The procedural justice model of policing has gained much popularity in scholarship and empirical support in democracies, yet research on the procedural justice within police organizations, particularly the mediating mechanisms connecting internal procedural justice and officer behavioral tendencies, is rather limited. With an aid of survey data collected from Taiwanese police officers, this study tests the connections between internal procedural justice and officers’ compliance with agency rules and cooperation with supervisors via an essential element—trust in supervisors. Internal procedural justice was found to be directly related to trust in supervisors and officer cooperation with supervisor, whereas the association between internal procedural justice and compliance with agency rules is mainly indirect through trust in supervisors. This study concludes with discussing research and pragmatic implications of findings.
AngelisJ. D.KupchikA. (2009).
Ethnicity, trust, and acceptance of authority among police officers. Journal of Criminal Justice,
37, 273–279.
2.
BanduraA. (1971). Social learning theory.
General Learning Press.
3.
BaroA. L.BurlingameD. (1999).
Law enforcement and higher education: Is there an impasse?.Journal of Criminal Justice Education,
10(1), 57–73.
4.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986).
The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
5.
BlauP. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life.
Wiley.
6.
BradfordB.QuintonP.MyhillA.PorterG. (2014).
Why do “the law” comply? Procedural justice, group identification and officer motivation in police organizations. European Journal of Criminology,
11, 110–131.
7.
CaoL.HuangL.SunI. (2014). Policing in Taiwan: From authoritarianism to democracy.
Routledge.
8.
CaoL.HuangL.SunI. (2016a).
Development and reform of police training and education in Taiwan. Police Practice & Research,
17(6), 531–542.
9.
CaoL.HuangL.SunI. (2016b).
From authoritarian policing to democratic policing: A case study of Taiwan. Policing & Society,
26(6), 642–658.
10.
Cohen-CharashY.SpectorP. (2001).
The role of justice in organization: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
86, 278–321.
11.
ColquittJ. A.ConlonD. E.WessonM. W.PorterC. O. L. H.NgK. Y. (2001).
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86(3), 425–445.
12.
ColquittJ. A.LePineJ. A.PiccoloR. F.ZapataC. P.RichB. L. (2011).
Explaining the justice-performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as uncertainty reducer? Journal of Applied Psychology,
97(1), 1–15.
13.
ConchieS. M.DonaldI. J. (2006).
The role of distrust in offshore safety performance. Risk Analysis,
26(5), 1151–1160.
14.
CrowM.LeeC.JooJ. (2012).
Organizational justice and organizational commitment among South Korean police officers: An investigation of job satisfaction as a mediator. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management,
35, 402–423.
15.
DonnerC.MaskalyJ.FridellL.JenningsW. (2015).
Policing and procedural justice: A state-of-the-art review. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management,
38, 153–172.
16.
EngelR.WordenR. (2003).
Police officers’ attitudes, behavior, and supervisor influences: An analysis of problem solving. Criminology,
41, 131–166.
17.
GauJ. M. (2011).
The convergent and discriminant validity of procedural justice and police legitimacy: An empirical test of core theoretical propositions. Journal of Criminal Justice,
39(6), 489–498.
18.
GurtmanM. B. (1992).
Trust, distrust and interpersonal problems: A circumplex analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
62(6), 989–1002.
19.
HaasN.van CraenM.SkoganW.FleitasD. (2015).
Explaining officer compliance: The importance of procedural justice and trust inside a police organization. Criminology & Criminal Justice,
15, 442–463.
20.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach.
The Guilford Press.
21.
HsiehM.-L.BoatengF. (2015).
Perceptions of democracy and trust in the criminal justice system: A comparison between mainland China and Taiwan. International Criminal Justice Review,
25(2), 153–173.
22.
IngramJ. (2013).
Supervisor–officer fit and role ambiguity: Re-assessing the nature of the sergeant–officer attitudinal relationship. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management,
36, 375–398.
23.
IvkovicS.PeacockR.MraovicI. (2019).
The role of organizational justice and community policing values in the model of external procedural justice in Croatia. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice. Advance online publication. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01924036.2019.1599972
24.
JacksonJ.BradfordB.HoughM.KuhaJ.StaresS.WiddopS.FitzgeraldR.YordanovaM.GalevT. (2011).
Developing European indicators of trust in justice. European Journal of Criminology,
8(4), 267–285.
KuoS. (2015).
Occupational stress, job satisfaction, and affective commitment to policing among Taiwanese police officers. Police Quarterly,
18, 27–45.
27.
KuoS. (2018).
Police misconduct in Taiwan: Comparing perceptions of the police and electronic gaming service workers. Crime, Law, and Social Change,
69, 657–679.
28.
LaiY.-L.CaoL.ZhaoJ. S. (2010).
The impact of political entity on confidence in legal authorities: A comparison between China and Taiwan. Journal of Criminal Justice,
38(5), 934–941.
29.
LeventhalG. S.KaruzaJ.FryW. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167–218). Springer-Verlag.
30.
McKayJ. (1991).
Assessing aspects of object relations associated with immune function: Development of the affiliative trust–mistrust coding system. Psychological Assessment,
3(4), 641–647.
31.
MastersonS. S.LewisK.GoldmanB. M.TaylorM. S. (2000).
Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 738–748.
32.
MurphyK. (2009).
Public satisfaction with police: The importance of procedural justice and police performance in police–citizen encounters. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology,
42(2), 159–178.
33.
NixJ.WolfeS. E. (2016).
Sensitivity to the Ferguson effect: The role of managerial organizational justice. Journal of Criminal Justice,
47, 12–20.
34.
RiggerS. (2011). Why Taiwan matters.
Rowman and Littlefield.
35.
RobertsK.HerringtonV. (2013).
Organisational and procedural justice: A review of the literature and its implications for policing. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism,
8(2), 115–130.
36.
RöhlK. F. (2018). Procedural justice.
Routledge.
37.
RothsteinB.StolleD. (2008).
The state and social capital: An institutional theory of generalized trust. Comparative Politics,
40(4), 441–459.
38.
RydbergJ.TerrillW. (2010).
The effect of higher education on police behavior. Police Quarterly,
13, 92–120.
39.
SitkinS. B.RothN. L. (1993).
Explaining the effect of legalistic “remedies” for trust/distrust. Organization Science,
4, 367–392.
40.
SitkinS. B.StickelD. (1996). The dynamics of distrust in an era of equality. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 196–215). Sage.
41.
SkoganW.FrydlK. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence.
The National Academies Press, National Research Council of the National Academies.
42.
SkoganW. G. (2006).
Asymmetry in the impact of encounters with police. Policing & Society,
16, 99–126.
43.
StoutlandS. (2001).
The multiple dimensions of trust in resident/police relations in Boston. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
38, 226–256.
44.
SunI. Y.ChuD. (2006).
Attitudinal differences between Taiwanese and American police officers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management,
29, 190–210.
45.
SunI. Y.HanZ.WuY.FarmerA. K. (2019).
Trust in the police in rural China: A comparison between villagers and local officials. Asian Journal of Criminology,
14(3), 241–258.
46.
SunI. Y.JouS.HouC. C.ChangY.-C. (2014).
Public trust in the police in Taiwan: A test of instrumental and expressive models. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology,
47, 123–140.
47.
Sun, I. Y., Wu, Y., Hu, R., & Farmer, A. (2017). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and public cooperation with police: Does Western wisdom hold in China? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54, 454–478.
48.
SunI. Y.WuY.LiuJ.Van CraenM. (2019).
Institutional procedural justice and street procedural justice in Chinese policing: The mediating role of moral alignment. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology,
52(2), 272–290.
49.
SunI. Y.WuY.TriplettR.WangS.-Y. K. (2016).
Media, political party orientation, and public perceptions of police in Taiwan. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management,
39, 694–709.
50.
SunI. Y.WuY.van CraenM.HsuK. K.-L. (2018).
Internal procedural justice, moral alignment, and external procedural justice in democratic policing. Police Quarterly,
21(3), 387–412.
51.
SunshineJ.TylerT. R. (2003).
The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review,
37(3), 513–547.
52.
TankebeJ. (2014). Police self-legitimacy. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 3735–3742). Springer.
53.
TaylorS. G.PattieM. W. (2014).
When does ethical leadership affect workplace incivility? The moderating role of follower personality. Business Ethics Quarterly,
24(4), 595–616.
54.
ThibautJ.WalkerL. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis.
Lawrence Erlbaum.
55.
TomaC.ButeraF. (2009).
Hidden profiles and concealed information, strategic information sharing and use in group decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
35, 793–806.
56.
TylerT. (1990). Why people obey the law.
Yale University Press.
57.
TylerT. (2004).
Enhancing police legitimacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
593, 84–99.
58.
TylerT. R. (2006).
Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology,
57(1), 375–400.
59.
TylerT. R.HuoY. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts.
Russell Sage Foundation.
60.
Van CraenM. (2016).
Understanding police officers’ trust and trustworthy behavior: A work relations framework. European Journal of Criminology,
13(2), 274–294.
61.
Van CraenM.SkoganW. G. (2017).
Achieving fairness in policing: The link between internal and external procedural justice. Police Quarterly,
20(1), 3–23.
62.
WangS.-Y. K.SunI. Y. (2018).
A comparative study of rural and urban residents’ trust in police in Taiwan. International Criminal Justice Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567718763724
63.
WheatcroftJ. M.AlisonL. A.McGroryD. (2012).
The influence of trust on senior investigating officers’ decision making in high-profile critical incidents. Police Quarterly,
15(4), 386–413.
64.
WolfeS. E.PiqueroA. R. (2011).
Organizational justice and police misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
38(4), 332–353.
65.
WuY. (2014).
The impact of media on public trust in legal authorities in China and Taiwan. Asian Journal of Criminology,
9, 85–101.
66.
WuY.PoteyevaM.SunI. (2012).
Public trust in police: A comparison between China and Taiwan. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice,
36, 189–210.
67.
WuY.SunI. Y.ChangC. K.-M.HsuK. K.-L. (2017).
Procedural justice received and given: Supervisory treatment, emotional states, and behavioral compliance among Taiwanese police officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
44(7), 963–982.
68.
WuY.SunI.Van CraenM.LiuJ. (2019).
Linking supervisory procedural accountability to officer procedural accountability in Chinese policing. Policing and Society,
29, 749–764.
