Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-4
Differential Effects of Procedural Justice? Examining Heterogeneity in the Perceptions and Effects of Procedural Justice Across First-Time and Recurrent Detainees
Several scholars have suggested that perceptions of procedural justice matter less for legitimacy beliefs and compliant behavior among serious offenders, but it remains unknown to what extent this also holds true for male detainees interacting with multiple criminal justice authorities. Using longitudinal data from the Prison Project on adult detainees entering Dutch pre-trial detention centers, the current study examines whether effects of procedural justice—arising from encounters with police officers, prison staff, and judges—on felt obligation to obey and recidivism operate in a different manner for first-time detainees and recurrent detainees. Our findings support the idea that procedural justice exerts differential effects on beneficial outcomes depending on detainees’ prior detention experience.
AebiM. F.Berger-KoloppL.BurkhardtC.TiagoM. M. (2019). Prisons in Europe: 2005-2015. Volume 1: Country Profiles. Council of Europe.
2.
AlwardL. M.BakerT.GordonJ. A. (2021). Procedural justice and incarcerated people’s obligation to obey institutional rules: An examination of current, former, and never-gang members. Journal of Criminal Justice, 73, 101757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101757
3.
AugustynM. B. (2015). The (ir)relevance of procedural justice in the pathways to crime. Law and Human Behavior, 39(4), 388–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000122
4.
BakerT. (2017). Exploring the relationship of shared race/ethnicity with court actors, perceptions of court procedural justice, and obligation to obey among male offenders. Race and Justice, 7(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368716650728
5.
BakerT.GauJ. M. (2018). Female offenders’ perceptions of police procedural justice and their obligation to obey the law. Crime & Delinquency, 64(6), 758–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717719418
6.
BakerT.PickettJ. T.AminD. M.GoldenK.DhunganaK.GertzM.BedardL. (2015). Shared race/ethnicity, court procedural justice, and self-regulating beliefs: A study of female offenders. Law & Society Review, 49(2), 433–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12137
7.
BarkworthJ. M.MurphyK. (2021). Procedural justice, posturing and defiant action: Exploring prisoner reactions to prison authority. Justice Quarterly, 38(3), 537–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1666905
8.
BeijersbergenK. A.DirkzwagerA. J. E.EichelsheimV. I.Van der LaanP. H.NieuwbeertaP. (2015). Procedural justice, anger, and prisoners’ misconduct: A longitudinal study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(2), 196–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814550710
9.
BeijersbergenK. A.DirkzwagerA. J. E.NieuwbeertaP. (2016). Reoffending after release: Does procedural justice during imprisonment matter?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815609643
10.
BolgerP. C.WaltersG. D. (2019). The relationship between police procedural justice, police legitimacy, and people’s willingness to cooperate with law enforcement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 60, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.01.001
11.
BontaJ.AndrewsD. A. (2016). The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge.
12.
BottomsA.TankebeJ. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1), 119–170.
13.
ChenF. (2007). Sensitivity goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504.
14.
DervanL. E. (2011). American prison culture in an international context: An examination of prisons in America, The Netherlands, and Israel. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 22(2), 413–428.
15.
DirkzwagerA. J. E.NieuwbeertaP.BeijersbergenK. A.BosmaA. Q.de CuyperR.DoekhieJ.EichelsheimV.de GoedeS.van der LaanP. H.LametW.PalmenH.RaaijmakersE.RamakersA.ReefJ.van der SteltS.WensveenM.WerminkH. (2018). Cohort profile: The prison project—a study of criminal behavior and life circumstances before, during, and after imprisonment in the Netherlands. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 4(1), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-017-0077-2
16.
FaganJ.PiqueroA. R. (2007). Rational choice and dvelopmental influences on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(4), 715–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00105.x
17.
FoxB.MouleR. K.JaynesC. M.ParryM. M. (2021). Are the effects of legitimacy and its components invariant? Operationalization and the generality of Sunshine and Tyler’s empowerment hypothesis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 58(1), 3–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427820926228
JacksonJ.BradfordB.HoughM.MyhillA.QuintonP.TylerT. R. (2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), 1051–1071. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azs032
20.
JacksonJ.OliveiraT. R.BradfordB.MendesS. M.Lima NatalA.ZaneticA. (2022). Fear and legitimacy in São Paulo, Brazil: Police-citizen relations in a high violence, high fear city. Law & Society Review, 56(1), 122-145. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12589
21.
JacksonJ.TylerT. R.BradfordB.TaylorD.ShinerM. (2010). Legitimacy and procedural justice in prisons. Prison Service Journal, 191, 4–10.
22.
JaynesC. M.LoughranT. A. (2019). Social preferences as an individual difference in offender decision-making. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 56(1), 129–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427818798684
23.
KaiserK.ReisigM. D. (2019). Legal socialization and self-reported criminal offending: The role of procedural justice and legal orientations. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 35(1), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9375-4
24.
LickensP.De LooffJ. (2013). Gevangeniswezen in getal 2007-2011. Dienst Justitiële Inrichtingen.
25.
LieblingA.ArnoldH. (2004). Prisons and their moral performance: A study of values, quality, and prison life. Oxford University Press.
26.
LindE. A.Van den BosK. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. In StawB. M.KramerR. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical review (pp. 181–223). Elsevier Science/JAI Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(02)24006-X
27.
MaguireE. R.Atkin-PlunkC. A.WellsW. (2021). The effects of procedural justice on cooperation and compliance among inmates in a work release program. Justice Quarterly, 38(6), 1128–1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1634753
28.
McGloinJ. M.PiqueroA. R. (2010). On the relationship between co-offending network redundancy and offending versatility. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(1), 63–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427809348905
29.
MurphyK.BradfordB.JacksonJ. (2016). Motivating compliance behavior among offenders: Procedural justice or deterrence?Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815611166
PapachristosA. V.MearesT. L.FaganJ. (2012). Why do criminals obey the law? The influence of legitimacy and social networks on active gun offenders. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(2), 397–440.
32.
PaternosterR.BrameR.MazerolleP.PiqueroA. R. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36(4), 859–866. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01268.x
33.
PennerE. K.ViljoenJ. L.DouglasK. S.RoeschR. (2014). Procedural justice versus risk factors for offending: Predicting recidivism in youth. Law and Human Behavior, 38(3), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000055
34.
Pina-SánchezJ.Brunton-SmithI. (2021). Are we equally persuaded by procedural justice? Re-examining the invariance thesis using longitudinal data and random effects. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 7, 449–480.
35.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
36.
PutnickD. L.BornsteinM. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
37.
Savigar-ShawL.RadburnM.StottC.KyprianidesA.TallentD. (2021). Procedural justice as a reward to the compliant: An ethnography of police-citizen interaction in police custody. Policing & Society, 32(6), 778–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2021.1960332
38.
SkinnsL. (2011). Police custody governance, legitimacy and reform in the criminal justice process. Routledge.
39.
SparksR.BottomsA.HayW. (1996). Prisons and the problem of order. Clarendon Press.
40.
SprottJ. B.GreeneC. (2010). Trust and confidence in the courts: Does the quality of treatment young offenders receive affect their views of the courts?Crime & Delinquency, 56(2), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707308176
41.
TangneyJ. P.BaumeisterR. F.Luzio-BooneA. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x
TonryM.BijleveldC. (2007). Crime, criminal justice, and criminology in the Netherlands. In TonryM.BijleveldC. (Eds.), Crime and justice in the Netherlands. Crime and justice: Review of research (pp. 1–30). University of Chicago Press.
44.
TrinknerR. (2019). Clarifying the contours of the police legitimacy measurement debate: A response to Cao and Graham. Asian Journal of Criminology, 14(4), 309–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-019-09300-4
45.
TylerT. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 431–505). University of Chicago Press.
46.
TylerT. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.
47.
TylerT. R.JacksonJ. (2013). Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice. In TankebeJ.LieblingA. E. (Eds.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: An international exploration (pp. 83–104). Oxford University Press.
48.
TylerT. R.LindE. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 115–191). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60283-X
49.
Van de SchootR.LugtigP.HoxJ. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(4), 486–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740
50.
Van den BosK.WilkeH. A. M.LindE. A. (1998). When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1449–1458. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1449
51.
WalmsleyR. (2018). World prison population list (12th ed.). International Centre for Prison Studies.
52.
WaltersG. D.BolgerP. C. (2019). Procedural justice perceptions, legitimacy beliefs, and compliance with the law: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15(3), 341–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9338-2
53.
WartnaB. S. J.BlomM.TollenaarN. (2011). The Dutch recidivism monitor. Research and Documentation Centre.
54.
WolfeS. E.NixJ.KaminskiR.RojekJ. (2016). Is the effect of procedural justice on police legitimacy invariant? Testing the generality of procedural justice and competing antecedents of legitimacy. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32(2), 253–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-015-9263-8
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
