Is the Effect of Procedural Justice on Police Legitimacy Invariant? Testing the Generality of Procedural Justice and Competing Antecedents of Legitimacy

Abstract

Objectives

This study tests the generality of Tyler’s process-based model of policing by examining whether the effect of procedural justice and competing variables (i.e., distributive justice and police effectiveness) on police legitimacy evaluations operate in the same manner across individual and situational differences.

Methods

Data from a random sample of mail survey respondents are used to test the “invariance thesis” (N = 1681). Multiplicative interaction effects between the key antecedents of legitimacy (measured separately for obligation to obey and trust in the police) and various demographic categories, prior experiences, and perceived neighborhood conditions are estimated in a series of multivariate regression equations.

Results

The effect of procedural justice on police legitimacy is largely invariant. However, regression and marginal results show that procedural justice has a larger effect on trust in law enforcement among people with prior victimization experience compared to their counterparts. Additionally, the distributive justice effect on trust in the police is more pronounced for people who have greater fear of crime and perceive higher levels of disorder in their neighborhood.

Conclusion

The results suggest that Tyler’s process-based model is a “general” theory of individual police legitimacy evaluations. The police can enhance their legitimacy by ensuring procedural fairness during citizen interactions. The role of procedural justice also appears to be particularly important when the police interact with crime victims.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    It is important to note that treating distributive justice and police effectiveness as purely utilitarian concepts is not universally accepted. Beetham (1991), for example, suggests that one cannot view an authority as legitimate if that entity does not effectively accomplish its duties (i.e., effectiveness is enmeshed in legitimacy). As Bottoms and Tankebe (2012) note, “effectiveness and legitimacy are interdependent and organically interactive…effectiveness is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of legitimacy” (p. 147, emphasis in original). Whether considered utilitarian or otherwise, the concepts provide different explanations of legitimacy evaluations when compared to procedural justice theory.

  2. 2.

    While procedural justice theory also suggests that perceptions of procedural justice should always have a stronger effect on legitimacy than competing antecedents (as discussed earlier), we view this theoretical proposition as a distinct component of the generality of the framework. In other words, the invariance thesis pertains to the effect of procedural justice on legitimacy always having an equally strong effect across all population groups. The proposition that the procedural justice effect always outpaces the influence of competing antecedents of legitimacy deals with the comprehensiveness of the theory (see Tittle 1995 for a discussion of criteria for judging supposed general theories).

  3. 3.

    It is important to note that other arguments exist related to procedural justice invariance. For example, Lind and Tyler’s (1988) group value model suggests that procedural fairness may matter less for those who do not identify with the police. Racial or ethnic minorities, for instance, may be less concerned with procedural justice given their general disconnect with law enforcement. Sargeant et al. (2014) support this argument by showing that procedural fairness was less important than police effectiveness in predicting trust in the police among ethnic minority groups in Australia (see also, Murphy and Cherney 2011). In contrast, Jonathan-Zamir and Weisburd (2013) hypothesized that the uncertainty caused by increased security threats would lead Israeli citizens to base legitimacy evaluations on police effectiveness more so than procedural judgments because effectively preventing a terrorist attack would be more psychologically salient. However, their data did not support this argument. Procedural justice remained the primary antecedent of legitimacy regardless of security threat levels. Thus, despite such frameworks we are left with multiple theoretical possibilities—procedural justice invariance, conditions reflective of uncertainty increasing the relevance of procedural fairness, or out-group status and uncertainty decreasing the relevancy of process-based issues. The literature surrounding uncertainty offers theoretically informed and empirically supported evidence regarding procedural justice invariance across various individual differences and will remain our focus.

  4. 4.

    As is common in survey research, a small number of respondents did not provide answers to all items on the questionnaire (less than one-percent of cells were missing in the dataset). Imputation of missing data was completed using the Stata 13 hotdeck suite (Allison 2001; Andridge and Little 2010; Fuller and Kim 2005; Gmel 2001).

  5. 5.

    As discussed earlier, there is debate in the literature concerning whether obligation to obey captures “free consent” or if it simply taps into dull compulsion (Jackson et al. 2012a, b; Johnson et al. 2014; Tankebe 2013; Tyler and Jackson 2014). Our goal is to provide empirical evidence concerning the invariance thesis that can be situated within the largest portion of prior research. Our hope is that the current analyses will help inform prior legitimacy work and serve as a foundation for future research that is capable of measuring other conceptual definitions of legitimacy.

  6. 6.

    Other types of trust have been explored by Tyler (1990, 2005) and others both theoretically and empirically (see, e.g., Nix et al. 2015; Sargeant et al. 2014). For example, motive-based trust “involves inferences about the motives and intentions of the police” (Tyler 2005, p. 325).

  7. 7.

    A vast majority of respondents classified as a racial minority were African American (87 % of minorities; 41 % of the total sample). Accordingly, the remaining racial or ethnic minorities were combined with African Americans in the analyses. All models reported below were reestimated after excluding all minorities except African Americans from the analyses and no substantive differences in the results emerged. While it would be interesting to explore ethnic group differences, only 14 respondents self-reported being Hispanic which is too small of a sample for meaningful analyses.

  8. 8.

    Diagnostic tests demonstrated that no harmful levels of collinearity are present in the multivariate models presented below. All bivariate correlations fell below an absolute value of 0.70 which is typically used as a threshold indicative of harmful collinearity (Tabachnick and Fidell 2007). Additionally, all variance inflation factors fell below the 4.0 threshold (Tabachnick and Fidell 2007) and all condition indices below the threshold of 30 (Belsley et al. 1980; Mason and Perreault 1991).

  9. 9.

    We also reestimated Model 2 (Table 2) by including distributive justice and police performance separately. Distributive justice remained insignificant in the obligation to obey equation and significant in the trust equation after excluding police performance from the models. Likewise, the police performance effect remained unchanged in terms of direction and significance when distributive justice was excluded from both the obligation to obey and trust models.

  10. 10.

    As an anonymous reviewer noted, the question that may arise from this set of analyses is why are low collective efficacy and low crime neighborhood significant in the trust equations but not in the obligation to obey models? For one, obligation to obey may tap into “dull compulsion” rather than moral alignment (or other conceptualizations of legitimacy discussed earlier). Or, it may be that the police are regarded as justified authority (people feel obligated to obey them) in high crime neighborhoods but are still not trusted.

  11. 11.

    To test the robustness of these results presented in Table 4 we created new operationalizations of “police contact” and “victimization.” Supplemental analyses (not reported in text) revealed that the influence of procedural justice and police effectiveness on the legitimacy measures were the same magnitude for individuals who had personal contact with the police that was initiated by the officer in comparison to those with no contact or only self-initiated contact. It is worth reiterating that 31 % of the sample reported prior contact with the police. Future research may benefit from exploring the invariance thesis among people with more contact by using an offender-based sample. Additionally, we reestimated the prior victim interaction effects using a victimization scale (i.e., the natural log of the count of victimizations in the previous 6 months) rather than the dummy variable. Importantly, the influence of procedural justice on trust in the police is no longer moderated by prior victimization when operationalized in this manner. Thus, the invariance of the key theoretical variables do not appear to be sensitive to how we operationalize prior police contact but the conditioning influence of prior victimization appears to manifest only when comparing those respondents who have been a victim to those who have not been (i.e., multiple victimizations does not have a discernable moderation effect on procedural justice).

  12. 12.

    It is also important to note that the simple effects of low collective efficacy and low crime neighborhood also demonstrated significant effects on trust in the police across most models in Table 5 but did not influence individuals’ obligation to obey. This finding is consistent with the results revealed in Table 2 and reiterates that obligation to obey is not contextualized in the manner that trust in the police appears to be. Additionally, the models in Table 5 reveal that people from low crime neighborhoods seem less confident that the police will do what is right for the community.

  13. 13.

    To assess the robustness of all “trust” models presented above, each equation was reestimated using ordered logistic regression given the ordered categorical nature of the trust measure (Long and Freese 2006; Williams 2006). All substantive findings remained unchanged in these analyses. Accordingly, we present the results of the OLS equations to allow for ease of interpretation and comparability to the obligation to obey models.

  14. 14.

