Skip to main content

Procedural Justice and Cooperation

Overview

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, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_64
  • Chapter length: 14 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   4,350.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4614-5690-2
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   5,499.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

Recommended Reading and References

  • Beetham D (1991) The legitimation of power. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Blader S, Tyler TR (2009) Testing and expanding the group engagement model. J Appl Psychol 94:445–464

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradford B, Jackson J, Stanko E (2009) Contact and confidence: revisiting the impact of public encounters with the police. Polic Soc 19(1):20–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryan PE (2006) Constructive divorce: procedural justice and sociolegal reform. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci EL (1975) Intrinsic motivation. Plenum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 27:1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurr TR (1970) Why men rebel. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hough M, Jackson J, Bradford B, Myhill A, Quinton P (2010) Procedural justice, trust and institutional legitimacy. Polic J Policy Pract 4(3):203–210

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Oxon

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):419–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson J, Bradford B (2009) Crime, policing and social order: on the expressive nature of public confidence in policing. Br J Sociol 60(3):493–521

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson J, Sunshine J (2007) Public confidence in policing: a Neo-Durkheimian perspective. Br J Criminol 47(2):214–233

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):267–285

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):1051–1071

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson J, Bradford B, Stanko EA, Hohl K (2012b) Just authority? Trust in the police in England and Wales. Routledge, Oxon

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones T, Newburn T (2002) The transformation of policing? Understanding current trends in policing systems. Br J Criminol 41(1):129–146

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 276–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman HC, Hamilton VL (1989) Crimes of obedience. Yale, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Kochel TR (2012) Can police legitimacy promote collective efficacy?. Justice Q 29:384–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer RM, Tyler TR (eds) (1996) Trust in organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • LaFree G (1998) Losing legitimacy: street crime and the decline of social institutions in America. Westview, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Lentz SA, Chaires RH (2007) The invention of Peel’s principles: a study of policing “textbook” history. J Crim Justice 35:69–79

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun RJ (1993) Drugs and the law: A psychological analysis of drug prohibition. Psychological Bulletin 113:497–512

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastrofski SD, Snipes JB, Supina AE (1996) Compliance on demand: the public’s response to specific police requests. J Res Crime Delinq 33(3):269–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Meares TL (2000) Norms, legitimacy, and law enforcement. Or Law Rev 79:391–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Merelman RJ (1966) Learning and legitimacy. Am Polit Sci Rev 60:548–561

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagin DS, Paternoster R (1991) The preventive effects of the perceived risk of arrest. Criminology 29:561–585

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–42

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):1117–1129

    Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R (1987) The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: a review of the evidence and issues. Justice Q 4:173–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Paternoster R (2006) How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? J Crim Law Criminol 100:765–824

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 31:163–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Piquero AR, Paternoster R, Pogarsky G, Loughran T (2011) Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci 7:335–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiss AJ (1971) The police and the public. Yale, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Reith C (1952) The blind eye of history: a study of the origins of the present police era. Faber and Faber, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunshine J, Tyler TR (2003) The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law Soc Rev 37:513–548

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler TR (2006a) Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annu Rev Psychol 57:375–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler TR (2006b) Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler TR (2011) Why people cooperate. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler TR, Blader S (2000) Cooperation in groups: procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Psychology Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):231–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler TR, Huo YJ (2002) Trust in the law: encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. Russell-Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 115–191

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):553–586

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler TR, Schulhofer S, Huq A (2010) Legitimacy and deterrence effects in counter-terrorism policing: a study of Muslim Americans. Law Soc Rev 44:365–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Walmsley R (2008) World prison population list, 8th edn. International Centre for Prison Studies, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1968) Economy and society. In: Roth G, Wittich C (eds) University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom R. Tyler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this entry

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Tyler, T.R., Jackson, J., Bradford, B. (2014). Procedural Justice and Cooperation. In: Bruinsma, G., Weisburd, D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_64

Download citation