“Procedural justice” (PJ) has traditionally been thought of as an intragroup model, characterizing interpersonal interactions between police officers and specific individuals. O’Brien et al. recently proposed that PJ is also a useful framework for examining intergroup dynamics, and can thus be used to typify interactions between the police and communities/social groups as a whole. Yet, as a novel construct, its precise content remains unclear. We use qualitative, in-depth interviews with individuals who encountered police as a group of protestors, to illuminate the constituent elements of group-level PJ. We identify four concerns with group-level treatment: respect for the existence and cause of the group, partnership with the group, recognizing the individual within the group, and displaying the “right” motivation: allowing group activities to take place safely. We discuss the implications of our findings, arguing that they pave the way for more exhaustive modeling of the fairness embedded in authorities’ treatment.
AvivG.WeisburdD. (2016). Reducing the gap in perceptions of legitimacy of victims and non-victims: The importance of police performance. International Review of Victimology, 22(2), 83–104.
2.
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.
3.
BowenG. A. (2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note. Qualitative Research, 8(1), 137–152.
4.
BradfordB. (2014). Policing and social identity: Procedural justice, inclusion, and cooperation between police and public. Policing and Society, 24(1), 22–43.
5.
BradfordB.MurphyK.JacksonJ. (2014). Officers as mirrors: Policing, procedural justice and the (re)production of social identity. British Journal of Criminology, 54(4), 527–550.
6.
BrownR. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(6), 745–778.
7.
CalhounC. (2013). Occupy wall street in perspective. British Journal of Sociology, 64(1), 26–38.
8.
CampbellD. E. (2013). Social networks and political participation. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 33–48.
9.
CorrellJ.ParkB. (2005). A model of the ingroup as a social resource. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(4), 341–359.
10.
DruryJ.ReicherS. (2009). Collective psychological empowerment as a model of social change: Researching crowds and power. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 707–725.
11.
DruryJ.ReicherS.StottC. (2003). Transforming the boundaries of collective identity: From the “local” anti-road campaign to “global” resistance?Social Movement Studies, 2(2), 191–212.
12.
FactorR.CastiloJ. C.RattnerA. (2014). Procedural justice, minorities, and religiosity. Police Practice and Research, 15(2), 130–142.
13.
GamsonW. A. (1992). The social psychology of collective action. In MorrisA. D.MuellerC. M. (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 53–76). Yale University Press.
14.
GauJ. M.CorsaroN.StewartE. A.BrunsonR. K. (2012). Examining macro-level impacts on procedural justice and police legitimacy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 333–343.
15.
GillC.WeisburdD. L.TelepC. W.VitterZ.BennettB. (2014). Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy among citizens: A systematic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 399–428.
16.
GreenbergJ. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 561–568.
17.
GreenbergJ. (1994). Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 288–297.
18.
HillC. E. (2012). Consensual qualitative research: A practical resource for investigating social science phenomena. American Psychological Association.
19.
HindsL.MurphyK. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40, 27–42.
20.
HoggettJ.StottC. (2010). Crowd psychology, public order police training and the policing of football crowds. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 33(2), 218–235.
21.
HsiehH. F.ShannonS. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
22.
HuoY. J. (2003). Procedural justice and social regulation across group boundaries: Does subgroup identity undermine relationship-based governance?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 336–348.
23.
Jonathan-ZamirT.HarpazA. (2018). Predicting support for procedurally just treatment: The case of the Israel National Police. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(6), 840–862.
Jonathan-ZamirT.WeisburdD. (2013). The effects of security threats on antecedents of police legitimacy: Findings from a quasi-experiment in Israel. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(1), 3–32.
26.
Jonathan-ZamirT.WeisburdD.DayanM.ZissoM. (2019). The proclivity to rely on professional experience and evidence-based policing: Findings from a survey of high-ranking officers in the Israel Police. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(10), 1456–1474.
27.
KellingG. L.MooreM. H. (1988). From political to reform to community: The evolving strategy of the police. In GreeneJ. R.MastrofskiS. D. (Eds.), Community policing: Rhetoric or reality? (pp. 3–25). Praeger.
28.
KellyC.BreinlingerS. (1995). Identity and injustice: Exploring women’s participation in collective action. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 51(1), 41–57.
29.
KelmanH. C.HamiltonV. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of authority and responsibility. Yale University Press.
30.
KilibardaK. (2012). Lessons from #Occupy in Canada: Contesting space, settler consciousness and erasures within the 99%. Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies, 5, 24–41.
31.
KlockarsC. B. (1988). The rhetoric of community policing. In GreeneJ. R.MastrofskiS. D. (Eds.), Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality (pp. 239–258). Praeger Publishers.
32.
KochelT.ParksR. B.MastrofskiS. D. (2013). Examining police effectiveness as precursor to legitimacy and cooperation with police. Justice Quarterly, 30, 895–925.
33.
LearyM. R.BaumeisterR. F. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
34.
LindE. A.KanferR.EarlyC. (1990). Voice, control & procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 952–959.
35.
LindE. A.TylerT. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum.
36.
MaguireE. R. (2015). New directions in protest policing. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 35(1), 67–108.
37.
MazerolleL.AntrobusE.BennettS.TylerT. R. (2013). Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: A randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology, 51(1), 33–63.
38.
MazerolleL.BennettS.DavisJ.SargeantE.ManningM. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(3), 245–274.
39.
MetcalfeC.WolfeS. E.GertzE.GertzM. (2016). They protect our homeland but neglect our community: Homeland security overemphasis, legitimacy, and public cooperation in Israel. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53(6), 814–839.
40.
MurphyK. (2013). Policing at the margins: Fostering trust and cooperation among ethnic minority groups. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 8(2), 184–199.
41.
MurphyK.CherneyA. (2011). Fostering cooperation with police: How do ethnic minorities in Australia respond to procedural justice-based policing?Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44(2), 235–257.
42.
MurphyK.HindsL.FlemingJ. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Policing and Society, 18, 136–155.
43.
MurphyK.SargeantE.CherneyA. (2015). The importance of procedural justice and police performance in shaping intentions to cooperate with the police: Does social identity matter?European Journal of Criminology, 12(6), 719–738.
44.
NaginD. S.TelepC. W. (2017). Procedural justice and legal compliance. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 5–28.
45.
O’BrienT. C.TylerT. R. (2020). Authorities and communities: Can authorities shape cooperation with communities on a group level?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(1), 69–87.
46.
O’BrienT. C.TylerT. R.MearesT. L. (2020). Building popular legitimacy with reconciliatory gestures and participation: A community-level model of authority. Regulation & Governance, 14(4), 821–839.
47.
PerryG.Jonathan-ZamirT.WeisburdD. (2017). The effect of paramilitary protest policing on protestors’ trust in the police: The case of the “Occupy Israel” movement. Law & Society Review, 51(3), 602–634.
48.
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, US Department of Justice.
49.
RadburnM.StottC. (2019). The social psychological processes of ‘procedural justice’: Concepts, critiques and opportunities. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 19(4), 421–438.
50.
RadburnM.StottC.BradfordB.RobinsonM. (2018). When is policing fair? Groups, identity and judgements of the procedural justice of coercive crowd policing. Policing and Society, 28(6), 647–664.
51.
ReicherS. D. (1984). Social influence in the crowd: Attitudinal and behavioral effects of de-individuation in conditions of high and low group salience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 341–350.
52.
ReisigM. D.BainS. N. (2016). University legitimacy and student compliance with academic dishonesty codes: A partial test of the process-based model of self-regulation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 83–101.
53.
ReisigM. D.BrattonJ.GertzM. J. (2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1005–1028.
54.
RoccasS.BrewerM. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88–106.
55.
RossiP. H.LipseyM. W.HenryG. T. (2019). Evaluation: A systematic approach. SAGE.
56.
RyoE. (2017). Legal attitudes of immigrant detainees. Law & Society Review, 51(1), 99–131.
57.
SchulhoferS. J.TylerT. R.HuqA. Z. (2011). American policing at a crossroads: Unsustainable policies and the procedural justice alternative. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 101, 335–374.
58.
SimonB.KlandermansB. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56(4), 319–331.
59.
SkarbekD. (2014). The social order of the underworld: How prison gangs govern the American penal system. Oxford University Press.
60.
SkoganW. G. (2006a). Police and community in Chicago: A tale of three cities. Oxford University Press.
61.
SkoganW. G. (2006b). The promise of community policing. In WeisburdD.BragaA. (Eds.), Police innovation: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 27–43). Cambridge University Press.
62.
SkolnickJ. H.BayleyD. H. (1986). The new blue line: Police innovation in six American cities. The Free Press.
63.
StilesW. B. (1993). Quality control in qualitative research. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 593–618.
64.
StottC.ReicherS. (1998). Crowd action as intergroup process: Introducing the police perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(4), 509–529.
65.
Stoutland. (2001). The multiple dimensions of trust in resident/police relations in Boston. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 226–256.
66.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. SAGE.
67.
StrykerS.OwensT. J.WhiteR. W. (Eds.). (2000). Self, identity, and social movements (Vol. 13). University of Minnesota Press.
68.
SunshineJ.TylerT. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37, 513–548.
69.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
70.
TankebeJ. (2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51(1), 103–135.
71.
ThibautJ.WalkerL. (1975). Procedural justice. Lawrence Erlbaum.
72.
TrinknerR.TylerT. R. (2016). Legal socialization: Coercion versus consent in an era of mistrust. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 12, 417–439.
73.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.
74.
TylerT. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Yale University Press.
75.
TylerT. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 850–863.
76.
TylerT. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 84–99.
77.
TylerT. R. (2009). Legitimacy and criminal justice: The benefits of self-regulation. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 7(1), 307–359.
78.
TylerT. R. (2017). Procedural justice and policing: A rush to judgment?Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 29–53.
79.
TylerT. R.BladerS. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361.
80.
TylerT. R.BladerS. L. (2013). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Psychology Press.
81.
TylerT. R.DegoeyP.SmithH. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: A test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 913–930.
82.
TylerT. R.FaganJ. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities?Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231–275.
83.
TylerT. R.HuoY. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. Russell-Sage Foundation.
84.
TylerT. R.RasinskiK. A.SpodickN. (1985). Influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 72–81.
85.
TylerT. R.SchulhoferS.HuqA. (2010). Legitimacy and deterrence effects in counterterrorism policing: A study of Muslim Americans. Law & Society Review, 44, 365–401.
86.
TylerT. R.WakslakC. J. (2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attributions of motive and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 18, 267–274.
87.
WeberM. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 1). University of California Press.
88.
WeisburdD.HasisiB.LitmanovitzY.CarmelT.TshuvaS. (2020). Institutionalizing problem-oriented policing: An evaluation of the EMUN reform in Israel. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(3), 941–964.
89.
WeisburdD.JonathanT.PerryS. (2009). The Israeli model for policing terrorism: Goals, strategies and open questions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(12), 1259–1278.
90.
WeisburdD.MajmundarM. (Eds.). (2018). Proactive policing: Effects on crime and communities. The National Academies Press.
91.
WeissC. H. (1997). How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway?Evaluation Review, 21(4), 501–524.
92.
WordenR. E.McLeanS. J. (2017). Mirage of police reform: Procedural justice and police legitimacy. University of California Press.
