To test, under randomized field trial conditions, the impact of police using the principles of procedural justice during routine encounters with citizens on attitudes towards drink-driving, perceptions of compliance, and their satisfaction with the police.
We conducted the first randomized field trial—the ‘Queensland Community Engagement Trial’ (QCET)—to test the impact of police engaging with citizens by operationalizing the key ingredients of procedural justice (neutrality, citizen participation, respect, and trustworthy motives) in a short, high-volume police–citizen encounter. We randomly allocated 60 roadside Random Breath Testing (RBT) operations to control (business-as-usual) and experimental (procedural justice) conditions. Driver surveys were used to measure the key outcomes: attitudes towards drinking and driving, satisfaction with police and perceptions of compliance.
Citizen perceptions of the encounter revealed that the experimental treatment was delivered as planned. We also found significant differences between the experimental and control groups on all key outcome measures: drivers who received the experimental RBT encounter were 1.24 times more likely to report that their views on drinking and driving had changed than the control group; experimental respondents reported small but higher levels of compliance (d = .07) and satisfaction (d = .18) with police during the encounter than did their control group counterparts.
Our results show that the way citizens perceive the police can be influenced by the way in which police interact with citizens during routine encounters, and demonstrate the positive benefits of police using the principles of procedural justice. Our study was limited by the use of paper-only surveys and low response rate. We also recognize that the experiment setting (RBT road blocks) is limiting and non-reflective of the wider set of routine police–citizen encounters. Future research should be undertaken, using experimental methods, to replicate our field operationalization of procedural justice in different types of police–citizen encounters.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Queensland’s road death rate in the calendar year 2009 was 7.5 per 100,000 population. The national road toll for the same year stood at 6.9 per 100,000 population (Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics 2010). The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads in partnership with the QPS is striving to reduce the toll per 100,000 population to 5.6 by the year 2011 as outlined in the Queensland Road Safety Action Plan 2010–2011.
We recognize the weakness of providing drivers with only a hard copy format for completing the survey. In a subsequent replication of QCET in South Carolina, we provide an online option for completing the survey.
The experimental intervention posed two potential design dangers: First, our pilot test demonstrated that the time taken to generate 300 experimental police–citizen encounters pushed the boundaries for the police both because the 300 encounters were very fatiguing for the police and because the 300 encounters maxed out the time available for the officers in a standard four-hour RBT operation. Second, we were concerned that the experimental intervention might generate a higher response rate amongst citizens than the control condition. This would prove problematic for our trial as it would indicate that the intervention itself created bias in the response patterns. Based on research by Raudenbush and Sampson (1999), we knew that we would need a minimum of 30 responses per operation for us to generate any reliable and valid ‘ecometric’ results. As such, we sought to fail-proof our experiment by distributing 400 surveys to drivers per control operation and 300 surveys to drivers per experimental operation. By making this a priori decision, we knew that we would generate at least 30 returned surveys per operation, thus enabling us to analyze the results one of two ways: if there was indeed a difference in the response rates between the control and experimental conditions, we would at least have a minimum number of responses per operation to explore ecometric differences between the two groups. Alternatively, if the intervention generated the same response rates, we could proceed to analyze the experiment without correcting for the response bias. It turned out to be the latter.
Survey questions: Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements. During this last RBT encounter…
The police officer was fair when making the decision to stop me
The police officer gave me the opportunity to express my views
The police officer listened to me during the RBT
The police officer treated me with dignity and respect
The police officer was polite when dealing with me
I felt that the police officer was trustworthy
I had confidence that the police officer was doing the right thing
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2005). Australian Standard Classification of Cultural and Ethnic Groups (ASCCEG). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Bennett, S., Denning, R., Mazerolle, L., & Stocks, B. (2009). Procedural justice: A systematic literature search and technical report to the National Policing Improvement Agency. Brisbane: ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security.
Blader, S., & Tyler, T. (2003). A four component model of procedural justice: defining the meaning of a fair process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 747–758.
Bradford, B., & Jackson, J. (2010). Cooperating with the police: Social control and the reproduction of police legitimacy. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1640958.
Bradford, B., Jackson, J., & Stanko, E. A. (2009). Contact and confidence: revisiting the impact of public encounters with the police. Policing and Society, 19(1), 20–46.
Braga, A., Weisburd, D., Waring, E., Mazerolle, L., Spelman, W., & Gajewski, W. (1999). Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: a randomised controlled experiment. Criminology, 37(3), 541–580.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics. (2010). Road Deaths Australia – January 2010. Canberra, Australia: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Retrieved 28 October, 2011 from http://www.bitre.gov.au/info.aspx?ResourceId=751&NodeId=128
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Crime and Misconduct Commission. (2009). Public perceptions of the Queensland Police Service: Findings from the 2008 Public Attitudes Survey. Brisbane: Crime and Misconduct Commission.
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.
De Cremer, D., & Wubben, M. (2010). When does voice have to be more than only listening? Procedural justice effects as a function of confident leadership. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9(2), 69–78.
Engel, R. (2003). Explaining suspects' resistance and disrespect toward police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(5), 475–492.
Gau, J. M. (2011). The convergent and discriminant validity of procedural justice and police legitimacy: an empirical test of core theoretical propositions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(6), 489–498.
Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2010). Four ingredients: new recipes for procedural justice in Australian policing. Policing, 4(4), 403–410.
Hawdon, J. (2008). Legitimacy, trust, social capital, and policing styles: a theoretical statement. Police Quarterly, 11(2), 182–201.
Hinds, L. (2009). Youth, police legitimacy and informal contact. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 24(1), 10–21.
Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(1), 27–42.
Hosking, P. (2010). Personal communication. January 6, 2010, Brisbane, Australia.
Huq, A. Z., Tyler, T. R., & Schulhofer, S. J. (2011). Why does the public cooperate with law enforcement? The influence of the purposes and targets of policing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 419–450.
Ironside, R. (2010). Police told to monitor their language and refrain from calling offenders ‘idiots’ and ‘stupid’. The Courier-Mail, December 2. Retrieved December 13, 2010 from http://thecouriermail.com.au.
Jackson, J., & Sunshine, J. (2007). Public confidence in policing: a neo-Durkheimian perspective. British Journal of Criminology, 47, 214–233.
Kane, R. (2005). Linking compromised police legitimacy to violent crime in structurally disadvantaged communities. Criminology, 43, 469–498.
Kochel, T. R., Parks, R. B., & Mastrofski, S. D. (2011). Examining police effectiveness as a precursor to legitimacy and cooperation with police. Justice Quarterly. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07418825.2011.633544.
Lasley, J. R. (1994). The impact of the Rodney King incident on citizen attitudes toward police. Policing and Society, 3(4), 245–255.
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.
Mastrofski, S. D., Reisig, M. D., & McCluskey, J. D. (2002). Police disrespect toward the public: an encounter-based analysis. Criminology, 40, 519–552.
Mazerolle, L., & Terrill, W. (1997). Problem-oriented policing in public housing: Identifying the distribution of problem places. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 20(2), 215–255.
Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Eggins, E., & Antrobus, E. (2011). The Queensland Community Engagement Trial: Final Report. Brisbane: ARC Centre for Excellence in Policing and Security, The University of Queensland.
Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., & Manning, M. (2012). Legitimacy in policing. The Campbell Collaboration Library of Systematic Reviews. http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/library.php (in press)
McCluskey, J. D. (2003). Police requests for compliance: Coercive and procedurally just tactics. New York: LFB.
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.
Murphy, K. (2008). Public satisfaction with police: The importance of procedural justice and police performance in police-citizen encounters. Canberra: ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security.
Murphy, K. (2009). Public satisfaction with police: the importance of procedural justice and police performance in police-citizen encounters. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42, 159–178.
Murphy, K., & Mearns, M. (2008). The public safety and security in Australia survey: Survey methodology and preliminary findings. (Working Paper, October 2008). ARC Centre for Excellence in Policing and Security. Canberra: The Australian National University.
Murphy, K., Hinds, L., & Fleming, J. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Policing and Society, 18(2), 136–155.
Oliver, M. B. (1994). Portrayals of crime, race, and aggression in “Reality-based” police shows: a content analysis. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 38, 179–192.
Papachristos, A.V., Meares, T. L., & Fagan, J. (2009). Why do criminals obey the law? The influence of legitimacy and social networks on active gun offenders. New Haven, CT: Yale Law and Economics Research Paper No. 373; Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 09-199. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1326631 .
Platow, M. J., Brewer, G., & Eggins, R. A. (2008). Authorities’ knowledge of shared group membership and its effects on the respect-informing properties of procedural fairness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 743–750.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. (2009). Queensland Road Safety Action Plan, 2010–2011. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.
Queensland Police Service. (2008). Internal Memorandum, February 2008.
Raudenbush, S., & Sampson, R. (1999). Ecometrics: toward a science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociological Methodology, 29, 1–41.
Reisig, M. (2007). Procedural justice and community policing – what shapes residents’ willingness to participate in crime prevention programs? Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 1(3), 356–368.
Reisig, M., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. (2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 1005–1028.
Reiss, A. J. (1971). The police and the public. New Haven: Yale.
Roman, J., Yahne, J., Zweig, J., & Chakravarti, R. (2010). How do drug courts work? Paper presented at the National Institute of Justice, June 15, 2010. Retrieved 28 October, 2011 from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412153-how-do-courts.pdf
Rosenbaum, D. P. (Ed.). (1994). The challenge of community policing: Testing the promises. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Schuck, A., & Rosenbaum, D. (2011). The Chicago Quality Interaction Training Program: A randomized control trial of police innovation. Washington, DC: National Police Research Platform, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved 28 October, 2011 from http://www.nationalpoliceresearch.org/storage/updated-papers/The%20Chicago%20Quality%20Interaction%20Training%20Program%20a%20Randomized%20%20Control%20Trial%20of%20Police%20Innovation%20FINAL.pdf
Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Dignan, J., Edwards, L., Hibbert, J., et al. (2008). Does restorative justice affect reconviction? The fourth report from the evaluation of three schemes. Ministry of Justice Research Series 10/08. London: Ministry of Justice.
Sherman, L., Strang, H., Barnes, G., Braithwaite, J., Inkpen, N., & Teh, M. (1998). Experiments in restorative policing: A progress report to the National Police Research Unit on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra: The Australian National University.
Singer, L. (2004). Reassurance policing: An evaluation of the local management of community safety. Home Office Research Studies (vol. 228). London: Home Office.
Skogan, W. G., Steiner, L., Benitez, C., Bennis, J., Borchers, S., BuBois, J., et al. (2004). Community policing in Chicago, year 10. Research and program evaluation in Illinois: Studies on drug abuse and violent crime (pp. 1–155). Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.
Skolnick, J. H., & Fyfe, J. J. (1993). Above the law: Police and the excessive use of force. New York: Free Press.
Strang, H., & Sherman, L. (2003). Repairing the harm: victims and restorative justice. Utah Law Review, 15, 17–23.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice for legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37(3), 513–548.
Tankebe, J. (2009). Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: Does procedural fairness matter? Criminology, 47, 1265–1293.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale: Erlnaum.
Travelsafe Committee. (1997). Report No. 19: Queensland’s Road Toll: Drink Driving (Part 1). Brisbane: Legislative Assembly of Queensland.
Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law and Society Review, 22, 103–135.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: a relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(4), 323–345.
Tyler, T. R. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: what do majority and minority group members want from legal authorities? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 215–235.
Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research, vol. 30 (pp. 431–505). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 84–99.
Tyler, T. R. (2008). Psychology and institutional design. Review of Law & Economics, 4(3), 801–887.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
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.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law. New York: Russell Sage.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115–191.
Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42(2), 253–281.
Tyler, T. R., Sherman, L., Strang, H., Barnes, G. C., & Woods, D. (2007). Reintegrative shaming, procedural justice, and recidivism: the engagement of offenders' psychological mechanisms in the Canberra RISE drinking-and-driving experiment. Law & Society Review, 41(3), 553–586.
Watson, B., & Freeman, J. (2007). Perceptions and experiences of random breath testing in Queensland and the self-reported deterrent impact on drunk driving. Traffic Injury Prevention, 8(1), 11–19.
Wells, W. (2007). Type of contact and evaluations of police officers: the effects of procedural justice across three types of police–citizen contacts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(6), 612–621.
The QCET was funded, in its entirety, by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security (CEPS). The authors acknowledge the assistance provided by the Queensland Police Service. The views expressed in this material 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. The authors thank the Queensland Police Service for their leadership throughout the trial, in particular Assistant Commissioners Peter Martin, Brett Pointing, Ann Lewis, and Kim Adams, Superintendents Tonya Carew, Ron Cooper and Tony Rand, Inspector Pete Hosking, A/Inspector Shaun Dinon and Senior Sergeants Stephen Peck and Neale Stonely, who all demonstrated remarkable innovation during the development and implementation of QCET. We also appreciate the efforts of the Metropolitan South Region traffic officers, who readily engaged with the trial. The authors thank Patricia Ferguson, Dr Silke Meyer, Elise Sargeant and Renee Zahnow for their assistance in observing QCET operations; Linzie Jones for data entry; and Jacqueline Davis and Dr Gentry White for statistical advice. The authors also acknowledge A/Professor Kristina Murphy for her valued assistance in developing the QCET survey and appreciate the fantastic feedback and guidance provided by the JOEX Editor, Professor David Weisburd, and the anonymous reviewers during the peer review process.
About this article
Cite this article
Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E. et al. Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: main findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET). J Exp Criminol 8, 343–367 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-012-9160-1
- Police legitimacy
- Procedural justice
- Randomized field trial
- Random breath tests