    It is also worth noting that we examined several potential interactions in the current analyses. This may introduce a multiple comparisons problem. That is, one risks increasing the chances of Type I error (false positive) with increasing numbers of comparisons. If we uncritically accept this possibility we could use a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons that allows us to adjust p values to protect against the issue (see, Benjamini and Hochberg 1995; Simes 1986). This stringent test would lead us to fail to reject the null hypothesis for all interactions. In other words, the three interactions that are reported as statistically significant would be deemed insignificant after accounting for multiple comparisons. If one accepts this adjustment our findings would suggest that the effects of all key theoretical variables on the legitimacy outcomes are invariant across all moderators. Indeed, this would provide stronger evidence concerning the overall take-away message of this study—the procedural justice effect (and those of competing antecedents) on legitimacy is invariant. In short, the correction does not necessarily change the overall findings. However, we caution against summarily dismissing the significant interaction effects we observed for several reasons. First, we provided a theoretical rationale for exploring the interactions. Accordingly, we are less concerned with the Type I error critique. Second, the cost of obtaining a false positive in the current study is minimal because such evidence would not change the thrust of the invariance conclusion. Conversely, by using a much more restrictive threshold for observing statistical significance (i.e., smaller p-values), we increase the risk of Type II errors (false negatives). Correcting for multiple comparisons may prematurely lead readers to conclude that the influence of all the key theoretical variables on legitimacy is invariant. Ignoring the potential conditioning influence of particular factors at this point may do a disservice to the literature in the long-term. Indeed, it would be costly if future researchers deemed it unnecessary to explore these relationships in further detail because they happened to be observed in a theoretically-grounded analysis that examined multiple moderating possibilities.

References

  1. Aiken LS, West SG (1991) Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allison PD (2001) Missing data. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson E (1999) Code of the street: decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. WW Norton & Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Andridge RR, Little RJ (2010) A review of hot deck imputation for survey non-response. Inter Stat Rev 78:40–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baruch Y (1999) Response rate in academic studies: a comparative analysis. Hum Relat 52:421–438

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beetham D (1991) The legitimation of power. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  7. Belsley DA, Kuh E, Welsch RE (1980) Regression diagnostics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  8. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc 57:289–300

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bottoms A, Tankebe J (2012) Beyond procedural justice: a dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. J Crim Law Criminol 102:119–170

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bradford B, Huq A, Jackson J, Roberts B (2014) What price fairness when security is at stake? Police legitimacy in South Africa. Reg Gov 8:246–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Braga AA, Winship C, Tyler TR, Fagan J, Meares TL (2014) The salience of social contextual factors in appraisals of police interactions with citizens: a randomized factorial experiment. J Quant Criminol 1–29

  12. Braithwaite V (2010) Defiance in taxation and governance: resisting and dismissing authority in a democracy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  13. Brown B, Benedict W (2002) Perceptions of the police: past findings, methodological issues, conceptual issues and policy implications. Polic Int J Police Strat Manag 25:543–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cao L, Frank J, Cullen FT (1996) Race, community context and confidence in the police. Am J Police 15:3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cheurprakobkit S (2000) Police–citizen contact and police performance attitudinal differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics. J Crim Justice 28:325–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Decker SH (1981) Citizen attitudes toward the police: a review of past findings and suggestions for future policy. J Police Sci Adm 9:80–87

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dillman DA, Phelps G, Tortora R, Swift K, Kohrell J, Berck J, Messer BL (2009) Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Soc Sci Res 38:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dunham RG, Alpert GP (1988) Neighborhood differences in attitudes toward policing: evidence for a mixed-strategy model of policing in a multi-ethnic setting. J Crim Law Criminol 79:504–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Elliott I, Thomas SDM, Ogloff JRP (2011) Procedural justice in contacts with the police: testing a relational model of authority in a mixed methods study. Psychol Public Policy Law 17:592–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fuller WA, Kim JK (2005) Hot deck imputation for the response model. Surv Method 31:139–149

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gau JM (2011) The convergent and discriminant validity of procedural justice and police legitimacy: an empirical test of core theoretical propositions. J Crim J 39:489–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gau JM (2014) Procedural justice and police legitimacy: a test of measurement and structure. Am J Crim Justice 187–205

  23. Gau JM, Pratt TC (2008) Broken windows or window dressing? Citizens’ (in)ability to tell the difference between disorder and crime. Criminol Public Policy 7:163–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gau JM, Corsaro N, Stewart EA, Brunson RK (2012) Examining macro-level impacts on procedural justice and police legitimacy. J Crim Justice 40:333–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gmel G (2001) Imputation of missing values in the case of a multiple item instrument measuring alcohol consumption. Stat Med 20:2369–2381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hickman LJ, Simpson SS (2003) Fair treatment or preferred outcome? The impact of police behavior on victim reports of domestic violence incidents. Law Soc Rev 37:607–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Higgins GE, Wolfe SE, Mahoney M, Walters NM (2009a) Race, ethnicity, and experience: modeling the public’s perceptions of justice, satisfaction, and attitude toward the courts. J Ethn Crim Justice 7:293–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Higgins GE, Wolfe SE, Walters N (2009b) Sex and experience: modeling the public’s perceptions of justice, satisfaction, and attitude toward the courts. Am J Crim Justice 34:116–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hinds L, Murphy K (2007) Public satisfaction with police: using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Aust N Z J Criminol 40:27–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Homant RJ, Kennedy DB, Fleming RM (1984) The effect of victimization and the police response on citizen’s attitudes toward police. J Police Sci Admin 12:323–332

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jackson J, Sunshine J (2007) Public confidence in policing: a neo-Durkheimian perspective. Br J Criminol 47:214–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jackson J, Bradford B, Hough M, Myhill A, Quinton P, Tyler TR (2012a) Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. Br J Criminol 52:1051–1071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jackson J, Bradford B, Stanko EA, Hohl K (2012b) Just authority? Trust in the Police in England and Wales. Routledge, Oxon

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jackson J, Asif M, Bradford B, Zakar MZ (2014) Corruption and Police Legitimacy in Lahore, Pakistan. Br J Criminol 54:1067–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jennings WG, Piquero AR, Reingle JM (2012) On the overlap between victimization and offending: a review of the literature. Aggress Viol Behav 17:16–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Johnson D, Maguire ER, Kuhns JB (2014) Public perceptions of the legitimacy of the law and legal authorities: evidence from the Caribbean. Law Soc Rev 48:947–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jonathan-Zamir T, Harpaz A (2014) Police understanding of the foundations of their legitimacy in the eyes of the public: the case of commanding officers in the Israel National Police. Br J Criminol 54:469–489. doi:10.1093/bjc/azu001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jonathan-Zamir T, Weisburd D (2013) The effects of security threats on antecedents of police legitimacy findings from a quasi-experiment in Israel. J Res Crime Delinq 50:3–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jonathan-Zamir T, Mastrofski SD, Moyal S (2013) Measuring procedural justice in police–citizen encounters. Justice Q. doi:10.1080/07418825.2013.845677

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kirk DS, Matsuda M (2011) Legal cynicism, collective efficacy, and the ecology of arrest. Criminology 49:443–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kirk DS, Papachristos AV (2011) Cultural mechanisms and the persistence of neighborhood violence. Am J Soc 116:1190–1233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Kochel TR (2012) Can police legitimacy promote collective efficacy? Justice Q 29:384–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kochel TR, Parks R, Mastrofski SD (2013) Examining police effectiveness as a precursor to legitimacy and cooperation with police. Justice Q 30:895–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lee C, Farh JL (1999) The effects of gender in organizational justice perception. J Org Behav 20:133–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lee C, Pillutla M, Law KS (2000) Power-distance, gender and organizational justice. J Manag 26:685–704

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lind EA, Tyler TR (1988) The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lind EA, Tyler TR (1992) A relational model of authority in groups. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 25:115–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lind EA, van den Bos K (2002) When fairness works: toward a general theory of uncertainty management. Res Org Behav 24:181–223

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lind EA, Kulik CT, Ambrose M, de Vera Park MV (1993) Individual and corporate dispute resolution: using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Adm Sci Q 38:224–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Long JS, Freese J (2006) Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. Stata Press, College Station

    Google Scholar 

  51. Maguire ER, Johnson D (2010) Measuring public perceptions of the police. Policing Intern J Police Strateg Manag 33:703–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Mason CH, Perreault WD (1991) Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. J Mark Res 28:268–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Maxfield MG (1988) The London metropolitan police and their clients: victim and suspect attitudes. J Res Crime Delinq 25:188–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 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). J Exp Criminol 8:343–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Mazerolle L, Antrobus E, Bennett S, Tyler TR (2013a) Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: a randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology 51:33–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mazerolle L, Bennett S, Davis J, Sargeant E, Manning M (2013b) Procedural justice and police legitimacy: a systematic review of the research evidence. J Exp Criminol 9:245–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Murphy K, Barkworth J (2014) Victim willingness to report crime to police: does procedural justice or outcome matter most? Vict Offenders 9:178–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Murphy K, Cherney A (2011) Fostering cooperation with the police: how do ethnic minorities in Australia respond to procedural justice-based policing? Aust N Z J Criminol 44:235–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Murphy K, Cherney A (2012) Understanding cooperation with police in a diverse society. Br J Criminol 52:181–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Murphy K, Hinds L, Fleming J (2008) Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Polic Soc 18:136–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Nix J, Wolfe SE, Rojek J, Kaminski R (2015) Trust in the police: the influence of procedural justice and perceived collective efficacy. Crime Delinq 61:610–640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Piquero AR, Fagan J, Mulvey EP, Steinberg L, Odgers C (2005) Developmental trajectories of legal socialization among serious adolescent offenders. J Crim Law Criminol 96:267–298

    Google Scholar 

  63. Pyrooz DC, Moule RK, Decker SH (2014) The contribution of gang membership to the victim–offender overlap. J Res Crime Delinq 51:315–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Reisig MD, Correia ME (1997) Public evaluations of police performance: an analysis across three levels of policing. Policing Intern J Police Strateg Manag 20:311–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Reisig MD, Giacomazzi AL (1998) Citizen perceptions of community policing: are attitudes toward police important? Policing Intern J Police Strateg Manag 21:547–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Reisig MD, Parks RB (2000) Experience, quality of life, and neighborhood context: a hierarchical analysis of satisfaction with police. Justice Q 17:607–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Reisig MD, Bratton J, Gertz MG (2007) The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Crim Justice Behav 34:1005–1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Reisig MD, Wolfe SE, Holtfreter K (2011) Legal cynicism, legitimacy, and criminal offending: the non-confounding effect of low self-control. Crim Just Behav 38:1265–1279

    Google Scholar 

  69. Reisig MD, Tankebe J, Meško G (2012) Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and public cooperation with the police among young Slovene adults. J Crim Just Secur 2:147–164

    Google Scholar 

  70. Reisig MD, Tankebe J, Meško G (2014) Compliance with the law in Slovenia: the role of procedural justice and police legitimacy. Eur J Crim Policy Res 20:259–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Sampson RJ, Bartusch DJ (1998) Legal cynicism and (subcultural) tolerance of deviance: the neighborhood context of racial difference. Law Soc Rev 32:777–804

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277:918–924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Sargeant E, Murphy K, Cherney A (2014) Ethnicity, trust and cooperation with police: testing the dominance of the process-based model. Eur J Criminol 11:500–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Sharp EB, Johnson PE (2009) Accounting for variation in distrust of local police. Justice Q 26:157–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Simes RJ (1986) An improved Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 73:751–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Sunshine J, Tyler TR (2003) The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law Soc Rev 37:513–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Sweeney PD, McFarlin DB (1997) Process and outcome: gender differences in the assessment of justice. J Org Behav 18:83–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  79. Tankebe J (2008) Police effectiveness and police trustworthiness in Ghana: an empirical appraisal. Criminol Crim Just 8:185–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Tankebe J (2009a) Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: does procedural fairness matter? Criminology 47:1265–1293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Tankebe J (2009b) Self-help, policing, and procedural justice: Ghanaian vigilantism and the rule of law. Law Soc Rev 43:245–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Tankebe J (2013) Viewing things differently: the dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology 51:103–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Tankebe J (2014) Police Legitimacy. In: Reisig MD, Kane R (eds) The Oxford handbook on police and policing. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 238–259

    Google Scholar 

  84. Taylor RB, Wyant BR, Lockwood B (2014) Variable links within perceived police legitimacy? Fairness and effectiveness across races and places. Soc Sci Res 49:234–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Thau S, Aquino K, Wittek R (2007) An extension of uncertainty management theory to the self: the relationship between justice, social comparison orientation, and antisocial work behaviors. J Appl Psychol 92:250–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Thibaut J, Walker L (1975) Procedural justice: a psychological analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  87. Thurman QC, Reisig MD (1996) Community-oriented research in an era of community-oriented policing. Am Behav Sci 39:570–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Tittle CR (1995) Control balance: toward a general theory of deviance. Westview, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  89. Trinkner R, Cohn ES (2014) Putting the “social” back in legal socialization: procedural justice, legitimacy, and cynicism in legal and nonlegal authorities. Law Hum Behav 38:602–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Tyler TR (1990) Why people obey the law. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  91. Tyler TR (1994) Governing amid diversity: the effect of fair decision making procedures on the legitimacy of government. Law Soc Rev 28:809–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Tyler TR (2000) Multiculturalism and the willingness of citizens to defer to law and to legal authorities. Law Soc Inq 25:983–1019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Tyler TR (2003) Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime Justice 30:283–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Tyler TR (2004) Enhancing police legitimacy. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 593:84–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Tyler TR (2005) Policing in black and white: ethnic group differences in trust and confidence in the police. Police Q 8:322–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Tyler TR, Huo Y (2002) Trust in the law: encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. Russell Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  97. Tyler TR, Jackson J (2013) Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice. In: Tankebe J, Liebling A (eds) Legitimacy and criminal justice: an international exploration. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  98. Tyler TR, Jackson J (2014) Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychol Public Policy Law 20:78–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Tyler TR, Wakslak CJ (2004) Profiling and police legitimacy: procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of authority. Criminology 42:253–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Tyler TR, Boeckmann RJ, Smith HJ, Huo YJ (1997) Social justice in a diverse society. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  101. Van Craen M (2013) Explaining majority and minority trust in the police. Justice Q 30:1042–1067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Van den Bos K (2001) Uncertainty management: the influence of uncertainty salience on reactions to perceived procedural fairness. J Personal Soc Psychol 80:931–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Van den Bos K, Wilke HA, Lind EA (1998) When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. J Personal Soc Psychol 75:1449–1458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Weber M (1946) Politics as a vocation. In: Gerth HH, Wright Mils C (Translated and edited), From Max Weber: essays in sociology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 77–128

  105. Weitzer R, Tuch SA (1999) Race, class, and perceptions of discrimination by the police. Crime Delinq 45:494–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Weitzer R, Tuch SA (2005) Racially biased policing: determinants of citizen perceptions. Soc Forces 83:1009–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Weitzer RJ, Tuch SA (2006) Race and policing in America: conflict and reform. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  108. Wells W (2007) Type of contact and evaluations of police officers: the effects of procedural justice across three types of police–citizen contacts. J Crim Justice 35:612–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Williams R (2006) Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables. Stata J 6:58–82

    Google Scholar 

  110. Willis JJ (2014) A Recent History of the Police. In: Reisig MD, Kane R (eds) The Oxford handbook on police and policing. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–33

    Google Scholar 

  111. Wilson JQ, Kelling GL (1982) Broken windows. Atl Mon 249:29–38

    Google Scholar 

  112. Wolfe SE (2011) The effect of low self-control on perceived police legitimacy. J Crim Justice 39:67–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Wu Y, Sun IY, Triplett RA (2009) Race, class or neighborhood context: which matters more in measuring satisfaction with police? Justice Q 26:125–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Wu Y, Lake R, Cao L (2013) Race, social bonds, and juvenile attitudes toward the police. Justice Q. doi:10.1080/07418825.2013.778325

    Google Scholar 

  115. Zhao JS, Tsai CF, Ren L, Lai YL (2014) Public satisfaction with police control of disorder crime: does the public hold police accountable? Justice Q 31:394–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice under Grant No. 2009-DG-BX-K021. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott E. Wolfe.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6 Descriptive statistics for neighborhood context variables by low and high crime neighborhoods

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wolfe, S.E., Nix, J., Kaminski, R. et al. Is the Effect of Procedural Justice on Police Legitimacy Invariant? Testing the Generality of Procedural Justice and Competing Antecedents of Legitimacy. J Quant Criminol 32, 253–282 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-015-9263-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Procedural justice
  • Fairness
  • Police legitimacy
  • Trust
  • Obligation to obey
  • Process-based model
  • Distributive justice
  • Police effectiveness