Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 701–726 | Cite as

The Impact of Procedurally-Just Policing on Citizen Perceptions of Police During Traffic Stops: The Adana Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Nusret Sahin
  • Anthony A. BragaEmail author
  • Robert Apel
  • Rod K. Brunson
Original Paper



The process-based model of police legitimacy suggests, when police are perceived to make fair decisions and treat people with respect, they will be viewed as legitimate authorities. A randomized controlled trial was used to test the impact of a procedural justice policing intervention, relative to routine police behavior, during traffic stops for excessive speeding in Adana, Turkey.


Drivers stopped by traffic officers for speeding violations were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. Subjects in the treatment group received the procedural justice policing intervention during traffic stops, while subjects in the control group experienced business-as-usual traffic stops. Treatment officer behavior was guided by a script that helped to ensure that key components of a procedurally-just encounter were delivered. After completion of the traffic stop, drivers were interviewed on the encounter and general perceptions of traffic police.


The experimental analyses show that the infusion of procedural justice principles into police traffic stops does improve citizens’ perceptions of the specific encounter relative to routine police traffic stops. However, the procedural justice treatment did not generate a robust improvement in citizens’ general perceptions of traffic officers.


These results indicate it might be overly optimistic to suggest a single positive encounter can exert a strong influence on durable citizen perceptions of confidence and trust in the police. In addition to ensuring procedurally-just encounters, police executives and police makers should also pay attention to other relevant performance dimensions such as crime control effectiveness, distributive fairness, and lawfulness to change global perceptions of the police.


Legitimacy Police Procedural justice Traffic stops Randomized experiment 


  1. Adaman F, Carkoglu A, Senatalar B (2005) Toplumun Kamu Yönetimine ve Kamu Hizmetlerine ve Reforma Bakışı. TESEV Yayinlari, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  2. Adaman F, Carkoglu A, Senatalar B (2009) Hanehalki Gozunden Kamu Hizmetleri ve Yolsuzluk, vol 43. TESEV, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen R (2008) Modern methods for robust regression. Sage, Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antrobus E, Elffers H, White G, Mazerolle L (2013) Non-response bias in randomized control experiments: putting the Queensland community engagement trial under a microscope. Eval Rev 37:197–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aytac O (2005) Halkın Polise Bakışı: Güveniyorum ama Rüşvetçi ve Kaba. Retrieved October 5, 2013, from
  6. Beetham D (1991) The legitimation of power. Humanities Press International, Atlantic HighlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bland N, Miller J, Quinton P (2000) Upping the PACE? An evaluation of the recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry on stops and searches, police research series (paper 128). Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Bottoms A, Tankebe J (2012) Beyond procedural justice: a dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. J Crim Law Criminol 102:119–170Google Scholar
  9. Bradford B, Jackson J, Stanko E (2009) Contact and confidence: revisiting the impact of public encounters with the police. Polic Soc 19:20–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braga AA (2008) Problem-oriented policing and crime prevention, 2nd edn. Lynne Rienner Publishers, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  11. Braga AA, Welsh B, Papachristos A, Schnell C, Grossman L (2014) The growth of randomized experiments in policing: the vital few and the salience of mentoring. J Exp Criminol 10:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brandl S, Frank J, Worden R, Bynum T (1994) Global and specific attitudes toward the police: disentangling the relationship. Justice Q 11:119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brunson RK (2007) ‘Police don’t like black people’: african American young men’s accumulated police experiences. Criminol Public Policy 6:71–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brunson RK, Miller J (2006) Young black men and urban policing in the United States. Brit J Criminol 46:613–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brunson RK, Weitzer R (2009) Police relations with black and white youths in different urban neighborhoods. Urb Aff Rev 44:858–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bucke T (1997) Ethnicity and contacts with the police: latest findings from the British Crime Survey (study 59). Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Campbell DT, Stanley J (1966) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Rand McNally, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  18. Cao L, Burton V (2006) Spanning the continents: assessing the Turkish public confidence in the police. Policing 29:451–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carr PJ, Napolitano L, Keating J (2007) We never call the cops and here is why: a qualitative examination of legal cynicism in three Philadelphia neighborhoods. Criminology 45:445–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  21. Coicaud J-M (2002) Legitimacy and politics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dai M, Frank J, Sun I (2011) Procedural justice during police–citizen encounters: the effects of process-based policing on citizen compliance and demeanor. J Crim Justice 39:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elliott I, Thomas S, Ogloff J (2011) Procedural justice in contacts with the police: testing a relational model of authority in a mixed methods study. Psychol Public Policy Law 14:592–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Engel R (2005) Citizens’ perceptions of distributive and procedural injustice during traffic stops with police. J Res Crime Delinq 42:445–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fagan J (2002) Law, social science and racial profiling. Justice Res Policy 4:104–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Farrington D (2003) Methodological quality standards for evaluation research. Annals 587:49–68Google Scholar
  27. Fine M, Freudenberg N, Payne Y, Perkins T, Smith K, Wanzer K (2003) ‘Anything can happen with police around’: urban youth evaluate strategies of surveillance in public places. J Soc Issues 59:141–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gallagher C, Maguire E, Mastrofski S, Reisig M (2001) The public image of police. International Association of Chiefs of Police, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Gau J, Brunson RK (2009) Procedural justice and order maintenance policing: a study of inner-city young men’s perceptions of police legitimacy. Justice Q 27:255–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hawdon J (2008) Legitimacy, trust, social capital, and policing styles. Police Q 11:182–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heckman J (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47:153–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hohl K, Bradford B, Stanko E (2010) Influencing trust and confidence in the London Metropolitan Police. Brit J Criminol 50:491–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hu R, Sun I, Wu Y (2015) Chinese trust in the police: the impact of political efficacy and participation. Soc Sci Q 96:1012–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hurst Y, Frank J (2000) How kids view cops: the nature of juvenile attitudes toward the police. J Crim Justice 28:189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hurst Y, Frank J, Browning S (2000) The attitudes of juveniles toward the police: a comparison of black and white youth. Policing 23:37–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jackson J, Bradford B (2009) Crime, policing and social order: on the expressive nature of public confidence in policing. Brit J Sociol 60:493–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jackson J, Bradford B, Hough M, Myhill A, Quinton P, Tyler T (2012) Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. Brit J Criminol 52:1051–1071CrossRefGoogle 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 50:3–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kazu I (2003) Polis-Halk İlişkileri (Elazığ Örneği). Polis Dergisi 39:169–199Google Scholar
  40. Kochel T, Parks R, Mastrofski S (2013) Examining police effectiveness as a precursor to legitimacy and cooperation with police. Justice Q 30:895–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koenker R (2005) Quantile regression. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Leiber M, Nalla M, Farnsworth M (1998) Explaining juveniles’attitudes toward the police. Justice Q 15:151–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lum C, Koper C, Telep C (2011) The evidence-based policing matrix. J Exp Criminol 7:3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. MacQueen S, Bradford B (2015) Enhancing public trust and police legitimacy during road traffic encounters: results from a randomized controlled trial in Scotland. J Exp Criminol 11:419–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mastrofski S, Snipes J, Supina A (1996) Compliance on demand: the public’s response to specific police requests. J Res Crime Delinq 33:269–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mazerolle L, Bennett S, Davis J, Sargeant E, Manning M (2012) Legitimacy in policing: a systematic review. Camp Syst Rev 9Google Scholar
  47. Mazerolle L, Antrobus E, Bennett S, Tyler T (2013) Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: a randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology 51:33–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McCluskey J (2003) Police requests for compliance: coercive and procedurally just tactics. LFB Scholarly Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Meares T, Kahan D (1998) Law and (norms of) order in the inner city. Law Soc Rev 32:805–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moore M (1992) Problem-solving and community policing. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Modern policing, crime and justice, vol 15. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 99–158Google Scholar
  51. Moore M (2002) Recognizing value in policing. Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  52. Murphy K, Hinds L, Fleming J (2008) Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Polic Soc 18:136–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ozbaran Y (2010) The relationship between Turkish traffic enforcement officers’ job satisfaction and officers’ perception of their leaders’ leadership styles. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, DallasGoogle Scholar
  54. Parsons T (1967) Some reflections on the place of force in social process. In: Parsons T (ed) Sociological theory and modern society. The Free Press, New York, pp 192–219Google Scholar
  55. Paternoster R, Brame R, Bachman R, Sherman L (1997) Do fair procedures matter? Law Soc Rev 17:457–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Quinton P, Bland N, Miller J (2000) Police stops: decision-making and practice, police research series (paper 130). Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Reisig M (2010) Community and problem-oriented policing. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and Justice, vol 39. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–53Google Scholar
  58. Reisig M, Chandek M (2001) The effects of expectancy disconfirmation on outcome satisfaction in police–citizen interactions. Policing 21:88–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Reisig M, Lloyd C (2009) Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and helping the police fight crime: results from a survey of Jamaican adolescents. Police Q 12:42–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reisig M, Bratton J, Gertz M (2007) The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Crim Justice Behav 34:1005–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reisig M, Tankebe J, Mesko G (2014) Compliance with the law in Slovenia: the role of procedural justice and police legitimacy. Eur J Crim Pol Res 20:259–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rosenbaum D, Schuck A, Costello S, Hawkins D, Ring M (2005) Attitudes toward the police: the effects of direct and vicarious experience. Police Q 8:343–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sahin NM (2014). Legitimacy, procedural justice, and police–citizen encounters: a randomized controlled trial of the impact of procedural justice on citizen perceptions of the police during traffic stops in Turkey. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers UniversityGoogle Scholar
  64. Sarat A (1977) Studying American legal culture. Law Soc Rev 11:427–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schuck A, Rosenbaum D (2011) The Chicago Quality Interaction Training Program: a randomized control trial of police innovation. National Institute of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  66. Sechrest L, Rosenblatt A (1987) Research methods. In: Quay H (ed) Handbook of juvenile delinquency. Wiley, New York, pp 417–450Google Scholar
  67. Shadish W, Cook T, Campbell D (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  68. Sherman L, Berk R (1984) The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. Am Sociol Rev 49:261–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Skogan W (2006) Asymmetry in the impact of encounters with police. Polic Soc 16:99–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Skogan W, Frydl K (eds) (2004) Fairness and effectiveness in policing: the evidence. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  71. Skogan W, Hartnett S (1997) Community policing, Chicago style. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  72. Snyder H, Sickmund M (1996) Juvenile offenders and victims: a national report. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  73. Solis C, Portillos E, Brunson RK (2009) Latino/a youths’ experiences with and perceptions of negative police encounters. Annals 623:39–51Google Scholar
  74. Stone V, Pettigrew N (2000) The views of the public on stops and searches, police research series (paper 129). Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  75. Sunshine J, Tyler T (2003) The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law Soc Rev 37:513–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tankebe J (2009) Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: does procedural fairness matter? Criminology 47:1265–1293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tankebe J (2013) Viewing things differently: the dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology 51:103–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Taylor T, Turner K, Esbensen F-A, Winfree L (2001) Coppin’ an attitude: attitudinal differences among juveniles toward the police. J Crim Justice 29:295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tyler T (2003) Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and Justice, vol 30. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 431–505Google Scholar
  80. Tyler T (2004) Enhancing police legitimacy. Annals 593:84–99Google Scholar
  81. Tyler T (2005) Policing in black and white: ethnic group differences in trust and confidence in the police. Police Q 8:322–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tyler T (2006) Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  83. Tyler T, Fagan J (2008) Legitimacy and cooperation: why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State J Crim Law 6:231–276Google Scholar
  84. Tyler T, Huo Y (2002) Trust in the law: encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  85. Tyler T, Wakslak C (2004) Profiling and police legitimacy: procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology 42:253–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Verardi V, Croux C (2009) Robust regression in Stata. Stata J 9:439–453Google Scholar
  87. Warren P (2011) Perceptions of police disrespect during vehicle stops: a race-based analysis. Crime Delinq 57:356–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Weitzer R, Tuch S (2005) Racially biased policing: determinants of citizen perceptions. Soc Forces 83:1009–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Weitzer R, Tuch S (2006) Race and policing in America: conflict and reform. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Winship C, Mare R (1992) Models for sample selection bias. Annu Rev Soc 18:327–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Yalcinkaya A (2012) Polis Halk İlişkilerini Olumlu Yönde Katalizleyecek Unsurlar ve İzlenmesi Gereken Yol. Polis Akademisi, AnkaraGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nusret Sahin
    • 1
  • Anthony A. Braga
    • 2
    Email author
  • Robert Apel
    • 1
  • Rod K. Brunson
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Criminal JusticeRutgers UniversityNewarkUSA
  2. 2.School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeNortheastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations