Akinlabi, O. M., & Murphy, K. (2018). Dull compulsion or perceived legitimacy? Assessing why people comply with the law in Nigeria. Police Practice and Research, 19(2), 186–201.
Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00734.x.
Augustyn, M. B. (2016). Updating perceptions of (in)justice. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53(2), 255–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427815616991.
Barclay, L. J., Bashshur, M. R., & Fortin, M. (2017). Motivated cognition and fairness: Insights, integration, and creating a path forward. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(6), 867.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). Moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 173–182.
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.
Bradford, B., Murphy, K., & Jackson, J. (2014a). Officers as mirrors: policing, procedural justice and the (re) production of social identity. British Journal of Criminology, 54(4), 527–550. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azu021.
Bradford, B., Huq, A., Jackson, J., & Roberts, B. (2014b). What price fairness when security is at stake? Police legitimacy in South Africa. Regulation and Governance, 8(2), 246–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12012.
Bradford, B., Jackson, J., & Hough, M. (2014c). Police legitimacy in action: lessons for theory and practice. In M. Reisig & R. Kane (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of police and policing (pp. 551–570). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bradford, B., Milani, J., & Jackson, J. (2017). Identity, legitimacy and “making sense” of police use of force. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 40(3), 614–627. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-06-2016-0085.
Carrabine, E. (2004). Power, discourse, and resistance: A genealogy of the Strangeways prison riot. Farnham: Ashgate.
Cheng, K. K. Y. (2015). Prosecutorial procedural justice and public legitimacy in Hong Kong. British Journal of Criminology, 57(1), 94–111.
Clare, P. J., Dobbins, T. A., & Mattick, R. P. (2019). Causal models adjusting for time-varying confounding—a systematic review of the literature. International journal of epidemiology, 48(1), 254–265.
Daniel, R. M., De Stavola, B. L., Cousens, S. N., & Vansteelandt, S. (2015). Causal mediation analysis with multiple mediators. Biometrics, 71(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.12248.
De Stavola, B. L., Daniel, R. M., Ploubidis, G. B., & Micali, N. (2015). Mediation analysis with intermediate confounding: Structural equation modeling viewed through the causal inference lens. American Journal of Epidemiology, 181(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwu239.
Gerber, M., & Jackson, J. (2017). Justifying violence: legitimacy, ideology and public support for police use of force. Psychology, Crime and Law, 23(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2016.1220556.
Gur, N. (2018). Legal directives and practical reasons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Groves, R. M., & Peytcheva, E. (2008). The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias : a meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 167–189. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfnOl.
Hagan, J., McCarthy, B., Herda, D., & Chandrasekher, A. C. (2018). Dual-process theory of racial isolation, legal cynicism, and reported crime. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(28), 7190–7199.
Hamm, J. A., Trinkner, R., & Carr, J. D. (2017). Fair process, trust, and cooperation: moving toward an integrated framework of police legitimacy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(9), 1183–1212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817710058.
Hendra, R., & Hill, A. (2018). Rethinking response rates: new evidence of little relationship between survey response rates and nonresponse bias. Evaluation Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X18807719.
Hendrick, T. A. M., Fischer, A. R. H., Tobi, H., & Frewer, L. J. (2013). Self-reported attitude scales: current practice in adequate assessment of reliability, validity, and dimensionality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(7), 1538–1552. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12147.
Huq, A., Tyler, T., & Schulhofer, S. (2011a). Mechanisms for eliciting cooperation in counter terrorism policing: evidence from the United Kingdom. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8(4), 728–761.
Huq, A. Z., Tyler, T. R., & Schulhofer, S. J. (2011b). 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.
Huq, A., Jackson, J., & Trinkner, R. (2017). Legitimating practices: revisiting the predicates of police legitimacy. British Journal of Criminology, 57(5), 1101–1122.
Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 765–789. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000414.
Jackson, J. (2018). Norms, normativity and the legitimacy of legal authorities: international perspectives. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14, 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113734.
Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2019). Blurring the distinction between empirical and normative legitimacy? A methodological commentary on “police legitimacy and citizen cooperation in China”. Asian Journal of Criminology, 14(4), 265–289.
Jackson, J., & Gau, J. M. (2016). Carving up concepts? Differentiating between trust and legitimacy in public attitudes towards legal authority. In E. Shockley, T. M. S. Neal, L. PytlikZillig, & B. Bornstein (Eds.), Interdiisciplinary perspectives on trust: towards theoretical and methodological integration (pp. 49–69). Berlin: Springer.
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T. R. (2012). Why do people comply with the law? British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), 1051–1071.
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Stanko, E. A., & Hohl, K. (2013). Just authority? Trust in the police in England and Wales. Oxon: Routledge.
Jackson, J., Brunton-Smith, I., Bradford, B., Oliveira, T. R., Posch, K., & Sturgis, P. (2019). Police legitimacy and the norm to cooperate: using a mixed effects location-scale model to estimate the strength of social norms at a small spatial scale. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/jb74u.
Jackson, J., Posch, K., Rodriguez-Oliveira, T., Bradford, B., Natal, A. L., Mendes, S. M. and Zanetic, A. (2020). ‘Fear and legitimacy in Sao Paulo, Brazil: police-citizen relations in a high violence, high fear context’. LSE working paper.
Johnson, D., Maguire, E. R., & Kuhns, J. B. (2014). Public perceptions of the legitimacy of the law and legal authorities: evidence from the Caribbean. Law & Society Review, 48(4), 947–978.
Jonathan-Zamir, T., & Harpaz, A. (2018). Predicting support for procedurally just treatment: the case of the Israel National Police. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(6), 840–862. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818763230.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan.
Kaplan, D. (2008). Structural equation modeling - foundations and extensions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2015). Identifying mechanisms behind policy interventions via causal mediation analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(4), 937–963. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21853.
Kenny, D. A. (2008). Reflections on mediation. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 353–358.
Kirk, D., & Papachristos, A. (2011). Cultural mechanisms and the persistence of violence. American Journal of Sociology, 116(4), 1190–1233.
Kohler, U., Kreuter, F., & Stuart, E. A. (2018). Nonprobability sampling and causal analysis. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 6(1), 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-030718-104951.
Lange, T., Rasmussen, M., & Thygesen, L. C. (2014). Assessing natural direct and indirect effects through multiple pathways. American Journal of Epidemiology, 179(4), 513–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwt270.
Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organization justice (p. 56–88). Redwood: Stanford University Press.
Mackinnon, D. P., Kisbu-Sakarya, Y., & Gottschall, A. C. (2013). Developments in mediation analysis. In T. D. Little (Ed.), Oxford handbook of quantitative methods (Vol. 2, pp. 1–28). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199934898.013.0016.
MacQueen, S., & Bradford, B. (2015). Enhancing public trust and police legitimacy during road traffic encounters: results from a randomised controlled trial in Scotland. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 419–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-015-9240-0.
MacQueen, S., & Bradford, B. (2017). Where did it all go wrong? Implementation failure—and more—in a field experiment of procedural justice policing. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(3), 321–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9278-7.
Manski, C. F. (2007). Identification for prediction and decision. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
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(1), 33–63.
Mazerolle, L., Bates, L., Bennett, S., White, G., Ferris, J., & Antrobus, E. (2015). Optimising the length of random breath tests: results from the Queensland community engagement trial. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48, 256–276.
Mentovich, A. (2012). The power of fair procedures - the effect of procedural justice on perceptions of power and hierarchy. New York: New York University.
Motz, R. T., Barnes, J. C., Caspi, A., Arseneault, L., Cullen, F. T., Houts, R., ... & Moffitt, T. E. (2019). Does contact with the justice system deter or promote future delinquency? Results from a longitudinal study of British adolescent twins. Criminology.
Murphy, K. (2016). Turning defiance into compliance with procedural justice: understanding reactions to regulatory encounters through motivational posturing. Regulation & Governance, 10(1), 93–109.
Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2012). Understanding cooperation with police in a diverse society. British Journal of Criminology, 52(1), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azr065.
Murphy, K., Tyler, T. R., & Curtis, A. (2009). Nurturing regulatory compliance: is procedural justice effective when people question the legitimacy of the law? Regulation and Governance, 3(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01043.x.
Murphy, K., Bradford, B., & Jackson, J. (2016). Motivating compliance behavior among offenders: procedural justice or deterrence? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 102–118.
Nivette, A., Eisner, M., & Ribeaud, D. (2020). Evaluating the shared and unique predictors of legal cynicism and police legitimacy from adolescence into early adulthood. Criminology, 58(1), 70–100.
Nix, J., Pickett, J. T., & Wolfe, S. E. (2019). Testing a Theoretical Model of Perceived Audience Legitimacy: The Neglected Linkage in the Dialogic Model of Police–community Relations. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427819873957.
Pearl, J. (2001). Direct and indirect effects. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth conference on Uncertainty in artificial intelligence UAI’01 (pp. 411–420).
Pearl, J., & Bareinboim, E. (2012). External validity : from do-calculus to transportability across populations. Statistical Science, 29(4), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.1214/14-STS486.
Pirlott, A. G., & Mackinnon, D. P. (2016). Design approaches to experimental mediation ☆. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.012.
Pósch, K. (2019). Testing complex social theories with causal mediation analysis and G-computation: toward a better way to do causal structural equation modeling. Sociological Methods & Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124119826159.
Pósch, K. (2020). Prying open the black box of causality: a causal mediation analysis test of procedural justice policing. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, In Press.
Preacher, K. J. (2015). Advances in mediation analysis: a survey and synthesis of new developments. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 825–852. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015258.
President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final report of the President’s task force on 21st century policing.
Proudfoot, D., & Lind, E. A. (2015). Fairness heuristic theory, the uncertainty management model, and fairness at work. The Oxford handbook of justice in he workplace, 371, 385.
Reisig, M. D., & Lloyd, C. (2008). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and helping the police fight crime: results from a survey of Jamaican adolescents. Police Quarterly, 12(1), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611108327311.
Reisig, M. D., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. G. (2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1005–1027.
Reisig, M. D., Mays, R. D., & Telep, C. W. (2018). The effects of procedural injustice during police–citizen encounters: a factorial vignette study. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9307-1.
Sampson, R. J., & Bartusch, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural) tolerance of deviance: the neighborhood context of racial difference. Law & Soc'y Rev., 32, 777.
Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), 445–473.
Slocum, L. A., Ann Wiley, S., & Esbensen, F.-A. (2016). The importance of being satisfied. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815609069.
Steen, J., Loeys, T., Moerkerke, B., & Vansteelandt, S. (2017). Flexible mediation analysis with multiple mediators. American journal of epidemiology, 186(2), 184–193.
Steen, J., Loeys, T., Moerkerke, B., & Steen, J. (2017a). Flexible mediation analysis with multiple mediators. American Journal of Epidemiology, 186(2), 184–193.
Steen, J., Loeys, T., Moerkerke, B., & Vansteelandt, S. (2017b). Medflex : an R package for flexible mediation analysis using natural effect models. Journal of Statistical Software, 76(11), 1–45.
Sun, I. Y., Wu, Y., Hu, R., & Farmer, A. K. (2017). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and public cooperation with police: does Western wisdom hold in China? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(4), 454–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427816638705.
Sun, I. Y., Li, L., Wu, Y., & Hu, R. (2018). Police legitimacy and citizen cooperation in China: testing an alternative model. Asian Journal of Criminology, 13(4), 275–291.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and 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(4), 1265–1293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00175.x.
Tankebe, J. (2013). Viewing things differently: the dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51(1), 103–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00291.x.
Trinkner, R. (2019). Clarifying the contours of the police legitimacy measurement debate: a response to Cao and Graham. Asian Journal of Criminology, 14(4), 309–335.
Trinkner, R., Jackson, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2018). Bounded authority: Expanding “appropriate” police behavior beyond procedural justice. Law & Human Behavior, 42(3), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000285.
Trinkner, R., Mays, R. D., Cohn, E. S., Van Gundy, K. T., & Rebellon, C. J. (2019). Turning the corner on procedural justice theory: exploring reverse causality with an experimental vignette in a longitudinal survey. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1–11.
Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice, 30, 283–357.
Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 84–99.
Tyler, T. R. (2006a). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.
Tyler, T. R. (2006b). Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University 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. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.887737.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law - encouraging public cooperation with the police and the courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Tyler, T. R., & Jackson, J. (2013). Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice. In J. Tankebe & A. Liebling (Eds.), Legitimacy and criminal justice - an international exploration (pp. 83–104). Hoboken: Wiley.
Tyler, T. R., & Jackson, J. (2014). Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(1), 78–95.
Tyler, T. R., & Trinker, R. (2017). Why children follow rules: legal socialization and the development of legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tyler, T. R., Schulhofer, S. J., & Huq, A. Z. (2010). Legitimacy and deterrence effects in counterterrorism policing: a study of Muslim Americans. Law and Society Review, 44, 365–402.
Tyler, T. R., Fagan, J., & Geller, A. (2014). Street stops police legitimacy: teachable moments in young urban men’s legal socialization. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11(14), 751–785.
Tyler, T. R., Jackson, J., & Mentovich, A. (2015). The consequences of being an object of suspicion: Potential pitfalls of proactive police contact. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 12(4), 602–636.
Tyler, T. R., Goff, P. A., & MacCoun, R. J. (2015a). The impact of psychological science on policing in the United States: procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective law enforcement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(3), 75–109.
Tyler, T. R., Jackson, J., & Mentovich, A. (2015b). The consequences of being an object of suspicion - potential pitfalls of proactive police contact. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 12(4), 602–636.
VanderWeele, T. J., & Vansteelandt, S. (2014). Mediation analysis with multiple mediators. Epidemiologic Methods, 2(1), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1515/em-2012-0010.Mediation.
VanderWeele, T. J., & Tchetgen Tchetgen, E. J. (2017). Mediation analysis with time varying exposures and mediators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 79(3), 917–938.
Vander Weele, T. J. (2015). Explanation in Causal Inference - Methods for Mediation and Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Von Hippel, W., Lakin, J. L., & Shakarchi, R. J. (2005). Individual differences in motivated social cognition: The case of self-serving information processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(10), 1347–1357.
Walters, G. D., & Mandracchia, J. T. (2017). Testing criminological theory through causal mediation analysis: Current status and future directions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 49, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.02.002.
White, M. D., Mulvey, P., & Dario, L. M. (2016). Arrestees’ perceptions of the police: Exploring procedural justice, legitimacy, and willingness to cooperate with police across offender types. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 343–364.
Widaman K, Little T, Preacher, K, Sawalani G. (2011). On creating and using short forms of scales in secondary research. In: K. Trzesniewski, T. Little, R. Lucas (Eds.), Secondary data analysis: an introduction for psychologists (pp. 33-61). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Wolfe, S. E., Nix, J., Kaminski, R., & Rojek, J. (2016). Is the effect of procedural justice on police legitimacy invariant? Testing the generality of procedural justice and competing antecedents of legitimacy. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32(2), 253–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-015-9263-8.