Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-11
Should We Defund “Bad Police” or Reform “Bad Policing”? Examining Person-Centered and Act-Based Moral Evaluations of Police and Policing Policy Preferences
Despite widespread calls to defund or reform police, little research has explored the factors shaping public support for these proposals. We draw from person-centered morality theory to argue that person-centered moral evaluations of police (moral character beliefs) drive support for defunding police, while act-based moral evaluations of police (procedural justice) drive support for reforming police. Using data from a national survey (N = 1,225), exploratory factor analyses showed that these moral evaluations of police were empirically distinct. OLS regression results indicated that perceptions of “bad police” (negative person-centered evaluations) more strongly predicted support for defunding policies (abolition and reduced funding of police), while perceptions of “bad policing” (negative act-based evaluations) more strongly predicted support for due process and racial justice reforms.
AgeeC. L. (2020). Crisis and redemption: The history of American police reform since World War II. Journal of Urban History, 46(5), 951–960.
2.
AkbarA. A. (2020). An abolitionist horizon for (police) reform. California Law Review, 108, 1781–1846.
3.
AlexanderM. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.
4.
AnsolabehereS.RiversD. (2013). Cooperative survey research. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 307–329.
5.
BaranauskasA. J. (2022). Racial resentment, crime concerns, and public attitudes toward defunding the police. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 20(1), 48–72.
6.
BeethamD. (2013). The legitimation of power. Bloomsbury Publishing.
7.
BellM. C. (2017). Police reform and the dismantling of legal estrangement. The Yale Law Journal, 126(7), 2054–2150.
8.
BellM. C.BeckettK.StuartF. (2020). Investing in alternatives: Three logics of criminal system replacement. UC Irvine Law Review, 11, 1291–1326.
9.
BittnerE. (1970). The functions of the police in modern society: A review of background factors, current practices, and possible role models. National Institute of Mental Health, Center for Studies of Crime and Delinquency.
10.
Cobbina-DungyJ. E.Jones-BrownD. (2023). Too much policing: Why calls are made to defund the police. Punishment & Society, 25(1), 3–20.
11.
DaiM. (2021). Training police for procedural justice: An evaluation of officer attitudes, citizen attitudes, and police-citizen interactions. The Police Journal, 94(4), 481–495.
12.
DattaloP. (2013). Analysis of multiple dependent variables. Oxford University Press.
13.
DaviesE. J.JacksonJ. M.StreeterS. (2021). Bringing abolition in: Addressing carceral logics in social science research. Social Science Quarterly, 102(7), 3095–3102.
14.
DiphoornT.LeyhB. M.SlooterL. (2021). Transforming police reform: Global experiences through a multidisciplinary lens. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 15(1), 340–347.
15.
DrakulichK.DenverM. (2022). The partisans and the persuadables: Public views of Black Lives Matter and the 2020 protests. Perspectives on Politics, 20(4), 1191–1208.
16.
DuxburyS. W. (2021). Who controls criminal law? Racial threat and the adoption of state sentencing law, 1975 to 2012. American Sociological Review, 86(1), 123–153.
17.
EnnsP. K.RamirezM. D. (2018). Privatizing punishment: Testing theories of public support for private prison and immigration detention facilities. Criminology, 56(3), 546–573.
18.
EppC. R.Maynard-MoodyS.Haider-MarkelD. (2014). Pulled over: How police stops define race and citizenship. University of Chicago Press.
19.
FerraroK. F. (1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk.State University of New York Press.
20.
FineA. D.Del ToroJ. (2022). Adolescents’ views of defunding the police, abolishing the police, and “the talk.”Journal of Community Psychology, 50(7), 2993–3005.
GauJ. M. (2014). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A test of measurement and structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 187–205.
23.
GrahamA.PickettJ. T.CullenF. T. (2021). Advantages of matched over unmatched opt-in samples for studying criminal justice attitudes: A research note. Crime & Delinquency, 67(12), 1962–1981.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.
26.
HamlinJ. K.WynnK.BloomP. (2007). Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature, 450(7169), 557–559.
27.
HaninkP. A.DunbarA. (2022). Protesting the police: An analysis of the correlates of support for police reform following the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. Social Movement Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2022.2067842
28.
HeadleyA. M.WrightJ. E. (2019). National police reform commissions: Evidence-based practices or unfulfilled promises?The Review of Black Political Economy, 46(4), 277–305.
29.
HughesJ. S.HarpsterR. D.GonzalesN. C. (2020). The government receives moral license to commit transgressions when compared to other entities. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 42(2), 98–114.
30.
HuqA. Z.JacksonJ.TrinknerR. (2017). Legitimating practices: Revisiting the predicates of police legitimacy. British Journal of Criminology, 57(5), 1101–1122.
31.
JacksonJ. (2018). Norms, normativity, and the legitimacy of justice institutions: International perspectives. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14, 145–165.
32.
JacksonJ.BradfordB.HoughM.MyhillA.QuintonP.TylerT. (2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 1051–1071.
33.
JacksonJ.FineA.BradfordB.TrinknerR. (2023). Social identity and support for defunding the police in the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 26(4), 833–858.
34.
KapsisR. E. (1978). Black ghetto diversity and anomie: A sociopolitical view. American Journal of Sociology, 83(5), 1132–1153.
KoziarskiJ.HueyL. (2021). #Defund or #Re-Fund? Re-examining Bayley’s blueprint for police reform. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 45(3), 269–284.
37.
LandyJ. F.UhlmannE. L. (2018). Morality is personal. In GrayK.GrahamJ. (Eds.), Atlas of moral psychology (pp. 121–132). Guilford Publications.
McDowellM. G.FernandezL. A. (2018). ‘Disband, disempower, and disarm’: Amplifying the theory and practice of police abolition. Critical Criminology, 26(3), 373–391.
40.
McLeanK.NixJ. (2022). Understanding the bounds of legitimacy: Weber’s facets of legitimacy and the police empowerment hypothesis. Justice Quarterly, 39(6), 1287–1309.
MouleR. K.Jr.FoxB. H.ParryM. M. (2019). The long shadow of Ferguson: Legitimacy, legal cynicism, and public perceptions of police militarization. Crime & Delinquency, 65(2), 151–182.
43.
NewheiserA. K.SawaokaT.DovidioJ. F. (2012). Why do we punish groups? High entitativity promotes moral suspicion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 931–936.
44.
NovickR.PickettJ. T. (2022). Black Lives Matter, protest policing, and voter support for police reform in Portland, Oregon. Race and Justice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/21533687221117281
45.
ParryM. M.MouleR. K.Jr.DarioL. M. (2019). Technology-mediated exposure to police–citizen encounters: A quasi-experimental assessment of consequences for citizen perceptions. Justice Quarterly, 36(3), 412–436.
46.
PatnaudeL.LomakinaC. V.PatelA.BizelG. (2021). Public emotional response on the Black Lives Matter movement in the summer of 2020 as analyzed through Twitter. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 13(1), 1–69.
47.
PickettJ. T. (2019). Public opinion and criminal justice policy: Theory and research. Annual Review of Criminology, 2, 405–428.
48.
PickettJ. T.GrahamA.CullenF. T. (2022). The American racial divide in fear of the police. Criminology, 60(2), 291–320.
49.
PickettJ. T.NixJ.RocheS. P. (2018). Testing a social schematic model of police procedural justice. Social Psychology Quarterly, 81(2), 97–125.
50.
PickettJ. T.RyonS. B. (2017). Procedurally just cooperation: Explaining support for due process reforms in policing. Journal of Criminal Justice, 48, 9–20.
51.
PizarroD. A.TannenbaumD. (2012). Bringing character back: How the motivation to evaluate character influences judgments of moral blame. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (pp. 91–108). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13091-005
52.
President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final report of the president’s task force on 21st century policing. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
53.
RaiT. S.DiermeierD. (2015). Corporations are cyborgs: Organizations elicit anger but not sympathy when they can think but cannot feel. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 18–26.
SilverE.GoffK.IcelandJ. (2022). Social order and social justice: Moral intuitions, systemic racism beliefs, and Americans’ divergent attitudes toward Black Lives Matter and police. Criminology, 60(2), 342–369.
56.
SilverJ. R. (2017). Moral foundations, intuitions of justice, and the intricacies of punitive sentiment. Law & Society Review, 51(2), 413–450.
57.
SilverJ. R. (2020). Moral motives, police legitimacy and acceptance of force. Policing: An International Journal, 43(5), 799–815.
58.
SilverJ. R.BerryessaC. M. (2023). Remorse, perceived offender immorality, and lay sentencing preferences. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 19(2), 425–463.
59.
SkoganW. G. (2006). Police and community in Chicago: A tale of three cities. Oxford University Press.
60.
SunshineJ.TylerT. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548.
61.
TangS.GrayK. (2023). Do companies think and feel? Mind perception of organizations. Cognitive Science, 47(8), e13320.
62.
TankebeJ. (2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51(1), 103–135.
63.
TannenbaumD.UhlmannE. L.DiermeierD. (2011). Moral signals, public outrage, and immaterial harms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1249–1254.
ThacherD. (2023). Two kinds of problem-solving. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 17, paac073.
66.
TylerT. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.
67.
UhlmannE. L.PizarroD. A.DiermeierD. (2015). A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 72–81.
68.
UhlmannE. L.ZhuL.DiermeierD. (2014). When actions speak volumes: The role of inferences about moral character in outrage over racial bigotry. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(1), 23–29.
69.
UhlmannE. L.ZhuL. L.TannenbaumD. (2013). When it takes a bad person to do the right thing. Cognition, 126(2), 326–334.
70.
VaughnP. E.PeytonK.HuberG. A. (2022). Mass support for proposals to reshape policing depends on the implications for crime and safety. Criminology & Public Policy, 21(1), 125–146.
71.
VerhaeghenP.AikmanS. N. (2022). Police as threat: The influence of race and the summer of Black Lives Matter on implicit and explicit attitudes towards the police. Journal of Community Psychology, 50(8), 3354–3370.
72.
VitaleA. S. (2017). The end of policing. Verso Books.
73.
WalkerS. (1993). Taming the system: The control of discretion in criminal justice, 1950-1990. Oxford University Press.
74.
WalkerS. (2012). Institutionalizing police accountability reforms: The problem of making police reforms endure. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 32, 57.
75.
WeberM. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (HendersonA. M.ParsonsT., Trans.). The Free Press.
76.
WillisJ.TodorovA. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592–598.
77.
WozniakK. H.PickettJ. T.BrownE. K. (2022). Judging hardworking robbers and lazy thieves: An experimental test of act-vs. person-centered punitiveness and perceived redeemability. Justice Quarterly, 39(7), 1565–1591.
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.
