Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Procedural Justice and Cooperation

  • Tom R. TylerEmail author
  • Jonathan Jackson
  • Ben Bradford
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_64


Recent discussions of the relationship between legal authorities and the people within their communities emphasize the benefits to legal authorities of gaining voluntary deference and willing cooperation from the people with whom they deal. A key element in gaining such cooperation is being viewed as legitimate. Legitimacy is based primarily upon the fairness of the manner in which legal authorities exercise their authority, i.e., procedural justice. If legal authorities exercise their authority fairly, they build legitimacy and increase both willing deference to rules and the decisions of the police and courts, as well as the motivation to help with the task of maintaining social order in the community.

Procedural Justice and Cooperation

In the United States the dominant model for the exercise of legal authority is deterrence. Its goal is to encourage public compliance with the law. The mechanism for achieving this goal is through the threat or use of punishment for rule...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Beetham D (1991) The legitimation of power. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Blader S, Tyler TR (2009) Testing and expanding the group engagement model. J Appl Psychol 94:445–464Google Scholar
  3. Blumstein A, Cohen J, Nagin D (eds) (1978) Deterrence and incapacitation: estimating the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradford B, Jackson J, Stanko E (2009) Contact and confidence: revisiting the impact of public encounters with the police. Polic Soc 19(1):20–46Google Scholar
  5. Bryan PE (2006) Constructive divorce: procedural justice and sociolegal reform. American Psychological Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Deci EL (1975) Intrinsic motivation. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Gau JM, Brunson RK (2010) Procedural justice and order maintenance policing: a study of inner-city young men’s perceptions of police legitimacy. Justice Q 27:1–25Google Scholar
  8. Gurr TR (1970) Why men rebel. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Hough M, Jackson J, Bradford B, Myhill A, Quinton P (2010) Procedural justice, trust and institutional legitimacy. Polic J Policy Pract 4(3):203–210Google Scholar
  10. Hough M, Jackson J, Bradford B (in press) The governance of criminal justice, legitimacy and trust. In: Body-Gendrot, S Lévy R, Hough M, Snacken S, Kerezsi K (eds) The Routledge handbook of European criminology. Routledge, OxonGoogle Scholar
  11. Huq A, Tyler TR, Schulhofer S (2011) Why does the public cooperate with law enforcement: The influence of the purposes and targets of policing? Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 17(3):419–450Google Scholar
  12. Jackson J, Bradford B (2009) Crime, policing and social order: on the expressive nature of public confidence in policing. Br J Sociol 60(3):493–521Google Scholar
  13. Jackson J, Sunshine J (2007) Public confidence in policing: a Neo-Durkheimian perspective. Br J Criminol 47(2):214–233Google Scholar
  14. Jackson J, Bradford B, Hough M, Kuha J, Stares SR, Widdop S, Fitzgerald R, Yordanova M, Galev T (2011) Developing European indicators of trust in justice. Eur J Criminol 8(4):267–285Google Scholar
  15. 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(6):1051–1071Google Scholar
  16. Jackson J, Bradford B, Stanko EA, Hohl K (2012b) Just authority? Trust in the police in England and Wales. Routledge, OxonGoogle Scholar
  17. Jones T, Newburn T (2002) The transformation of policing? Understanding current trends in policing systems. Br J Criminol 41(1):129–146Google Scholar
  18. Kelman HC (1969) Patterns of personal involvement in the national system: a social-psychological analysis of political legitimacy. In: Rosenau J (ed) International politics and foreign policy. Free Press, New York, pp 276–288Google Scholar
  19. Kelman HC, Hamilton VL (1989) Crimes of obedience. Yale, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  20. Kochel TR (2012) Can police legitimacy promote collective efficacy?. Justice Q 29:384–419Google Scholar
  21. Kramer RM, Tyler TR (eds) (1996) Trust in organizations. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  22. LaFree G (1998) Losing legitimacy: street crime and the decline of social institutions in America. Westview, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  23. Lentz SA, Chaires RH (2007) The invention of Peel’s principles: a study of policing “textbook” history. J Crim Justice 35:69–79Google Scholar
  24. MacCoun RJ (1993) Drugs and the law: A psychological analysis of drug prohibition. Psychological Bulletin 113:497–512Google Scholar
  25. Mastrofski SD, Snipes JB, Supina AE (1996) Compliance on demand: the public’s response to specific police requests. J Res Crime Delinq 33(3):269–305Google Scholar
  26. Meares TL (2000) Norms, legitimacy, and law enforcement. Or Law Rev 79:391–415Google Scholar
  27. Merelman RJ (1966) Learning and legitimacy. Am Polit Sci Rev 60:548–561Google Scholar
  28. Nagin DS, Paternoster R (1991) The preventive effects of the perceived risk of arrest. Criminology 29:561–585Google Scholar
  29. Nagin DS (1998) Criminal deterrence research at the outset of the twenty-first century. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice, vol. 23. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1–42Google Scholar
  30. Pagliaro S, Ellemers N, Barreto M (2011) Sharing moral values: anticipated in group respect as a determinant of adherence to morality-based (but not competence-based) group norms. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 37(8):1117–1129Google Scholar
  31. Paternoster R (1987) The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: a review of the evidence and issues. Justice Q 4:173–218Google Scholar
  32. Paternoster R (2006) How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? J Crim Law Criminol 100:765–824Google Scholar
  33. Paternoster R, Brame R, Bachman R, Sherman LW (1997) Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law and Society Review 31:163–204Google Scholar
  34. Piquero AR, Paternoster R, Pogarsky G, Loughran T (2011) Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 7:335–360Google Scholar
  35. Reiss AJ (1971) The police and the public. Yale, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  36. Reith C (1952) The blind eye of history: a study of the origins of the present police era. Faber and Faber, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Sunshine J, Tyler TR (2003) The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law Soc Rev 37:513–548Google Scholar
  38. Tyler TR (2006a) Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annu Rev Psychol 57:375–400Google Scholar
  39. Tyler TR (2006b) Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  40. Tyler TR (2011) Why people cooperate. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  41. Tyler TR, Blader S (2000) Cooperation in groups: procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Psychology Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  42. Tyler TR, Fagan J (2008) Legitimacy and cooperation: why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State J Crim Law 6(1):231–275Google Scholar
  43. Tyler TR, Huo YJ (2002) Trust in the law: encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. Russell-Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Tyler TR, Lind EA (1992) A relational model of authority in groups. In: Zanna MP (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 25. Academic, San Diego, pp 115–191Google Scholar
  45. Tyler TR, Sherman LW, Strang H, Barnes GC, Woods DJ (2007) Reintegrative shaming, procedural justice, and recidivism: the engagement of offenders’ psychological mechanisms in the Canberra RISE drinking-and-driving experiment. Law Soc Rev 41(3):553–586Google Scholar
  46. Tyler TR, Schulhofer S, Huq A (2010) Legitimacy and deterrence effects in counter-terrorism policing: a study of Muslim Americans. Law Soc Rev 44:365–401Google Scholar
  47. Walmsley R (2008) World prison population list, 8th edn. International Centre for Prison Studies, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Weber M (1968) Economy and society. In: Roth G, Wittich C (eds) University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Yale Law SchoolNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Department of Methodology and Mannheim Centre for CriminologyLondon School of EconomicsLondonUK
  3. 3.Centre for CriminologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK