Abstract
The purpose of the present study is to examine the influence that sex has on the interconnection between justice, satisfaction with the courts, and attitudes toward the courts. Using national level polling data, the results show that different forms of justice coalesce into a latent measure of justice. Further, the results show that sex differences in our latent measure of justice do exist. In addition, those with experience with the course have a negative attitude toward the court system. Finally, the results show that the impact of justice on attitude toward the court system is partially mediated by satisfaction with the court. Policy implications are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
These data are freely available from the International Consortium on Political and Social Research. The ICPSR number for the data is 3,864.
We examined a series of additional models to determine the observed variable differences using the MIMIC model format. We did not find any statistically significant differences among the observed measures. Thus, we believe that the differences found in the latent measure are due to mean differences as a whole. To solidify our view, we examined simulation models (n = 1,000 models) of this issue and showed that the differences are not due to sample size differences. Therefore, we conclude that the difference is due to differences in the latent measure mean. These additional analyses are available from the second author on request.
References
Ambrose, M., Hess, R. L., & Ganesan, S. (2007). The relationship between justice and attitudes: An examination of justice’s effects on event and system-related attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 21–36.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1997). The female offender: Girls, women, and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. R. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209.
Easton, D. (1967). A system analysis of political life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Fossati, T. E., & Meeker, J. W. (1997). Evaluations of institutional legitimacy and court system fairness: A study of gender differences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 141–154.
Gibbs, J. J., Giever, D., & Higgins, G. E. (2003). A test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory using structural equation modeling. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 441–458.
Gibson, J. L. (1991). Institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, and compliance with Supreme Court Decisions: A question of causality. Law and Society Review, 25, 631–635.
Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hagan, J. (1989). Structural criminology. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Hagan, J., Gillis, A. R., & Simpson, J. (1993). The power of control in sociological theories of delinquency. In F. Adler, & W. Laufer (Eds.), New Directions in Criminological Theory (pp. 363–398). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Higgins, G. E., & Jordan, K. L. (2005). Race and gender: Are the models the same in explaining evaluations of the court system. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and Society, 18, 81–97.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Jaros, D., & Roper, R. (1980). The US Supreme Court: Myth, diffuse support, specific support, and legitimacy. American Politics Quarterly, 8, 85–105.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In M.S. Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Sun, I. Y., & Wu, Y. (2006). Citizens perceptions of the courts: The impact of race, gender, and recent experience. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 457–467.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale.
Tyler, T. R. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 215–235.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Vila, B. J. (1994). A general paradigm for understanding criminal behavior: Extending evolutionary ecological theory. Criminology, 32, 311–359.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix A. Measurement Model for the latent measures.
Appendix A. Measurement Model for the latent measures.
Measure | Standard Error | Standardized Estimate |
|---|---|---|
Justice | ||
Procedural Justice | .00 | .74 |
Distributive Justice | .11 | .41* |
Interpersonal Justice | .15 | .69* |
Satisfaction with Courts: Courts Handling- | ||
Violent Cases | .74 | |
Drug Cases | .03 | .68* |
Civil Cases | .04 | .71* |
Family Cases | .04 | .71* |
Juvenile Cases | .04 | .77* |
Sex Effects | ||
Justice | .10 | .07* |
Satisfaction with the courts | .07 | .01 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Higgins, G.E., Wolfe, S.E. & Walters, N. Sex and Experience: Modeling the Public’s Perceptions of Justice, Satisfaction, and Attitude Toward the Courts. Am J Crim Just 34, 116–130 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-008-9058-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-008-9058-7