Advertisement

Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 29–53 | Cite as

Procedural justice training for police recruits: results of a randomized controlled trial

  • Emma AntrobusEmail author
  • Ian Thompson
  • Barak Ariel
Article

Abstract

Objectives

Procedural justice training for police officers is designed to improve officers’ interactions with the public. Aside from the fact that it is a given that citizens deserve to be treated in a fair manner by authorities such as the police, it is expected, based on the literature, that if the police act in a procedurally just manner they will be seen as more legitimate and citizens will subsequently be more willing to cooperate or comply with them. The present study was designed to evaluate the impact of a specifically designed procedural justice knowledge and skills-based training program on newly recruited police officers’ attitudes and interactions with the public.

Methods

Fifty-six police recruits were matched into pairs with one officer from each pair randomly selected to participate in a short procedural justice training program at the end of their recruit training period. In addition to being surveyed about procedural justice-related attitudes, recruits’ interactions with the public as newly inducted first year police officers were evaluated in real-time by their field training mentors in relation to procedurally just behaviors.

Results

Results suggest some limited positive effects of the training on both officer attitudes and actual on-the-job behavior. Mentors’ ratings of procedurally just behaviors in public interactions were generally higher for experimental than control recruits. Furthermore, recruits’ perceptions of the effectiveness of procedural justice were increased immediately after the training, though not their perceived use of these skills. However, these effects were not always statistically significant.

Conclusions

This study adds to the evidence surrounding procedural justice training of police officers, indicating that such training programs are feasible and have the potential to improve officers’ interactions with members of the public.

Keywords

Police Procedural justice Recruit training Randomized controlled trial 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the many police officers involved in this project in various ways. Particular thanks go to Assistant Commissioner Debbie Platz. Alistair Fildes developed the training package with the assistance of Josephine Wheatley, Peter Heck, and Tony Montgomery-Clarke. The authors also acknowledge Dr. Elise Sergeant, Professor Lorraine Mazerolle, Dr. Sarah Bennett, Professor Lawrence Sherman, Sir Denis O’Connor, and Dr. Justice Tankebe, who assisted in a variety of ways to bring this trial to fruition, and Dr. Stephanie Cardwell for her advice on analysis. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and are not those of the Queensland Police Service. Responsibility for any errors of omission or commission remains with the authors. The Queensland Police Service expressly disclaims any liability for any damage resulting from the use of the material contained in this publication and will not be responsible for any loss, howsoever arising, from use or reliance on this material.

References

  1. Ariel, B., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Randomized block designs. In A. R. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 437–454). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Bond, C. E., Murphy, K., & Porter, L. E. (2015). Procedural justice in policing: the first phase of an Australian longitudinal study of officer attitudes and intentions. Crime, Law and Social Change, 64(4–5), 229–245.Google Scholar
  3. Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: a dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1), 119–170.Google Scholar
  4. Bradford, B., Jackson, J., & Stanko, E. A. (2009). Contact and confidence: revisiting the impact of public encounters with the police. Policing & Society, 19(1), 20–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradford, B., Huq, A., Jackson, J., & Roberts, B. (2014a). What price fairness when security is at stake? Police legitimacy in South Africa. Regulation & Governance, 8(2), 246–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradford, B., Quinton, P., Myhill, A., & Porter, G. (2014b). Why do ‘the law’ comply? Procedural justice, group identification and officer motivation in police organizations. European Journal of Criminology, 11(1), 110–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, B., & Benedict, W. (2002). Perceptions of the police: past findings, methodological issues, conceptual issues and policy implications. Policing: an International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25, 543–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge Academic.Google Scholar
  9. Commonwealth of Australia. (2014). Royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse: interim report, Volume 1. Retrieved from https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/interim_report_volume-1.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  10. Constable, J., & Smith, J. (2015). Initial police training and the development of police occupational culture. In P. Wankhade & D. Weir (Eds.), Police services: Leadership and Management Perspectives (pp. 45–60). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Dai, M., Frank, J., & Sun, I. (2011). Procedural justice during police-citizen encounters: the effects of process-based policing on citizen compliance and demeanour. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Schrijver, A., & Maesschalck, J. (2015). The development of moral reasoning skills in police recruits. Policing: an International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 38(1), 102–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elliott, I., Thomas, S. D. M. & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2014). Procedural justice in victim-police interactions and victims’ recovery from victimisation experiences. Policing and Society, 24(5), 588-601.Google Scholar
  14. Fildes, A. (2016). Procedural justice workshop: recruit training unit materials. Brisbane: Public Safety Business Agency.Google Scholar
  15. Fildes, A., & Thompson, I. (2016). Police procedural justice training: the enter inform engage model. Police Science: Australia & New Zealand Journal of Evidence Based Policing, 1(2), 31–36.Google Scholar
  16. Ford, R. E. (2003). Saying one thing, meaning another: the role of parables in police training. Police Quarterly, 6, 84–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haarr, R. N. (2001). The making of a community policing officer: the impact of basic training and occupational socialization on police recruits. Police Quarterly, 4(4), 402–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hasisi, B., & Weisburd, D. (2011). Going beyond ascribed identities: the importance of procedural justice in airport security screening. Israel Law & Society Review, 45(4), 867–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heslop, R. (2011). Community engagement and learning as ‘becoming’: findings from a study of British police recruit training. Policing and Society, 21(3), 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hesser, H. (2015). Modeling individual differences in randomized experiments using growth models: recommendations for design, statistical analysis and reporting of results of internet interventions. Internet Interventions, 2(2), 110–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hinds, L. (2008). Public satisfaction with police: the influence of general attitudes and police-citizen encounters. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 11(1), 54–66.Google Scholar
  22. Hough, M., Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2016). Policing, procedural justice and prevention. In A. Sidebottom & N. Tilley (Eds.), Routledge handbook of crime prevention and community safety (2nd ed.). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Hough, M., Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Myhill, A., & Quinton, P. (2010). Procedural justice, trust, and institutional legitimacy. Policing, 4(3), 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2010). What is trust and confidence in the police? Policing: a Journal of Policy and Practice, 4(3), 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Stanko, B., & Hohl, K. (2013). Just authority? Trust in the police in England and Wales. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lum, C., & Nagin, D. S. (2017). Reinventing american policing. Crime and Justice, 46(1), 339–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MacQueen, S., & Bradford, B. (2017). Where did it all go wrong? Implementation failure—and more—in a field experiment of procedural justice policing. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(3), 321–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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, 13, 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mastrofski, S. D., Jonathan-Zamir, T., Moyal, S., & Willis, J. J. (2016). Predicting procedural justice in police-citizen encounters. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 43(1), 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., & Tyler, T. R. (2013a). Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: a randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology, 51(1), 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., & Manning, M. (2013b). Legitimacy in policing: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 9(1) Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1773950447?accountid=14723. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McDermott, P. J. & Hulse-Killacky, D. (2012). Interpersonal skills training in police academy curriculum. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 81(2), 16–20.Google Scholar
  36. Murphy, K., & Barkworth, J. (2014). Victim willingness to report crime to police: does procedural justice or outcome matter most? Victims and Offenders, 9(2), 178–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2012). Understanding cooperation with police in a diverse society. British Journal of Criminology, 52(1), 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Murphy, K., Hinds, L., & Fleming, J. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Policing and Society, 18(2), 136–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Myhill, A., & Quinton, P. (2011). It’s a fair cop? Police legitimacy, public cooperation, and crime reduction. An Interpretative Evidence eCommentary. London: National Policing Improvement Agency.Google Scholar
  41. Nagin, D. S., & Telep, C. W. (2017). Procedural justice and legal compliance. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 5–28.Google Scholar
  42. Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allen and Bacon.Google Scholar
  43. Platz, D.J. (2016). The impact of a value education programme in a police recruit training academy: a randomised controlled trial. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  44. Platz, D., Sargeant, E., & Strang, H. (2017). Effects of recruit training on police attitudes towards diversity: a randomised controlled trial of a values education Programme. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 1(4), 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final report of the President’s task force on 21st century policing. Washington, DC: Office Community Oriented Policing Services, US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  46. Queensland Government. (2013), 3(e) report, Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry. http://www.childprotectioninquiry.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/202627/3e-Report-FINAL-for-web.pdf
  47. Queensland Government. (2015). Not now, not ever: putting an end to domestic violence in Queensland. The special taskforce on domestic and family violence in Queensland. https://www.qld.gov.au/community/documents/getting-support-health-social-issue/dfv-report-vol-one.pdf
  48. Queensland Police Service. (2016). Recruit and constable training. Recruit training Oxley, https://qpsnet.qldpol/spp/etc/rpsg/recruitox/pages/default.aspx.
  49. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Robertson, A., Mc Millan, L., Godwin, J., & Deuchar, R. (2014). The Scottish Police and Citizen Engagement (SPACE) trial: final report. Glasgow: Glasgow Caledonian University.Google Scholar
  51. Rosenbaum, D.P., & Lawrence, D.S. (2017). Teaching procedural justice and communication skills during police–community encounters: results of a randomized control trial with police recruits. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(3), 293-319.Google Scholar
  52. 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, 33(4), 701–726.Google Scholar
  53. Sanson, A., Augoustinos, M., Gridley, H., Kyrios, M., Reser, J., & Turner, C. (1998). Racism and prejudice: an Australian Psychological Society position paper. Australian Psychologist, 33, 161–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schuck, A. M. & Rosenbaum, D. P. (2011). The chicago quality interaction training program: a randomized control trial of police innovation. Washington, DC: National Police Research Platform, National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  55. Sherman, L. W. (1980). Causes of police behaviour: the current state of qualitative research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17, 69–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sherman, L. W. (1982). Learning police ethics. Criminal Justice ethics, 1(1), 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Skogan, W. G. (2006). Asymmetry in the impact of encounters with police. Policing and Society, 16(2), 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Skogan, W. G., & Frydl, K. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: the evidence. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  59. Skogan, W. G., Van Craen, M., & Hennessy, C. (2015). Training police for procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tankebe, J. (2013). Viewing things differently: the dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51, 103–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tuch, S. A., & Weitzer, R. (1997). The polls: racial differences in attitudes toward the police. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 642–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Tyler, T. R. (2007). Procedural justice and the courts. Court Review, 44, 26–164.Google Scholar
  65. Tyler, T.R. (2017). Procedural justice and policing: a rush to judgment? Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 29–53.Google Scholar
  66. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231–276.Google Scholar
  68. Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Publications.Google Scholar
  69. Tyler, T. R., Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2014). Procedural justice and cooperation. Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 4011–4024.Google Scholar
  70. Wheller, L., Quinton, P., Fildes, A., & Mills, A. (2013). The Greater Manchester Police procedural justice training experiment. Coventry: College of Policing.Google Scholar
  71. White, M. D., & Escobar, G. (2008). Making good cops in the twenty-first century: emerging issues for the effective recruitment, selection and training of police in the United States and abroad. International Review of Law Computers and Technology, 23, 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. White, M. D., Mulvey, P., & Dario, L. M. (2016). Arrestees’ perceptions of the police exploring procedural justice, legitimacy, and willingness to cooperate with police across offender types. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(3), 343–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social ScienceThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.People Capability CommandQueensland Police ServiceBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Institute of CriminologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  4. 4.Institute of Criminology, Faculty of LawHebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations