Compliance with the Law in Slovenia: The Role of Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy

  • Michael D. Reisig
  • Justice Tankebe
  • Gorazd Mesko


The empirical status of Tom Tyler’s (1990) process-based model of regulation is frustrated by the fact that most studies are conducted in the US, leaving open the question of whether similar effects can be observed in countries with different historical and political contexts. The current study tests two process-based model hypotheses using cross-sectional survey data from 683 young adults in Slovenia. The results reveal: (1) procedural justice judgments significantly shape individual perceptions of police legitimacy, and (2) perceived police legitimacy explains self-reported compliance with the law. Though slightly diminished in magnitude, the legitimacy effect persists when using an instrumental variable to address possible endogeneity bias and after statistically controlling for known correlates of law violating behavior (i.e., personal morality and low self-control). The findings also show that the legitimacy effect on compliance with different laws (e.g., littering and buying stolen property) varies depending on the operationalization of legitimacy (i.e., additive scale versus instrumental variable). While the findings indicate that the process-based model of regulation is germane to post-socialist countries such as Slovenia, more research focusing on the explanatory breadth of the model is necessary.


Compliance Endogeneity Legitimacy Procedural justice Self-control 


  1. Agnew, R. (2005). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Los Angeles: Roxbury.Google Scholar
  2. Arneklev, B. J., Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., & Bursik, R. J. (1993). Low self-control and imprudent behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9, 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bascle, G. (2008). Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research. Strategic Organization, 6, 285–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beetham, D. (1991). The legitimation of power. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: a dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102, 101–152.Google Scholar
  6. Boudon, R. (1991). What middle-range theories are. Contemporary Sociology, 4, 519–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braga, A. A., & Bond, B. J. (2008). Policing crime and disorder hot spots: a randomized controlled trial. Criminology, 46, 577–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burt, C. H., Simons, R. L., & Gibbons, F. X. (2012). Racial discrimination, ethnic-racial socialization, and crime: a micro-sociological model of risk and resilience. American Sociological Review, 77, 648–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fagan, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Legal socialization of children and adolescents. Social Justice Research, 18, 217–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gau, J. M., & Brunson, R. K. (2010). Procedural justice and order maintenance policing: a study of inner-city young men’s perceptions of police legitimacy. Justice Quarterly, 27, 255–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Heimer, K. (2000). Changes in the gender gap in crime and women’s economic marginalization. In Gary LaFree (ed)Criminal Justice 2000 (Volume 1)—The Nature of Crime: Continuity and Change (pp. 427–483). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  13. Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 552–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Irwin, D. A., & Terviö, M. (2002). Does trade raise income? Evidence from the twentieth century. Journal of International Economics, 58, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Stanko, E. A., & Hohl, K. (2012a). Just authority? Trust in the police in England and Wales. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T. R. (2012b). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 1051–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jonathan-Zamir, T., & Weisburd, D. (2013). The effects of security threats on antecedents of police legitimacy: findings from a quasi-experiment in Israel. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50, 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaina, V. (2008). Legitimacy, trust and procedural fairness: remarks on Marcia Grimes’ study. European Journal of Political Research, 45, 510–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kochel, T. R., Parks, R. B., & Mastrofski, S. M. (2011). Examining police effectiveness as a precursor to legitimacy and cooperation with police. Justice Quarterly. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2011.633544.Google Scholar
  22. Matheson, C. (1987). Weber and the classification of forms of legitimacy. British Journal of Sociology, 38, 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., & Tyler, T. R. (2013). Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: a randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology, 51, 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meško, G., Lobnikar, B., Sotlar, A., & Jere, M. (2013). Recent developments of policing in Slovenia. In G. Meško, C. Fields, B. Lobnikar, & A. Sotlar (Eds.), Handbook on policing in Central and Eastern Europe. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Mueller, E. (2010). Returns to private equity—idiosyncratic risk does matter! Review of Finance, 15, 545–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2012a). Fostering cooperation with the police: how do ethnic minorities in Australia respond to procedural justice-based policing? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44, 235–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2012b). Understanding cooperation with police in a diverse society. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Murphy, K., & Tyler, T. (2008). Procedural justice and compliance behaviour: the mediating role of emotions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 652–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Papachristos, A. V., Meares, T. L., & Fagan, J. (2012). Why do criminals obey the law? The influence of legitimacy and social networks on active gun offenders. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102, 397–440.Google Scholar
  30. Paternoster, R., & Iovanni, L. (1986). The deterrent effect of perceived severity: a reexamination. Social Forces, 64, 751–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Piquero, A., & Paternoster, R. (1998). An application of Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence to drinking and driving. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 3–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Piquero, A., Fagan, J., Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L., & Odgers, C. (2005). Developmental trajectories of legal socialization among serious adolescent offenders. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 96, 267–298.Google Scholar
  33. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Criminology, 38, 931–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle, L. E., & Madensen, T. D. (2006). The empirical status of deterrence theory: A meta-analysis. In F. T. Cullen, J. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The empirical status of criminological theory—advances in criminological theory (Vol. 15). New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  36. Reisig, M. D. (2010). Community and problem-oriented policing. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 39, 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reisig, M. D., & Lloyd, C. (2009). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and helping the police fight crime. Police Quarterly, 12, 42–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reisig, M. D., & Meško, G. (2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and prisoner misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Reisig, M. D., & Pratt, T. C. (2011). Low self-control and imprudent behavior revisited. Deviant Behavior, 32, 589–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reisig, M. D., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. G. (2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1005–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reisig, M. D., Wolfe, S. E., & Holtfreter, K. (2011). Legal cynicism, legitimacy, and criminal offending: the non-confounding effect of low-self control. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1170–1184.Google Scholar
  42. Reisig, M. D., Tankebe, J., & Meško, G. (2012). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and public cooperation with the police among young Slovene adults. Journal of Criminal Justice and Security, 14, 147–164.Google Scholar
  43. Robinson, P. H. (1995). Moral credibility and crime. Atlantic Monthly, 275, 72–78.Google Scholar
  44. Robinson, P. H., Goodwin, G. P., & Reisig, M. D. (2010). The disutility of injustice. New York University Law Review, 85, 1940–2033.Google Scholar
  45. Rothschild, J. (1977). Observations on legitimacy in contemporary Europe. Political Science Quarterly, 92, 487–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schoepfer, A., & Piquero, A. (2006). Self-control, moral beliefs, and criminal activity. Deviant Behavior, 27, 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 513–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tankebe, J. (2008). Police effectiveness and police trustworthiness in Ghana: an empirical appraisal. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8, 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tankebe, J. (2009). Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: does procedural fairness matter? Criminology, 47, 1265–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tankebe, J. (2013). Viewing things differently: the dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51, 103–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 30, 283–357.Google Scholar
  54. Tyler, T. R. (2011). Trust and legitimacy: policing in the USA and Europe. European Journal of Criminology, 8, 254–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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, 231–275.Google Scholar
  56. Unnever, J., Cullen, F., Mathers, S., McClure, T., & Allison, M. (2009). Racial discrimination and Hirschi’s criminological classic: a chapter in the sociology of knowledge. Justice Quarterly, 26, 377–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weber, M. (1978). In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and society. 2 Vols. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  58. Weisburd, D., Hinkle, J. C., Famega, C., & Ready, J. (2011). The possible “backfire” effects of hot spots policing: an experimental assessment of impacts on legitimacy, fear and collective efficacy. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wolfe, S. E. (2011). The effect of low self-control on perceived police legitimacy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wrong, D. H. (1994). The problem of order. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael D. Reisig
    • 1
  • Justice Tankebe
    • 2
  • Gorazd Mesko
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeArizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA
  2. 2.University of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  3. 3.University of MariborLjublijanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations