1932

Abstract

My scholarly career has centered around articulating and testing a model of legitimacy-based law and governance. In recent decades, that model has achieved considerable success in shaping the way legal authority is understood and exercised. At the same time the legitimacy of legal, political, and social institutions and authorities has declined, raising questions about the future viability of a legitimacy-based model. In this review, I discuss the ascension and potential decline of legitimacy-based governance and outline alternative models of authority that may emerge in the twenty-first century. Three issues are addressed: whether there are ways to reinvigorate legitimacy-based law and governance; whether social norms, moral values, or ideologies are viable alternative forms of authority; and whether it is better to accept that no single form of authority works best in all situations and theories should focus on identifying the contingencies under which different forms of authority are most desirable.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110722-074236
2023-10-05
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/19/1/annurev-lawsocsci-110722-074236.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110722-074236&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Becker GS 1974. Crime and punishment: an economic approach. Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment GS Becker, LM Landes 1–54. Cambridge, MA: Natl. Bur. Econ. Res.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Beetham D. 2013. The Legitimation of Power. London: Palgrave. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beijersbergen KA. 2015. Does procedural justice during imprisonment matter?. Crim. Justice Behav. 43:63–82
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blader S, Tyler TR. 2003. A four component model of procedural justice: defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 29:747–58
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chin J, Lin L 2022. Surveillance State: Inside China's Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control New York: St. Martin's
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Constantino SM, Sparkman G, Kraft-Todd GT, Bicchieri C, Centona D et al. 2022. Scaling up change: a critical review and practical guide to harnessing social norms for climate action. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 23:50–97
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Deci EL. 1975. Intrinsic Motivation Perspect. Soc. Psychol New York: Plenum Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dieleman JL. 2022. Pandemic preparedness and COVID-19: an exploratory analysis of infection and fatality rates, and contextual factors associated with preparedness in 177 countries from January 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021. Lancet 399:1489–512
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Doherty C, Kiley J, Tyson A, Jameson B. 2015. Beyond distrust: how Americans view their government. Pew Research Center Novemb. 23. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/11/23/beyond-distrust-how-americans-view-their-government/
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Dryzek JS, Bachtiger A, Chambers S, Cohen J, Druckman JN et al. 2019. The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science 363:1144–46
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dugan A, Newport F. 2013. In U.S., fewer believe “plenty of opportunity” to get ahead. Gallup Poll Oct. 25. https://news.gallup.com/poll/165584/fewer-believe-plenty-opportunity-ahead.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Easton D. 1975. A reassessment of the concept of political support. Br. J. Political Sci. 5:435–57
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Elffers H, van der Heijden P, Hezemans M. 2003. Explaining regulatory non-compliance: a survey study of rule transgression for two Dutch instrumental laws, applying the randomized response method. J. Quant. Criminol. 19:409–39
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ellemers N, van der Toorn J, Paunov Y, van Leeuwen T. 2019. The psychology of morality. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 23:332–66
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Emery JA. 2009. Procedural fairness in the California courts. Justice Syst. J. 30:118–21
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Feldman S, Johnston C. 2014. Understanding the determinants of political ideology. Political Psychol. 35:337–58
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ferguson AG. 2017. The Rise of Big Data Policing: Surveillance, Race, and the Future of Law Enforcement New York: NYU Press
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferrin M, Kriesi H, eds. 2016. How Europeans View and Evaluate Democracy Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Feygina I, Jost JT, Goldsmith RE. 2010. System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of system-sanctioned change. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36:326–38
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fishkin JS. 2018. Democracy When the People Are Thinking: Revitalizing Our Politics Through Public Deliberation Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Folmer CR, Kuiper M, Olthuis E, Kooistra EB, de Bruji AL et al. 2021. Compliance in the 1.5 meter society: Longitudinal analysis of citizens’ adherence to COVID-19 mitigation measures in a representative sample in the Netherlands. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dr9q3
  22. French JRP Jr., Raven B. 1959. The bases of social power. Studies in Social Power D Cartwright 150–67. Ann Arbor, MI: Inst. Soc. Res.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Frey B. 1997. Not Just for the Money: An Economic Theory of Personal Motivation Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Friedman LM. 1986. The law and society movement. Stanford Law Rev. 38:763–80
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gauchat G. 2012. Politicization of science in the public sphere: a study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. Am. Sociol. Rev. 77:167–87
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gelfand M. 2018. Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: How Tight and Loose Cultures Wire Our World New York: Scribner
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gold M. 1999. The Complete Social Scientist: A Kurt Lewin Reader Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gottfredson DC, Kearley BW, Najaka SS, Rocha CM. 2007. How drug treatment courts work. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 44:3–35
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Graham J, Haidt J, Koleva S, Motyl M, Iyer R et al. 2013. Moral foundations theory: the pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47:55–130
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Haidt J. 2012. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion New York: Pantheon
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hamm JA, Wolfe SE, Cavanagh C, Lee S. 2022. (Re)organizing legitimacy theory. Legal Criminol. Psychol. 27:129–46
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hetherington MJ, Weiler JD. 2018. Prius or Pickup? How the Answers to Four Simple Questions Explain America's Great Divide Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ho LK-K, Fong C-S, Wan TTW. 2021. High level of (passive) compliance in a low-trust society: Hong Kong citizens’ response toward the COVID-19 lockdown. Policing 15:1046–61
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Huo YJ, Tyler TR. 2022. Welcoming new members: conflicting reactions to immigration. Contemporary Immigration: Psychological Perspectives to Address Challenges and Inform Solutions FM Moghaddam, MJ Hendricks 83–101. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Jackson J, Bradford B. 2022. On the nature of acquiescence to police authority. Legal Criminol. Psychol. 27:147–54
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Jones JM. 2021. In U.S., Black confidence in police recovers from 2020 low. Gallup July 14. https://news.gallup.com/poll/352304/black-confidence-police-recovers-2020-low.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kahan D. 1999. The secret ambition of deterrence. Harvard Law Rev. 113:414–500
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Käsler D 1988. Max Weber: An Introduction to His Life and Work Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kelman H, Hamilton VL. 1989. Crimes of Obedience: Toward a Social Psychology of Authority and Responsibility New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kooistra EB, Folmer CR, Kuiper ME, Olthuis E, Brownlee M et al. 2021. Mitigating COVID-19 in a nationally representative UK sample: Personal abilities and obligation to obey the law shape compliance with mitigation measures Work. Pap., Univ. Amsterdam
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kraft-Todd G, Yoeli E, Bhanot S, Rand D. 2015. Promoting cooperation in the field. Sci. Direct 3:96–101
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Leventhal GS 1980. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research KJ Gergen, MS Greenberg, RH Willis 27–55. New York: Plenum
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Levi M. 1988. Of Rule and Revenue Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Lewin K, Lippitt R, White RK. 1939. Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates. .” J. Soc. Psychol. 10:271–99
    [Google Scholar]
  45. McNamee SJ, Miller RK Jr. 2018. The Meritocracy Myth Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. , 4th ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Mentovich A, Prescott JJ, Rabinovich-Einy O. 2020. Are litigation outcome disparities inevitable? Courts, technology, and the future of impartiality. Ala. Law Rev. 71:4893–979
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Milgram S. 1974. Obedience to Authority New York: Harper & Row
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Morris MW, Hong Y, Chiu C, Liu Z. 2015. Normology: integrating insights about social norms to understand cultural dynamics. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 129:1–13
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Morrison R. 1995. Weber's theory of bureaucracy. Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Foundations of Modern Social Thought London: SAGE
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Murphy K, Williamson H, Sargeant E, McCarthy M. 2020. Why people comply with COVID-19 social distancing restrictions: self-interest or duty?. Aust. N.Z. J. Criminol. 53:477–96
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Natl. Cent. State Courts 2019. State of the State Courts. Williamsburg, VA: Natl. Cent. State Courts
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Ostrom E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Pew Res. Cent 2022. Public opinion on abortion: 1995–2022. Fact Sheet, Pew Res. Cent Washington, DC: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Ramos M, Bennett MR, Massey DS, Hewstone M. 2019. Humans adapt to social diversity over time. PNAS 116:2512244–49
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Rich M, Dooley B. 2022. Japan's secret to taming the coronavirus: peer pressure. New York Times July 2. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/02/world/asia/japan-covid.html
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Robinson P, Darley JM. 1996. Justice, Liability and Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law Boulder, CO: Westview
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Rosanvallon P. 2011. Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity, transl. A Goldhammer Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Schauer F. 2015. The Force of Law Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Schout A, Holderied M. 2018. Public support for European integration Clingendael Rep., The Hague, Neth.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Sears DO, Lau RR, Tyler TR, Allen HM Jr 1980. Self-interest and symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 74:670–84
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Sears DO, Tyler TR, Citrin J, Kinder DR. 1978. Political system support and public response to the 1974 energy crisis. Am. J. Political Sci. 22::56–82
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Siegel E. 2016. Predictive Analytics: The Power to Predict Who Will Click, Buy, Lie, or Die Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Skitka LJ, Hanson BE, Morgan GS, Wisneski DC. 2021. The psychology of moral conviction. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72:347–66
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Smith TW, Son J. 2012. Trends in public attitudes about confidence in institutions Rep., NORC, Univ. Chicago, Chicago
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Susskind R. 2019. Online Courts and the Future of Justice Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Tankebe J. 2013. Viewing things differently: the dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology 51:103–35
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Thibaut J, Walker L. 1975. Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Tostlebe JJ, Pyrooz DC. 2022. Procedural justice, legal orientations, and gang membership. . Criminology 60:700–39
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Trinkner R. 2019. Clarifying the contours of the police legitimacy measurement debate. Asian J. Criminol. 14:309–35
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Tyler TR. 2006. 1990. Why People Obey the Law Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Tyler TR. 2016. Understanding the force of law: comments on Schauer. Tulsa Law Rev. 51:507–19
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Tyler TR. 2019. Consensual models of governance: legitimacy-based law. Political Legitimacy NOMOS 61:257–92
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 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 16:375–109
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Tyler TR, Jackson J. 2014. Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychol. Public Policy Law 20:178–95
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Tyler TR, Nobo C. 2022. Legitimacy-Based Policing and the Promotion of Community Vitality Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Tyler TR, Trinkner R. 2018. Why Children Follow Rules: Legal Socialization and the Development of Legitimacy Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Ugarizza JE, Caluwaerts D, eds. 2014. Democratic Deliberation in Deeply Divided Societies: From Conflict to Common Ground London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Van Lange PAM, Balliet D, Parks CD, Van Vugt M. 2014. Social Dilemmas: The Psychology of Human Cooperation Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Van Rooij B, de Bruijn AL, Reinders Folmer CP, Kooistra E et al. 2021. Compliance with COVID-19 mitigation measures in the United States. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qymu3
  80. Verboon P, van Dijke M. 2011. When do severe sanctions enhance compliance? The role of procedural fairness. J. Econ. Psychol. 32:120–30
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Weisburd D, Braga A. 2019. Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Weisburd D, Telep CW, Vovak H. 2022. Reforming the police through procedural justice training: a multicity randomized trial at crime hot spots. PNAS 119:14e2118780119
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Wright R. 2000. Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny New York: Vintage
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Yasrebi-De Kom FM, Dirkzwager AJE, Van der Laan PH, Nieuwbeerta P. 2022. The effect of sanction severity and its interaction with procedural justice. Crim. Justice Behav. 49:2200–19
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Zimring F. 2011. The City That Became Safe: What New York Teaches About Urban Crime and Its Control New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110722-074236
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110722-074236
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