1932

Abstract

This article reviews the evidence on whether procedurally just treatment of citizens by agents of the criminal justice system, usually the police, has the effect of increasing the citizen's compliance with the law. In brief, we find that perception-based studies consistently show that citizen perceptions of procedurally just treatment are closely tied to perceptions of police legitimacy, and that with only a few exceptions perceptions of legitimacy are strongly associated with legal compliance. However, what has not been established is whether these associations reflect a causal connection whereby changes in policies that are effective in changing actual procedurally just treatment of citizens by police and others lead to changes in legal compliance and perceived legitimacy. Three priority areas for future research are identified: () devising and testing a theory of the cumulative effects of experience and community and situational context on perceptions of procedurally just treatment and perceptions of legitimacy, () filling out and testing a theory of the circumstances in which improved perceptions of legitimacy translate into greater legal compliance, and () designing and evaluating policies and training protocols that are effective in translating the constituent components of procedurally just treatment into improved legal compliance.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113310
2017-10-13
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/13/1/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113310.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113310&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Anwar S, Loughran TA. 2011. Testing a Bayesian learning theory of deterrence among serious juvenile offenders. Criminology 49:667–98 [Google Scholar]
  2. Augustyn MB. 2015. The (ir)relevance of procedural justice in the pathways to crime. Law Hum. Behav. 39:388–401 [Google Scholar]
  3. Augustyn MB. 2016. Updating perceptions of (in)justice. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 53:255–86 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barkworth JM, Murphy K. 2015. Procedural justice policing and citizen compliance behavior: the importance of emotion. Psychol. Crime Law 21:254–73 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barragan M, Sherman N, Reiter K, Tita GE. 2016. “Damned if you do, damned if you don't.” Perceptions of guns, safety, and legitimacy among detained gun offenders. Crim. Justice Behav. 43:140–55 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bates L, Allen S, Watson B. 2016. The influence of the elements of procedural justice and speed camera enforcement on young novice driver self-reported speeding. Accid. Anal. Prev. 92:34–42 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bottoms A, Tankebe J. 2012. Beyond procedural justice: a dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 102:119–70 [Google Scholar]
  8. Braga AA, Winship C, Tyler TR, Fagan J, Meares TL. 2014. The salience of social contextual factors in appraisals of police interactions with citizens: a randomized factorial experiment. J. Quant. Criminol. 30:599–627 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brandl SG, Frank J, Worden RE, Bynum TS. 1994. Global and specific attitudes toward the police: disentangling the relationship. Justice Q 11:119–34 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carr PJ, Napolitano L, Keating J. 2007. We never call the cops and here is why: a qualitative examination of legal cynicism in three Philadelphia neighborhoods. Criminology 45:445–78 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cavanagh C, Cauffman E. 2015. Viewing law and order: mothers' and sons' justice system legitimacy attitudes and juvenile recidivism. Psychol. Public Policy Law 21:432–41 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cook PJ. 2015. Will the current crisis in police legitimacy increase crime? Research offers a way forward. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 16:71–74 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cook TD, Shadish WR, Wong VC. 2008. Three conditions under which experiments and observational studies produce comparable causal estimates: new findings from within-study comparisons. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 27:724–50 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dai M, Frank J, Sun I. 2011. Procedural justice during police-citizen encounters: the effects of process based policing on citizen compliance and demeanor. J. Crim. Justice 39:159–68 [Google Scholar]
  15. De Cremer D, van Knippenberg D. 2002. How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural justice. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:858–66 [Google Scholar]
  16. Donner C, Maskaly J, Fridell L, Jennings WG. 2015. Policing and procedural justice: a state of the art review. Policing Int. J. Police Strateg. Manag. 38:153–72 [Google Scholar]
  17. Dunworth T, Mills G. 1999. National evaluation of weed and seed Res. Brief., Natl. Inst. Justice, US Dep Justice Washington, DC:
  18. Eisner M, Nivette A. 2014. Does low legitimacy cause crime? A review of the evidence. Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: An International Exploration J Tankebe, A Libeling 308–25 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  19. Fagan J, Piquero AR. 2007. Rational choice and developmental influences on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 4:715–48 [Google Scholar]
  20. Fagan J, Tyler TR. 2005. Legal socialization of children and adolescents. Soc. Sci. Res. 18:217–41 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gau JM. 2011. The convergent and discriminant validity of procedural justice and police legitimacy: an empirical test of core theoretical propositions. J. Crim. Justice 39:489–98 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gau JM. 2014. Procedural justice and police legitimacy: a test of measurement and structure. Am. J. Crim. Justice 39:187–205 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gau JM. 2015. Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and legal cynicism: a test for mediation effects. Police Pract. Res. Int. J. 16:402–15 [Google Scholar]
  24. 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 27:255–78 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gill CE, Weisburd D, Telep CW, Bennett T, Vitter Z. 2014. Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder, and fear and increase legitimacy and citizen satisfaction in neighborhoods. J. Exp. Criminol. 10:399–428 [Google Scholar]
  26. Higginson A, Mazerolle L. 2014. Legitimacy policing of places: the impact on crime and disorder. J. Exp. Criminol. 10:429–57 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hinds L. 2007. Building police-youth relationships: the importance of procedural justice. Youth Justice 7:195–209 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hinds L, Murphy K. 2007. Public satisfaction with police: using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Aust. N.Z. J. Criminol. 40:27–42 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hirschi T. 1969. Causes of Delinquency Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  30. Hough M, Jackson J, Bradford B. 2013. Legitimacy, trust and compliance: an empirical test of procedural justice theory using the European social survey. Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: An International Exploration J Tankebe, A Libeling 326–52 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  31. Hsiao C. 1986. Analysis of Panel Data New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  32. Jackson J, Bradford B, Hough M, Myhill A, Quinton P, Tyler TR. 2012. Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. Br. J. Criminol. 52:1051–71 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jackson J, Tyler TR, Hough M, Bradford B, Mentovich A. 2015. Compliance and legal authority. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences JD Wright 456–62 Oxford: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
  34. Jonathan-Zamir T, Mastrofski SD, Moyal S. 2015. Measuring procedural justice in police-citizen encounters. Justice Q 32:845–71 [Google Scholar]
  35. Jonathan-Zamir T, Weisburd D. 2013. The effects of security threats on antecedents of police legitimacy: findings from a quasi-experiment in Israel. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 50:3–32 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kirk DS, Matsuda M. 2011. Legal cynicism, collective efficacy, and the ecology of arrest. Criminology 49:443–72 [Google Scholar]
  37. Langley BR. 2014. A randomised control trial comparing the effects of procedural justice to experienced utility theories in airport security stops Master's Thesis, Univ Cambridge, Cambridge, UK:
  38. Leventhal GS. 1980. What should be done with equity theory?. Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research KJ Gergen, MS Greenberg, RH Weiss 27–55 New York: Plenum [Google Scholar]
  39. Li Y, Ren L, Luo F. 2016. Is bad stronger than good? The impact of police-citizen encounters on public satisfaction with police. Policing Int. J. Police Strateg. Manag. 39:109–26 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lind EA, Tyler TR. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice New York: Plenum
  41. Lochner L. 2007. Individual perceptions of the criminal justice system. Am. Econ. Rev. 97:444–60 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lowrey BV, Maguire ER, Bennett RR. 2016. Testing the effects of procedural justice and overaccomodation in traffic stops. Crim. Justice Behav. 43:1430–49 [Google Scholar]
  43. Lum C, Nagin DS. 2017. Reinventing American policing: a seven-point blueprint for the 21st century. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, eds. M Tonry, DS Nagin, 46:339–93. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  44. MacCoun RJ. 2005. Voice, control, and belonging: the double-edged sword of procedural fairness. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 1:171–202 [Google Scholar]
  45. MacQueen S, Bradford B. 2015. Enhancing public trust and police legitimacy during road traffic encounters: results from a randomized controlled trial in Scotland. J. Exp. Criminol. 11:419–43 [Google Scholar]
  46. Maguire ER, Johnson D. 2010. Measuring public perceptions of the police. Policing Int. J. Police Strateg. Manag. 33:703–30 [Google Scholar]
  47. Maguire ER, Lowrey BV, Johnson D. 2016. Evaluating the relative impact of positive and negative encounters with police: a randomized experiment. J. Exp. Criminol. In press
  48. Mastrofski SD, Jonathan-Zamir T, Moyal S, Willis JJ. 2016. Predicting procedural justice in police-citizen encounters. Crim. Justice Behav. 43:119–39 [Google Scholar]
  49. Mastrofski SD, Snipes JB, Supina AE. 1996. Compliance on demand: the public's response to specific police requests. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 33:269–305 [Google Scholar]
  50. Matsueda RL, Kreager DA, Huizinga D. 2006. Deterring delinquents: a rational choice model of theft and violence. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:95–122 [Google Scholar]
  51. Mazerolle L, Antrobus E, Bennett S, Tyler TR. 2013a. Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: a randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology 51:33–64 [Google Scholar]
  52. Mazerolle L, Bennett S, Antrobus E, Eggins E. 2012. Procedural justice, routine activities and citizen perceptions of police: main findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial. J. Exp. Criminol. 8:343–67 [Google Scholar]
  53. Mazerolle L, Bennett S, Davis J, Sargeant E, Manning M. 2013b. Procedural justice and police legitimacy: a systematic review of the research evidence. J. Exp. Criminol. 9:245–74 [Google Scholar]
  54. Mazerolle L, Sargeant E, Cherney A, Bennett S, Murphy K. et al. 2014. Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Policing. New York: Springer
  55. McCluskey JD, Mastrofski SD, Parks RB. 1999. To acquiesce or rebel: predicting citizen compliance with police requests. Police Q 2:389–416 [Google Scholar]
  56. McLean K, Wolfe SE. 2016. A sense of injustice loosens the moral bind of law: specifying the links between procedural injustice, neutralizations, and offending. Crim. Justice Behav. 43:27–44 [Google Scholar]
  57. Murphy K, Tyler T. 2008. Procedural justice and compliance behavior: the mediating role of emotions. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38:652–68 [Google Scholar]
  58. Nagin DS. 1998. Criminal deterrence research: a review of the evidence and a research agenda for the outset of the 21st century. Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research M Tonry 231–42 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  59. Natl. Res. Counc. (NRC). 2004. Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  60. Nix J, Wolfe SE, Rojek J, Kaminski RJ. 2015. Trust in the police: the influence of procedural justice and perceived collective efficacy. Crime Delinq 61:610–40 [Google Scholar]
  61. Owens EG, Weisburd D, Alpert G, Amendola KL. 2016. Promoting Police Integrity Through Early Engagements and Procedural Justice in the Seattle Police Department Washington, DC: Natl. Inst. Justice, US Dep. Justice
  62. Papachristos AV, Meares TL, Fagan J. 2007. Attention felons: evaluating Project Safe Neighborhoods in Chicago. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 4:223–72 [Google Scholar]
  63. Papachristos AV, Meares TL, Fagan J. 2012. Why do criminals obey the law? The influence of legitimacy and social networks on active gun offenders. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 102:397–440 [Google Scholar]
  64. Paternoster R, Bachman R, Brame R, Sherman LW. 1997. Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law Soc. Rev. 31:163–204 [Google Scholar]
  65. Penner EK, Vijoen JL, Douglas KS, Roesch R. 2014. Procedural justice versus risk factors for offending: predicting recidivism in youth. Law Hum. Behav. 38:225–37 [Google Scholar]
  66. Piquero AR, Fagan J, Mulvey EP, Steinberg L, Odgers C. 2005. Developmental trajectories of legal socialization among serious adolescent offenders. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 96:267–98 [Google Scholar]
  67. Pogarsky G, Piquero AR, Paternoster R. 2004. Modeling change in perceptions about sanction threats: the neglected linkage in deterrence theory. J. Quant. Criminol. 20:343–69 [Google Scholar]
  68. President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing. 2015. Final Report of the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing Washington, DC: Off. Community Oriented Polic. Serv., US Dep. Justice
  69. Reisig MD, Bratton J, Gertz MG. 2007. The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Crim. Justice Behav. 34:1005–28 [Google Scholar]
  70. Reisig MD, Lloyd C. 2009. Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and helping the police fight crime: results from a survey of Jamaican adolescents. Police Q 12:42–62 [Google Scholar]
  71. Reisig MD, McCluskey JD, Mastrofski SD, Terrill W. 2004. Suspect disrespect toward the police. Justice Q 21:241–68 [Google Scholar]
  72. Reisig MD, Tankebe J, Mesko G. 2014. Compliance with the law in Slovenia: the role of procedural justice and police legitimacy. Eur. J. Crim. Policy Res. 20:259–76 [Google Scholar]
  73. Reisig MD, Wolfe SE, Holtfreter K. 2011. Legal cynicism, legitimacy, and criminal offending: the nonconfounding effect of low self-control. Crim. Justice Behav. 38:1265–79 [Google Scholar]
  74. Reiss AJ Jr. 1971. The Police and the Public New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  75. Robertson A, McMillan L, Godwin J, Deuchar R. 2014. The Scottish Police and Citizen Engagement (SPACE) Trial: Final Report Glasgow, UK: Glasgow Caledonian Univ.
  76. Rosenbaum D, Lawrence DS. 2013. Teaching Respectful Police-Citizen Encounters and Good Decision Making: Results of a Randomized Control Trial with Police Recruits Washington, DC: Natl. Inst. Justice, US Dep. Justice
  77. Rosenbaum DP, Schuck AM, Costello SK, Hawkins DF, Ring MK. 2005. Attitudes toward the police: the effects of direct and vicarious experience. Police Q 8:343–65 [Google Scholar]
  78. Sahin NM. 2014. Legitimacy, procedural justice and police-citizen encounters: a randomized controlled trial of the impact of procedural justice on citizen perceptions of the police during traffic stops in Turkey PhD Diss., State Univ. N.J., Newark, NJ
  79. Sahin N, Braga AA, Apel R, Brunson RK. 2016. The impact of procedurally-just policing on citizen perceptions of police during traffic stops: the Adana randomized controlled trial. J. Quant. Criminol. In press
  80. Sampson RJ, Bartusch DJ. 1998. Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: the neighborhood context of racial differences. Law Soc. Rev. 32:777–804 [Google Scholar]
  81. Schaefer B, Hughes T. 2016. Honing Interpersonal Necessary Tactics (H.I.N.T.): An Evaluation of Procedural Justice Training Louisville, KY: South. Police Inst., Univ. Louisville
  82. Shadish WR, Clark MH, Steiner PM. 2008. Can nonrandomized experiments yield accurate answers? A randomized experiment comparing random and nonrandom assignments. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 103:1334–43 [Google Scholar]
  83. Sherman LW, Schmidt JD, Rogan DP, Gartin PR, Cohn EG. et al. 1992. The variable effects of arrest on criminal careers: the Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 83:137–69 [Google Scholar]
  84. Sherman LW, Strang H, Mayo-Wilson E, Woods DJ, Ariel B. 2015. Are restorative justice conferences effective in reducing repeat offending? Findings from a Campbell systematic review. J. Quant. Criminol. 31:1–24 [Google Scholar]
  85. Skogan WG. 2006. Asymmetry in the impact of encounters with police. Policing Soc 16:99–126 [Google Scholar]
  86. Skogan WG, Maarten Van Craen M, Hennessy C. 2015. Training police for procedural justice. J. Exp. Criminol. 11:319–34 [Google Scholar]
  87. Slocum LA, Wiley SA, Esbensen F-A. 2016. The importance of being satisfied: a longitudinal exploration of police contact, procedural injustice, and subsequent delinquency. Crim. Justice Behav. 43:7–26 [Google Scholar]
  88. Strang H, Sherman LW, Mayo-Wilson E, Woods D, Ariel B. 2013. Restorative justice conferencing (RJC) using face-to-face meetings of offenders and victims: effects on offender recidivism and victim satisfaction. Campbell Syst. Rev 2013:9 [Google Scholar]
  89. Sunshine J, Tyler TR. 2003. The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law Soc. Rev. 27:513–48 [Google Scholar]
  90. Sykes GM, Matza D. 1957. Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency. Am. Sociol. Rev. 22:664–70 [Google Scholar]
  91. Tankebe J. 2013. Viewing things differently: the dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology 51:103–36 [Google Scholar]
  92. Tankebe J, Reisig MD, Wang X. 2016. A multidimensional model of police legitimacy: a cross-cultural assessment. Law Hum. Behav. 40:11–22 [Google Scholar]
  93. Telep CW, Weisburd D. 2016. Policing. What Works in Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation: Lessons from Systematic Reviews DP Farrington, D Weisburd, CE Gill 137–68 New York: Springer [Google Scholar]
  94. Thibaut J, Walker L. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  95. Toby J. 1957. Social disorganization and stake in conformity: complementary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums. J. Crim. Law Criminol. Police Sci. 48:12–17 [Google Scholar]
  96. Trinkner R, Cohn ES. 2014. Putting the “social” back in legal socialization: procedural justice, legitimacy, and cynicism in legal and nonlegal authorities. Law Hum. Behav. 38:602–17 [Google Scholar]
  97. Tyler TR. 1988. What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law Soc. Rev. 22:103–36 [Google Scholar]
  98. Tyler TR. 1990. Why People Obey the Law? Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  99. Tyler TR. 2003. Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research M Tonry 30283–357 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  100. Tyler TR. 2004. Enhancing police legitimacy. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 593:84–99 [Google Scholar]
  101. Tyler TR. 2006. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 57:375–400 [Google Scholar]
  102. Tyler TR. 2011. Why People Cooperate: The Role of Social Motivations Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  103. Tyler TR, Goff P, MacCoun R. 2015. The impact of psychological science on policing in the United States: procedural justice, legitimacy and effective law enforcement. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 16:75–109 [Google Scholar]
  104. Tyler TR, Huo YJ. 2002. Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts New York: Russell Sage Found.
  105. Tyler TR, Jackson J. 2013. Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice. Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: An International Exploration J Tankebe, A Libeling 83–104 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  106. Tyler TR, Jackson J. 2014. Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: motivating compliance, cooperation and engagement. Psychol. Public Policy Law 20:78–95 [Google Scholar]
  107. Tyler TR, Schulhofer S, Huq A. 2010. Policing against terrorism: legitimacy and deterrence strategies for motivated cooperation among Islamic Americans. Law Soc. Rev. 44:365–402 [Google Scholar]
  108. van Dijke M, Verboon P. 2010. Trust in authorities as a boundary condition to procedural fairness effects on tax compliance. J. Econ. Psychol. 31:80–91 [Google Scholar]
  109. van Prooijen J-W, Gallucci M, Toeset G. 2008. Procedural justice in punishment systems: inconsistent punishment procedures have detrimental effects on cooperation. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 47:311–24 [Google Scholar]
  110. Wallace D, Papachristos AV, Meares T, Fagan J. 2016. Desistance and legitimacy: the impact of offender notification meetings on recidivism among high risk offenders. Justice Q 33:1237–64 [Google Scholar]
  111. Weitzer R. 2015. American policing under fire: misconduct and reform. Society 52:475–80 [Google Scholar]
  112. Wheller L, Quinton P, Fildes A, Mills A. 2013. The Greater Manchester Police Procedural Justice Training Experiment. Coventry, UK: Coll. Policing
  113. White MD, Mulvey P, Dario LM. 2016. Arrestees' perceptions of the police: exploring procedural justice, legitimacy, and willingness to cooperate with police across offender types. Crim. Justice Behav. 43:343–64 [Google Scholar]
  114. Wolfe SE, 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. J. Quant. Criminol. 32:253–82 [Google Scholar]
  115. Worden RE, McLean SJ. 2014. Assessing Police Performance in Citizen Encounters: Police Legitimacy and Management Accountability Washington, DC: Natl. Inst. Justice, US Dep. Justice
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113310
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113310
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error