pattern was even more inconsistent in Study 2:
Participants with high relationship quality regarded the incidents as less deserved,
more controllable, and less intended than participants with lower relationship quality
ratings. Only Study 4 yielded a fully consistent pattern of eects. The incidents from
high quality relationships were rated as less unjust, more deserved, and involving less
causation, control, and intention, and more justi®cation of the actors than the
incidents from lower quality relationships.
Dierences in the nature of incidents can also contribute to the two-way interaction
of perspective of judge and relationship quality. If high relationship quality partici-
pants reported fewer serious problems than lower relationship quality participants,
this could explain why recipients in the high relationship quality condition gave more
lenient ratings than recipients with lower relationship quality. If one additionally
assumes that less serious incidents are easier to admit than more serious ones, this
could also explain why actors in the high relationship quality condition admitted their
faults more readily than actors in the lower relationship quality condition.
We are not able to decide between the dierent explanations of the relationship
quality eects on the basis of our data. The three explanations are not mutually
exclusive and the dierential processes which are proposed herein may well combine
and complement each other. Studies investigating attributions made for hypothetical
events which were selected by the experimenter rather than naturally occurring
behaviors selected by the participants yielded ®ndings similar to the present ones (e.g.,
Fincham & Beach, 1988; Fincham, Beach, & Baucom, 1987; cf. also Fincham and
Bradbury, 1991). Thus, it seems appropriate to conclude that the dierential ratings
of negative incidents which we observed are at least partly due to interpretative and
evaluative dierences between high- and lower-quality relationships.
What still has to be discussed are the partly discrepant ®ndings of our studies. In
Study 2, the recipient±actor dierences pointed in the same direction with high and
lower relationship quality. In both cases, recipients regarded the incidents as more
unjust and attributed more responsibility and blame to actors than actors did. Only
the size of the dierences was smaller with high as compared to lower relationship
quality. In Study 4, the interpretative dierences pointed in the opposite direction
with high as compared to lower relationship quality. With lower relationship quality,
recipients regarded the incidents as more unjust and attributed more responsibility
and blame to actors than actors did themselves. With high relationship quality, actors
regarded the incidents as more unjust and attributed more responsibility and blame to
themselves than recipients did. It is reasonable to assume that these dierent eects
found in Studies 2 and 4 are due to the dierent kind and quality of the relationships
studied (girl friendships versus cohabitating and married couples). Unfortunately, we
were not able to substantiate this explanation empirically because dierent measures
of relationship quality were employed in the two studies. The lack of evidence of any
moderator eects of relationship quality in Study 3 can presumably be explained by
the very restricted range and skewed distributions of relationship satisfaction scores in
this study. It is less clear why Study 1 did not yield any evidence in this respect.
Recipient-reported versus Actor-reported Incidents
The present research also provided supporting evidence for the prediction that the
occurrence, shape, and size of dierences between recipient and actor interpretations
of negative incidents will partly dier depending on whether the respective incident
originally had been introduced by the recipient or the actor. The perspective-related
dierences were particularly clear and consistent in the case of recipient-reported
examples of negative incidents. Here, recipients regarded the incidents more unjust
and attributed more responsibility and blame to actors than actors did themselves
in all four studies. The dierences were less consistent with incidents that originally
had been introduced by the actor. They were smaller but of the same shape as with
recipient-reported incidents in Study 2 (and, not signi®cantly, also in Study 1), and
pointed in the opposite direction than with recipient-reported incidents in Studies 3
and 4. That the size and shape of recipient±actor dierences change depending on
whether the incident had been introduced by the recipient or the actor is in line with
our discussion of the special nature of actor-reported negative incidents in the
introductory section. In the case of actor-reported examples of injustice, actors
necessarily admit their fault and acknowledge their blameworthiness to some extent.
This, in turn, may make it easier for recipients to respond leniently. In contrast, with
recipient-reported incidents, recipients may feel the need to emphasize their negative
and unfair treatment and the blameworthiness of their partner. Actors, in turn, may
feel accused by the recipient's report and respond defensively, playing down the
incident and their blameworthiness. Unexpectedly, in Study 3, only actors but not
recipients responded to actor-reported as compared with recipient-reported incidents
in a more relationship-promoting manner. However, recipients were equally likely as
actors to respond accommodatingly in Studies 2 and 4. Unfortunately, we are not in a
position to provide a meaningful explanation of these inconsistencies.
What still has to be explained is the inconsistency of the ®ndings of our studies with
regard to the shape of the recipient±actor dierences in the case of actor-reported
incidents. It seems likely that this inconsistency is a combined eect of the dierential
qualities of the relationships under investigation, and a particular sensitivity of
the interpretation of actor-reported incidents to relationship quality eects. First, with
increasing relationship quality, actors become typically less defensive and increasingly
willing to admit their fault, and recipients typically become less accusing and
increasingly willing to exonerate the partner. As a consequence, the usual perspective-
related dierence will ®rst decrease, then vanish, and ®nally turn around and point in
the opposite direction when relationship quality changes from low to high. Second, the
inherent admission of an own fault in the case of actor-reported examples of negative
incidents gives to them a special nature. It makes it easier for both parties to respond to
the critical incident in an accommodative and constructive way and, thus, presumably
makes actor-reported incidents particularly sensitive for relationship quality eects.
Unfortunately, we are not able to provide a de®nite proof of these assumptions. The
quality of the relationships under investigation cannot be directly compared between
the dierent studies because of the dierent relationship measures which were used.
We have additionally tried to substantiate the assumption that evaluations of actor-
reported incidents are particularly sensitive for relationship quality eects within the
individual studies. However, the three-way interactions of perspective of judge, source
of report, and relationship quality were not signi®cant in either of the studies.
Gender Dierences
Gender dierences in the interpretation and justice evaluation of negative incidents

were obtained in two of the three relevant studies. In both cases, gender interacted
with the perspective of the judge. Female recipients regarded the negative incidents as
more unjust and undeserved and attributed more responsibility and less justi®cation
to the actors than men did in the same position. As actors, women regarded the
incidents as less unjust and undeserved, and attributed less control and more
justi®cation to themselves than male actors did. The latter dierences were signi®cant
only in Study 4. However, non-signi®cant trends pointing in the same direction were
also observed in Study 1. The gender dierences which were obtained with recipient
ratings agree with previous ®ndings showing that women are more likely than men to
report and confront relationship problems (Brehm, 1992; Christensen & Heavey,
1990; Lloyd, 1987; Rusbult, Johnson, & Morrow, 1986; Sprecher, 1992). Gender
dierences in actor interpretations of negative incidents were not predicted because we
were not aware of parallel ®ndings in the literature.
Supplementary analyses of the data of the Studies 1 and 4 revealed that the gender
dierences at least partly have to be attributed to the fact that incidents with male
actors and female recipients were regarded as more serious and involving more
responsibility and blame of the actors than incidents with female actors and male
recipients. Since the relevant variables were partly confounded in our studies, we
cannot decide whether the observed gender dierences are completely due to the
dierent nature of the incidents or additionally re¯ect dierential evaluative responses
of women and men in the roles of recipients and actors of negative incidents. However,
the perspective-related dierences between recipient and actor ratings which were
observed in the present research cannot simply be attributed to the particular nature of
male-actor-female-recipient incidents. Study 2, which was conducted with pairs of
female close friends only, also provided clear evidence of recipient±actor dierences.
There is another gender-related issue which seems worth mentioning brie¯y.
Gender dierences were only obtained in our studies with non-student samples with a
broad range of ages and a variety of professions. The lack of gender dierences
obtained with students (Study 3) presumably can be explained with the greater
homogeneity of the sample of participants, and the fact that, due to more similar
socialization, male and female students are more similar than men and women in the
general population in many respects.
Methodological Issues
Before concluding, some comments concerning our methodology are appropriate.

The choice of the methodology has been guided by the central goal of our research,
i.e. the study of perspective-related dierences in the interpretation and justice
evaluation of negative incidents between partners in interpersonal relationships. For
this purpose, the present methodology was well suited and even superior to the
methodologies of many previous studies. However, our methodology also has draw-
backs. Most importantly, the participants of our studies could freely choose which
examples of negative incidents they reported. This fact results in certain ambiguities.
For instance, nothing is known about how the participants selected the incidents
which they reported. In addition, our ®ndings of gender dierences and the moderat-
ing eects of relationship quality are subject to alternative explanations between
which we cannot decide on the basis of our data. Additional studies with other
methodologies are needed to address those questions which could not be adequately
treated with our methodology. In spite of these limitations, we think the present series
of studies contributes to our understanding of perspective-related interpretative and
evaluative dierences between partners in interpersonal relationships. The present
evidence of systematic perspective dierences converges in important ways with
®ndings of similar studies which used dierent methodologies. This convergence
provides much more compelling evidence for our theoretical conclusions than any
study could provide alone. The evidence about relationship quality eects and
obtaining actor and recipient accounts from both participants in the same incident
seem to present important advances over previous work.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to AmelieÂ Mummendey and three anonymous reviewers for their
helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.
REFERENCES
Baucom, D. H. (1987). Attributions in distressed relations. How can we explain them?

In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds), Intimate relationships: development, dynamics, and
deterioration (pp. 177±206). London: Sage.
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A., & Wotman, S. R. (1990). Victim and perpetrator accounts of
interpersonal con¯ict: Autobiographical narratives about anger. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59, 994±1005.
Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 3±33.
Brehm, S. S. (1992). Intimate relationships. New York: Random House.
Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1990). Gender and social structure in the demand/withdraw
pattern of marital con¯ict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 73±81.
Cohen, R. L. (1982). Perceiving justice: An attributional perspective. In J. Greenberg &
R. L. Cohen (Eds), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 119±160). New York: Academic
Press.
Desmarais, S., & Lerner, M. J. (1994). Entitlement in close relationships. A justice-motive
analysis. In M. J. Lerner & G. Mikula (Eds), Entitlement and the aectional bond. Justice in
close relationships (pp. 43±63). New York: Plenum.
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. (1988). Attribution processes in distressed and nondistressed
couples: 5. Real versus hypothetical events. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5, 505±514.
Fincham, F. D., Beach, S. R., & Baucom, D. H. (1987). Attribution processes in distressed and
nondistressed couples: 4. Self±partner attribution dierences. Journal of Personality and
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1988). The impact of attributions in marriage: Empirical
and conceptual foundations. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 77±90.
Fincham, F. D., & Bradbury, T. N. (1991). Cognition in marriage: A program of research on
attributions. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 2,
pp. 159±203). London: Kingsley.
Fletcher, G. J. O., & Fincham, F. D. (1991). Attribution processes in close relationships.
In G. J. O. Fletcher & F. D. Fincham (Eds), Cognition in close relationships (pp. 7±35).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gray, J. D., & Cohen-Silver, R. (1990). Opposite sides of the same coin: Former spouses
divergent perspectives in coping with their divorce. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 1180±1191.
Harvey, J. H. (1987). Attributions in close relationships: Research and theoretical
developments. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 5, 420±434.
Harvey, J. H., & Weary, G. (1984). Current issues in attribution theory and research. Annual
Review of Psychology, 35, 427±459.
Hassebrauck, M. (1991). ZIPÐEin Instrumentarium zur Erfassung von Zufriedenheit in
Paarbeziehungen. [ZIPÐAn instrument for the assessment of satisfaction in pair relation-
ships]. Zeitschrift fuÈr Sozialpsychologie, 22, 256±259.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 50, 93±98.
Heschgl, S. (in preparation). Opfer±TaÈter-Unterschiede in der Beurteilung negativer Ereignisse
innerhalb enger Beziehungen. [Recipient±actor dierences in the evaluation of negative
incidents in close relationships].
Hewstone, M. (1989). Causal attribution. From cognitive processes to collective beliefs. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of
103 aairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 147±168.
Holmes, J. G. (1991). Trust and the appraisal process in close relationships. In W. H. Jones &
D. Perlman (Eds), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 2, pp. 57±104). London: Kingsley.
Holmes, J. G., & Levinger, G. (1994). Paradoxical eects of closeness in relationships on

perceptions of justice: An interdependence theory perspective. In M. J. Lerner & G. Mikula
(Eds), Entitlement and the aectional bond: Justice in close relationships (pp. 149-173).
New York: Plenum.
Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.),
Review of personality and social psychology: Close relationships (Vol. 9, pp. 198±220). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: a theory of interdependence.
New York: Wiley.
Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward under-
standing interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42,
595±604.
Lerner, M. J. (1991). Integrating societal and psychological rules of entitlement. In R. Vermunt
& H. Steensma (Eds), Social justice in human relations (Vol. 1, pp. 13±32). New York:
Plenum.
Lloyd, S. A. (1987). Con¯ict in premarital relationships: Dierential perceptions of males and
females. Family Relations, 36, 290±294.
Mikula, G. (1984). Justice and fairness in interpersonal relations: Thoughts and suggestions.
In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimension (Vol. 1, pp. 204±227). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Mikula, G. (1987). Exploring the experience of injustice. In G. R. Semin & B. Krahe (Eds),
Issues in contemporary social psychology (pp. 74±96). London: Sage.
Mikula, G. (1993). On the experience of injustice. In M. Hewstone & W. Stroebe (Eds),
European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 223±244). Chichester: Wiley.
Mikula, G. (1994). Perspective-related dierences in interpretations of injustice by victims and
victimizers: A test with close relationships. In M. J. Lerner & G. Mikula (Eds), Entitlement
and the aectional bond: Justice in close relationships (pp. 175-203). New York: Plenum.
Montada, L. (1991). Coping with life stress. Injustice and the question `who is responsible?'
In H. Steensma & R. Vermunt (Eds), Social justice in human relations (Vol. 2, pp. 9±30).
New York: Plenum.
Mummendey, A., Linneweber, V., & LoÈschper, G. (1984). Actor or victim of aggression.
Divergent perspectivesÐdivergent evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14,
297±311.
Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1989). Perspective-speci®c dierences in the segmentation and
evaluation of aggressive interaction sequences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19,
23±40.
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45, 41±51.
Otten, S., Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1995). The evaluation of aggressive interpretations
in interpersonal and intergroup contexts. Aggressive Behavior, 21, 205±224.
Reis, H. T. (1984). The multidimensionality of justice. In R. Folger (Ed.), The sense of
injustice: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 25±61). New York: Plenum.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
16, 265±273.
Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and
deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101±117.
Rusbult, C. E., Johnson, D. J., & Morrow, G. D. (1986). Impact of couple patterns on
problem solving on distress and nondistress in dating relationships. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 744±753.
Rusbult, C. E., Verette, J., Whitney, G. A., Slovik, L. F., & Lipkus, I. (1991). Accommodation
processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 543±578.
Rusbult, C. E., & van Lange, P. A. M. (1996). Interdependence processes. In E. T. Higgings &
A. W. Kruglanski (Eds), Social psychology: handbook of basic principles. New York:
Guilford Press.
Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: causality, responsibility, and blame-worthiness.

New York: Springer.
Sprecher, S. (1992). Social exchange perspectives to the dissolution of close relationships.
In T. L. Orbuch (Ed.), Close relationship loss: theoretical approaches (pp. 47±66). New York:
Springer.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119±135.
Tesch, S. A. (1985). The psychological intimacy questionnaire: Validational studies and an
investigation of sex roles. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 471±488.
van der Pligt, J. (1981). Actors' and observers' explanations: Divergent perspectives or
divergent evaluations? In C. Antaki (Ed.), The psychology of ordinary explanations of social
behaviour (pp. 97±117). New York: Academic Press.
van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., Drigotas, S. M., Arriaga, X. B., Witcher, B. S. &
Cox, C. L. (1997). Willingness to sacri®ce in close relationships. Journal of Personality and
van Yperen, N. W., & Buunk, B. P. (1994). Social comparison and social exchange in marital
relationships. In M. J. Lerner & G. Mikula (Eds), Entitlement and the aectional bond.
Justice in close relationships (pp. 43±63). New York: Plenum.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: theory and research. Boston MD:
Allyn & Bacon.
Watson, D. (1982). The actor and the observer: How are their perceptions of causality
divergent? Psychological Bulletin, 92, 682±700.

Mikula Justice and Social Conflict

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Mikula Justice and Social Conflict

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

European Journal of Social Psychology

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 28, 931±962 (1998)

Does it only depend on the point of view?

CCC 0046±2772/98/060931±32$17.50 Received 14 March 1997

EXISTING RESEARCH ON PERSPECTIVE-RELATED DIFFERENCES

Evidence of systematic perspective-related dierences in interpretation of behavior

MODERATOR EFFECTS OF RELATIONSHIP QUALITY

MAIN GOALS AND METHODOLOGY OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH

A 2 (perspective of judge: recipient versus actor) 2 (source of the report: recipient

Perspective-related dierences Subsequent univariate between-subject analyses

Relationship quality eects The observed perspective-related dierences were

Gender dierences The analyses of variance also revealed signi®cant gender

Table 1. Study I: Two-way interactions of perspective of judge and gender of judge

The study provided evidence of perspective-related dierences between recipients and

Our second study was conducted as a further test of perspective-related dier-

A 2 (perspective of judge: recipient versus actor) 2 (source of the report: recipient

Perspective-related dierences Subsequent univariate between-subjects analyses

Relationship quality eects The two-way interaction of perspective of judge and

Table 2. Study II: Two-way interactions

(b) Two-way interactions of perspective of judge and relationship quality

Study 3 was conducted as a further test of perspective-related dierences with another

A 2 (perspective of judge) 2 (source of report) 2 (relationship quality) 2

Perspective-related dierences The main eects of perspective of judge were

Compared to the largely consistent evidence of perspective-related dierences with

relationships of the partners in the three studies. Evaluations of actor-reported events

Relationship measures We measured ®ve dierent relationship features: commit-

A 2 (perspective of judge) 2 (source of report) 2 (relationship quality) 2

Table 5. Study IV: Two-way interactions

(b) Two-way interactions of perspective of judge and relationship quality

(c) Two-way interactions of perspective of judge and gender of judge

Perspective-related dierence Subsequent univariate between-subjects ANOVAs

actor-reported incidents, the recipient±actor dierences were reversed and point in

relationships. Possible interpretations of these ®ndings will be considered in the

Most importantly, our studies provided clear evidence of systematic dierences

Relationship Quality Eects

Recipient-reported versus Actor-reported Incidents

Gender dierences in the interpretation and justice evaluation of negative incidents

Before concluding, some comments concerning our methodology are appropriate.

Baucom, D. H. (1987). Attributions in distressed relations. How can we explain them?

Holmes, J. G., & Levinger, G. (1994). Paradoxical eects of closeness in relationships on

Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: causality, responsibility, and blame-worthiness.

S-ar putea să vă placă și

Evidence of systematic perspective-related dierences in interpretation of behavior

Perspective-related dierences Subsequent univariate between-subject analyses

Relationship quality eects The observed perspective-related dierences were

Gender dierences The analyses of variance also revealed signi®cant gender

The study provided evidence of perspective-related dierences between recipients and

Our second study was conducted as a further test of perspective-related dier-

Perspective-related dierences Subsequent univariate between-subjects analyses

Relationship quality eects The two-way interaction of perspective of judge and

Study 3 was conducted as a further test of perspective-related dierences with another

Perspective-related dierences The main eects of perspective of judge were

Compared to the largely consistent evidence of perspective-related dierences with

Relationship measures We measured ®ve dierent relationship features: commit-

Perspective-related dierence Subsequent univariate between-subjects ANOVAs

actor-reported incidents, the recipient±actor dierences were reversed and point in

Most importantly, our studies provided clear evidence of systematic dierences

Relationship Quality Eects

Gender dierences in the interpretation and justice evaluation of negative incidents

Holmes, J. G., & Levinger, G. (1994). Paradoxical eects of closeness in relationships on