Skip to main content
Log in

The effects of procedural injustice during police–citizen encounters: a factorial vignette study

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This study tested the effect of procedural injustice relative to being sanctioned by police on a variety of outcome measures, such as decision acceptance and immediate compliance, in two types of police–citizen encounters, traffic stops and noise complaints.

Methods

A factorial vignette design was used to determine the effect that the manipulations (i.e., procedural injustice and receiving a citation) had on the dependent variables. Participants (N = 594) were randomly assigned one vignette scenario with four possible conditions. After reading the hypothetical encounter, closed-ended survey items were administered to participants.

Results

The standardized regression coefficients from the ordinal regression models revealed that participants who were administered the procedural injustice stimuli are less satisfied with how the police resolved the encounter, reported that they are less likely to follow the police directives, said they are less willing to accept the officer’s decisions, and are more likely to wish the police had handled the situation differently. This pattern of findings was consistent in both types of police encounters. Importantly, support was also found for the hypothesis that procedural injustice is more salient in predicting outcomes than whether a citation is issued.

Conclusions

The results support the process-based model of regulation and serve to underscore the influence of unfair police processes on encounter-specific outcome variables.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. Balance tests using demographic information (e.g., age, sex, and race) and summated scales (e.g., distributive justice) were performed for each subsample. One of 20 F-ratios was significant (p < 0.05). It was concluded that the observed imbalance was spurious and attempting post hoc adjustments to the multivariate analyses could jeopardize the validity of the findings (Mutz et al. 2017).

References

  • Barkworth, J. M., & Murphy, K. (2015). Procedural justice policing and citizen compliance behaviour: The importance of emotion. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(3), 254–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dai, M., Frank, J., & Sun, I. (2011). Procedural justice during police–citizen encounters: The effects of process-based policing on citizen compliance and demeanor. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jönsson, P., & Wohlin, C. (2006). Benchmarking k-nearest neighbour imputation with homogeneous Likert data. Empirical Software Engineering, 11(3), 463–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowrey, B. V., Maguire, E. R., & Bennett, R. R. (2016). Testing the effects of procedural justice and overaccommodation in traffic stops: A randomized experiment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(10), 1430–1449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 419–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, E. R., Lowrey, B. V., & Johnson, D. (2016). Evaluating the relative impact of positive and negative encounters with police: A randomized experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology. First published online 25 October 2016, pp 1–25.

  • Mastrofski, S. D., Snipes, J. B., & Supina, A. E. (1996). Compliance on demand: The public’s response to specific police requests. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33(3), 269–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., & Manning, M. (2013a). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(3), 245–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., & Tyler, T. R. (2013b). Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: A randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology, 51(1), 33–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCluskey, J. D., Mastrofski, S. D., & Parks, R. B. (1999). To acquiesce or rebel: Predicting citizen compliance with police requests. Police Quarterly, 2(4), 389–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C., Pemantle, R., & Pham, P. (2017). The perils of balance testing in experimental design: Messy analyses of clean data. The American Statistician. First published online 26 June 2017.

  • Nagin, D. S., & Telep, C. W. (2017). Procedural justice and legal compliance. Annual Review of Law and Social Science. First published online 22 February 2017.

  • Nix, J., Wolfe, S. E., Rojek, J., & Kaminski, R. J. (2015). Trust in the police: The influence of procedural justice and perceived collective efficacy. Crime & Delinquency, 61(4), 610–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Bachman, R., & Sherman, L. (1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law and Society Review, 31(1), 163–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penner, E. K., Viljoen, J. L., Douglas, K. S., & Roesch, R. (2014). Procedural justice versus risk factors for offending: Predicting recidivism in youth. Law and Human Behavior, 38(3), 225–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisig, M. D. (2002). Citizen input and police service: Moving beyond the “feel good” community survey. In M. Morash & J. K. Ford (Eds.), The move to community policing: Making change happen (pp. 43–60). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reisig, M. D. (2007). Procedural justice and community policing: What shapes residents’ willingness to participate in crime prevention programs? Policing: A Journal of Policy & Practice, 1(3), 256–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahin, N., Braga, A. A., Apel, R., & Brunson, R. K. (2016). The impact of procedurally-just policing on citizen perceptions of police during traffic stops: The Adana randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. First published online 27 May 2016, pp 1–26.

  • Skogan, W. G. (2005). Citizen satisfaction with police encounters. Police Quarterly, 8(3), 298–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stolte, J. F. (1994). The context of satisficing in vignette research. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134(6), 727–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 30, 283–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael D. Reisig.

Appendix

Appendix

Hypothetical scenarios

Traffic stop

You are driving down an unfamiliar road when you notice a police car with flashing lights behind you. You pull over. The officer pulls in behind you, gets out, and approaches your car. Standing outside your window, the officer says to you: [“Hi there. I pulled you over because you ran a stop sign a few streets back. May I have your license, registration, and proof of insurance please?” (Control Condition)] [“Why did you run that stop sign? Do you have any fucking idea how dangerous that is? Do you? You could have seriously hurt someone. Before you give me your excuses, get out your license, registration, and proof of insurance. I need to see it.” (Experimental Condition)] You hand the officer your information and he walks back to his car. After a few minutes he comes back and says that [he is not going to write you a ticket but asks that you be careful not to run any stop signs in the future. (Control Condition)] [“I am issuing you a ticket. You can pay it online or mail it in. Or if you wish to challenge it be sure to mark the “not guilty” box and they will mail you your court date.” (Experimental Condition)].

Noise complaint

You are hosting a party at your apartment. You and your friends are having a good time, getting a little rowdy, when you hear a knock at the door. You turn down the music and open the door to find a police officer standing in front of you. The officer says to you: [“Hi there, I am here tonight because we received a noise complaint from one of your neighbors. I need to speak with the residents of the apartment for a moment.” (Control Condition)] [“Open this door all the way! We received a noise complaint from one of your neighbors. It’s no fucking wonder, I could hear your shitty music from the parking lot. Are you all deaf?” (Experimental Condition)] After talking to the officer for a few minutes regarding the complaint and the occasion for the party [the officer says that he is not going to break up the party as long as you can keep the noise down. (Control Condition)] [… the officer says your guests need to exit the apartment immediately and he gives you a ticket for violating the local noise ordinance. (Experimental Condition)].

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reisig, M.D., Mays, R.D. & Telep, C.W. The effects of procedural injustice during police–citizen encounters: a factorial vignette study. J Exp Criminol 14, 49–58 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9307-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9307-1

Keywords

Navigation