Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 245–274 | Cite as

Procedural justice and police legitimacy: a systematic review of the research evidence

  • Lorraine MazerolleEmail author
  • Sarah Bennett
  • Jacqueline Davis
  • Elise Sargeant
  • Matthew Manning



We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the published and unpublished empirical evidence on the impact of police-led interventions that use procedurally just dialogue focused on improving citizen perceptions of police legitimacy.


The systematic search included any public police intervention where there was a statement that the intervention involved police dialogue with citizens that either was aimed explicitly at improving police legitimacy, or used at least one core ingredient of procedural justice dialogue: police encouraging citizen participation, remaining neutral in their decision making, conveying trustworthy motives, or demonstrating dignity and respect throughout interactions. The studies included in our meta-analyses also had to include at least one direct outcome that measured legitimacy or procedural justice, or one outcome that is common in the legitimacy extant literature: citizen compliance, cooperation, confidence or satisfaction with police. We conducted separate meta-analyses, using random effects models, for each outcome.


For every single one of our outcome measures, the effect of legitimacy policing was in a positive direction, and, for all but the legitimacy outcome, statistically significant. Notwithstanding the variability in the mode in which legitimacy policing is delivered (i.e., the study intervention) and the complexities around measurement of legitimacy outcomes, our review shows that the dialogue component of front-line police-led interventions is an important vehicle for promoting citizen satisfaction, confidence, compliance and cooperation with the police, and for enhancing perceptions of procedural justice.


In practical terms, our research shows the benefits of police using dialogue that adopts at least one of the principles of procedural justice as a component part of any type of police intervention, whether as part of routine police activity or as part of a defined police crime control program. Our review provides evidence that legitimacy policing is an important precursor for improving the capacity of policing to prevent and control crime.


Police legitimacy Procedural justice Randomized field trial Systematic review 


*Denotes that the study was included in the meta-analysis

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Berrien, J., & Winship, C. (2002). An umbrella of legitimacy: Boston's Police Department – Ten Point Coalition Collaboration. In G. S. Katzmann (Ed.), Securing our children's future (pp. 200–228). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  3. *Bond, C. E. W., & Gow, D. J. (1997). Policing the beat: The experience in Toowoomba, Queensland. In R. Homel (Ed.), Crime prevention studies, Vol. 7. Policing for prevention: Reducing crime, public intoxication and injury (pp. 154–173). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  4. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: a dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102(1), 119–170.Google Scholar
  6. *Dai, M. (2007). Procedural justice during police-citizen encounters. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinatti). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (UMI Number: 3280116).Google Scholar
  7. Dai, M. Y., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. *Dunworth, T., & Mills, G. (1999a). National evaluation of weed and seed: Akron, Ohio research report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from
  9. *Dunworth, T., & Mills, G. (1999b). National evaluation of Weed and Seed: Hartford, Connecticut research report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from
  10. *Dunworth, T., & Mills, G. (1999c). National evaluation of Weed and Seed: Las Vegas, Nevada research report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from
  11. *Dunworth, T., & Mills, G. (1999d). National evaluation of Weed and Seed: Manatee and Sarasota Counties, Florida research report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from
  12. *Dunworth, T., & Mills, G. (1999e). National evaluation of Weed and Seed: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania research report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from
  13. *Dunworth, T., & Mills, G. (1999f). National evaluation of Weed and Seed: Salt Lake City, Utah research report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from
  14. *Dunworth, T., & Mills, G. (1999g). National evaluation of Weed and Seed: Seattle, Washington research report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from
  15. *Dunworth, T., & Mills, G. (1999h). National evaluation of Weed and Seed: Shreveport, Louisiana research report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from
  16. *Eckert, R. (2009). Community policing as procedural justice: An examination of Baltimore residents after the implementation of a community policing strategy. (Master’s thesis, Villanova University). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (UMI Number: 1462400)Google Scholar
  17. Fischer, R., Harb, C., Al-Sarraf, S., & Nashabe, O. (2008). Support for resistance among Iraqi students: an exploratory study. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(2), 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2010). Four ingredients: new recipes for procedural justice in Australian policing. Policing, 4(4), 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. *Hall, P.A. (1987). Neighborhood Watch and participant perceptions. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (UMI Number: 0560502).Google Scholar
  20. Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Toronto: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. *Hinds, L. (2009). Youth, police legitimacy and informal contact. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 24, 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. *Holland, R. C. (1996). Informal resolution: dealing with complaints against police in a manner satisfactory to the officer and the complainant. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 20(1), 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Home Office (2011). Crime in England and Wales: Quarterly update to September 2010. London: Author.Google Scholar
  26. Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2010). What is trust and confidence in the police? Policing, 4(3), 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jonathan-Zamir, T., & Weisburd, D. (2009). Does police performance increase in importance for the public during times of security threats, and do evaluations of procedural justice decline in importance? Findings from a quasi-experimental study of antecedents of police legitimacy in Israel. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.Google Scholar
  28. *Kerstetter, W. A., & Rasinski, K. A. (1994). Opening a window into police internal affairs: impact of procedural justice reform on third-party attitudes. Social Justice Research, 7(2), 107–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis (Vol. 49). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  30. *McGarrell, E. F., & Chermak, S. (2004). Strategic approaches to reducing firearms violence: Final report on the Indianapolis violence reduction partnership. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  31. Mastrofski, S.D. (2009). Systematic social observation and legitimacy policing. Presentation.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s11292-012-9160-1.
  34. Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., & Manning, M. (2013). Legitimacy in policing. Campbell Collaboration Library of Systematic Reviews.
  35. McCluskey, J. D. (2003). Police requests for compliance: Coercive and procedurally just tactics. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.Google Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Murphy, K. (2009). Public satisfaction with police: the importance of procedural justice and police performance in police-citizen encounters. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2012). Understanding cooperation with police in a diverse society. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. *Murphy, K., Hinds, L., & Fleming, J. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Policing and Society, 18(2), 136–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. *Panetta, M. J. (2000). Identifying and assessing citizen perceptions of police and community policing practices. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (UMI Number: 9971979)Google Scholar
  41. Reisig, M. D., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. G. (2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 1005–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reiss, A. J. (1971). The police and the public. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  43. *Ren, L., Cao, L., Lovrich, N., & Gaffney, M. (2005). Linking confidence in police with the performance of the police: community policing can make a difference. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. *Robinson, A. L., & Chandek, M. S. (2000). Philosophy into practice? Community policing units and domestic violence victim participation. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 23(3), 280–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. *Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Chapman, B., Dignan, J., Howes, M., et al. (2007). Restorative justice: The views of victims and offenders. Ministry of Justice Research Series (3). United Kingdom: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  46. *Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Barnes, G. C., Braithwaite, J., Inkpen, N., & Teh, M. M. (1998). Experiments in restorative policing: A progress report on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra: Australian Federal Police and Australian National University.Google Scholar
  47. *Singer, L. (2004). Reassurance policing: An evaluation of the local management of community safety. Home Office Research Studies (Vol. 228). London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  48. *Skogan, W.G., & Steiner, L. (2004). CAPS at Ten: Community policing in Chicago - An evaluation of Chicago's alternative policing strategy. Chicago, IL: The Chicago Community Policing Evaluation Consortium. Retrieved from
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sutton, A. J., Duval, S. J., Tweedie, R. L., Abrams, K. R., & Jones, D. R. (2000). Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 320, 1574–1577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tankebe, J. (2009). Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: does procedural fairness matter? Criminology, 47, 1265–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. *Tuffin, R., Morris, J., & Poole, A. (2006). An evaluation of the impact of the National Reassurance Policing programme. Home Office Research Study 296. London: Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office Research.Google Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tyler, T. R. (2005). Policing in black and white: ethnic group differences in trust and confidence in the police. Police Quarterly, 8(3), 322–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tyler, T. R. (2008). Psychology and institutional design. Review of Law & Economics, 4(3), 801–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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
  59. Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  60. Tyler, T.R. & Murphy, K. (2011). Procedural justice, police legitimacy and cooperation with police: A new paradigm for policing. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security Briefing Paper. May 2011.Google Scholar
  61. Tyler, T. R., Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Barnes, G. C., & Woods, D. J. (2007). Reintegrative shaming, procedural justice, and recidivism: the engagement of offenders' psychological mechanisms in the Canberra RISE drinking-and-driving experiment. Law and Society Review, 41(3), 553–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tyler, T. R., Schulhofer, S., & Huq, A. Z. (2010). Legitimacy and deterrence rffects in conterterrorism policing: a study of Muslim Americans. Law & Society Review, 44(2), 365–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. *Weisburd, D., Morris, N. A., & Ready, J. (2008). Risk-focused policing at places: an experimental evaluation. Justice Quarterly, 25(1), 163–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wells, L. E. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. *Young, R., Hoyle, C., Cooper, K., & Hill, R. (2005). Informal resolution of complaints against the police: a quasi-experimental test of restorative justice. Criminal Justice, 5(3), 279–317.Google Scholar
  67. *Zevitz, R.G., Palazzari, T., Frinzi, J.N., & Mallinger, A. (1997). Milwaukee Weed and Seed program evaluation final report. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lorraine Mazerolle
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Sarah Bennett
    • 1
  • Jacqueline Davis
    • 1
  • Elise Sargeant
    • 1
  • Matthew Manning
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Social Science Research and ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security (CEPS)The University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeGriffith UniversityQueenslandAustralia
  3. 3.Institute for Social Science ResearchThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations