There is growing body of research investigating endorsement of restorative justice as a response to interpersonal transgressions, but a limited understanding of how endorsement varies across different individuals—for whom is restorative justice seen as an appropriate response? The current research seeks to address this limitation by identifying natural heterogeneity in endorsement of restorative justice. We employ a policy-capturing within-subject design to examine restorative justice endorsement following workplace mistreatment by a supervisor at different levels of severity. Latent growth curve analyses indicated support for restorative justice increased with more unfair treatment, but following a concave, curvilinear slope. Latent class analysis suggested heterogeneity in endorsement patterns. Class 1 (66%) comprised individuals with a low initial level of restorative endorsement and a curvilinear growth trajectory as offense severity increased, while Class 2 (33%) comprised individuals with a medium initial level and a linear growth trajectory. We also examined victim-focused justice sensitivity as a predictor of class membership; but in line with past research, we did not find a significant relationship between victim sensitivity and restorative justice endorsement. These findings identify previously unrecognized heterogeneity in patterns of restorative justice endorsement, pointing to differences in the lay understanding of the when and where restorative processes should be applied. More broadly, this research illustrates how we can utilize person-centered approaches to shed new light on established justice research and theory.

越来越多的研究调查支持恢复性正义作为对人际违法行为的反应，但对支持如何因人而异的理解有限——对于谁恢复性司法是否被视为适当的回应？当前的研究试图通过确定支持恢复性司法的自然异质性来解决这一限制。我们采用了一种政策捕获的主体内设计来检查在工作场所受到不同严重程度的主管虐待后的恢复性司法认可。潜在增长曲线分析表明，对恢复性司法的支持随着不公平待遇的增加而增加，但遵循凹曲线斜率。潜在类别分析表明背书模式存在异质性。第 1 类 (66%) 包括初始恢复性认可水平较低且随着犯罪严重程度增加呈曲线增长轨迹的个人，而第 2 类 (33%) 包括具有中等初始水平和线性增长轨迹。我们还研究了以受害者为中心的司法敏感性作为班级成员资格的预测指标；但与过去的研究一致，我们没有发现受害者敏感性与恢复性司法认可之间存在显着关系。这些发现确定了以前未被认识到的恢复性司法认可模式的异质性，指出了对何时何地应该应用恢复性程序的非专业理解的差异。更广泛地说，这项研究说明了我们如何利用以人为中心的方法来阐明既定的正义研究和理论。