Abstract
Objectives
This paper examines the effects of a procedural justice policing intervention on citizens’ feelings of obligation to obey police. It examines whether the efficacy of procedural justice on citizens’ obligation to obey police may be contingent on citizens’ level of trust in police during a police–citizen encounter.
Methods
This research draws on survey data from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET). QCET was a randomized controlled field trial implemented by the Queensland Police Service. The trial exposed citizens to either a procedural justice experience (experimental condition) or standard police practice (control condition) during a random roadside stop. Survey responses were received from 1107 drivers in the experimental condition and 1655 drivers in the control condition.
Results
Compared to the control condition, the procedural justice condition yielded higher levels of trust in the police officer conducting the roadside stop. No differences in obligation to obey police were observed between the two conditions. Importantly, citizens’ level of trust in the officer moderated the effect of the intervention on obligation to obey police. Specifically, the procedural justice condition had a negative effect on obligation to obey for those reporting low trust in police. For those high in trust, the procedural justice intervention had a slight but insignificant positive effect on obligation to obey.
Conclusions
The findings suggest that procedural justice effects can vary between individuals; specifically, the findings reveal that procedural justice interventions can sometimes be counter-productive, depending on the level of trust a citizen exhibits toward police during an encounter. Police agencies should therefore be aware of potential counter-productive effects when implementing procedural justice in the field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Antrobus, E., Elffers, H., White, G., & Mazerolle, L. (2014). Non-response bias in randomized control experiments in criminology: Putting the Queensland community engagement trial (QCET) under a microscope. Evaluation Review, 38, 197–212.
Braithwaite, V. (2009). Defiance in taxation and governance: Resisting and dismissing authority in a democracy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Braithwaite, V., Murphy, K., & Reinhart, M. (2007). Taxation threat, motivational postures, and responsive regulation. Law & Policy, 29(1), 137–158.
Fildes, A., & Thompson, I. (2016). Police procedural justice training: The enter inform engage model. Australian and New Zealand Society of Evidence Based Policing, 1(2), 31–36.
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Stanko, B., & Hohl, K. (2009). Just authority: Trust in the police in England and Wales. Cullompton, UK: Taylor and Francis.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. NewYork: Plenum.
MacQueen, S., & Bradford, B. (2015). Enhancing public trust and police legitimacy during road traffic encounters: Results from a randomised controlled trial in Scotland. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 419–443.
Madon, N., Murphy, K. & Sargeant, E. (2017). Promoting police legitimacy among disengaged minority groups: Does procedural justice matter more? Criminology and Criminal Justice, Published online 16 February 2017.
Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E., & Eggins, E. (2012). Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: Main findings from the Queensland community engagement trial (QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(4), 343–367.
Murphy, K. (2009). Public satisfaction with police: The importance of procedural justice and police performance in police-citizen encounters. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42, 159–178.
Murphy, K. (2013). Policing at the margins: Fostering trust and cooperation among ethnic minority groups. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 8(2), 184–199.
Murphy, K., & Barkworth, J. (2014). Victim willingness to report crime to police: Does procedural justice or outcome matter most? Victims and Offenders, 9, 178–204.
Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2011). Fostering cooperation with the police: How do ethnic minorities in Australia respond to procedural justice-based policing? The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44, 235–257.
Murphy, K., & Mazerolle, L. (2016). Policing immigrants: Using a randomized control trial of procedural justice policing to promote trust and cooperation. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, Published online 13 October 2016. doi:10.1177/0004865816673691.
Murphy, K., Mazerolle, L., & Bennett, S. (2014). Promoting trust in police: Findings from a randomised experimental field trial of procedural justice policing. Policing and Society, 24(4), 405–424.
Rosenbaum, D. & Lawrence, D. (2017). Teaching procedural justice and communication skills during police-community encounters: Results of a randomized control trial with police recruits. Journal of Experimental Criminology, this volume.
Sahin, N., Braga, A., Apel, R., & Brunson, R. (2016). The impact of procedurally just policing on citizen perceptions of police during traffic stops: The Adana randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Online first 27 May 2016. doi:10.1007/s10940-016-9308-7.
Sargeant, E., Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2014). Ethnicity, trust and cooperation with police: Testing the dominance of the process-based model. European Journal of Criminology, 11(4), 500–524.
Skogan, W., Van Craen, M., & Hennessy, C. (2015). Training police for procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 1–16.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548.
Tankebe, J. (2009). Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: Does procedural fairness matter? Criminology, 47(4), 1265–1293.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Wells, W. (2007). Type of contact and evaluations of police officers: The effects of procedural justice across three types of police-citizen contacts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(6), 612–621.
Wheller, L., Quinton, P., Fildes, A., & Mills, A. (2013). The greater Manchester police procedural justice training experiment - the impact of communication skills training on officers and victims of crime. London: College of Policing.
Wolfe, S. E., Nix, J., Kaminski, R., & Rojek, J. (2016). Is the effect of procedural justice on police legitimacy invariant? Testing the generality of procedural justice and competing antecedents of legitimacy. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32(2), 253–282.
Acknowledgement
The research reported in this paper was funded by the Australian Research Council (Grant Nos: R0700002 and DP170101149).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Items used to construct scales
Appendix: Items used to construct scales
Trust in the officer conducting the roadside stop
During this last encounter…
-
I felt that the police officer was trustworthy
-
I had confidence that the police officer was doing the right thing
Obligation to obey police
I feel a moral obligation to obey the law.
I feel a moral obligation to obey police.
Overall, I obey police with good will.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Murphy, K. Challenging the ‘invariance’ thesis: procedural justice policing and the moderating influence of trust on citizens’ obligation to obey police. J Exp Criminol 13, 429–437 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9298-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9298-y