Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Police (self-)legitimacy is dialogical in nature and influenced by social contexts. In this comparative study, conducted on a national sample of 1,380 police officers in Slovenia, collected over three periods, the stability of police officers’ self-legitimacy and its antecedents are tested. The regression models revealed differences in self-legitimacy and its antecedents across periods, supporting the thesis of the unstable nature of police self-legitimacy. The importance of police officers’ relations with colleagues for the perception of their own legitimacy increased over the years, while their perception of supervisors’ fairness and audience legitimacy decreased. Overall, the findings highlight the importance of social context on police officers’ self-legitimacy and the complex nature of police legitimacy.

Keywords

self-legitimacy police police officers comparative study Slovenia

Those in positions of power/authority continuously desire to seek validation that they deserve their position (Weber, 1978). Langley and Ariel (2024, p. 40) argued that the inward-facing component of legitimacy is related to: “a deep commitment to understand self, while appreciating and valuing the importance of self-conception to the stability of authority.” The crucial element in this process is the power holders’ need to believe in the morality of their power (i.e., the moral rightness of the authority; Tankebe, 2010; Wrong, 1979). While self-legitimacy contributes to the preservation of stability and effectiveness of power holders, the self-justificatory dimension of legitimation remains neglected (Barker, 2001).

The current discussion on police legitimacy predominantly focuses on “mass legitimation,” that is, residents’ recognition of police officers’ moral right to exercise power (Coicaud, 2002; Tankebe, 2019), leaving police officers’ self-legitimacy underrepresented in legitimacy research (Trinkner et al., 2016), especially in contrast to audience legitimacy, which signifies police officers’ right to hold and wield entrusted authority. Self-reflection and introspection present the basis of police self-legitimacy. At its core, self-legitimacy concerns individuals’ belief in a justified entitlement to authority and power (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012, 2013; Tankebe, 2019). The importance of police officers’ self-legitimacy must be acknowledged in delivering professional policing (i.e., support for democratic policing principles), as well as its beneficial outcomes for officers, police organizations, and the public (Bradford & Quinton, 2014; Nix & Wolfe, 2017; White et al., 2021; Wuestewald, 2021).

Bottoms and Tankebe (2012) argued that legitimacy should always be perceived as dialogic and relational. These dialogues refer to power holders’ claims to be the rightful holders of authority, and the audience’s response to such claims. The latter influences the nature (and possible adjustment) of claims, and the whole process repeats itself. Due to the complex nature of (self-)legitimacy, the importance of antecedents can vary in different social contexts (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2021). The legitimacy dialogues are always affected by the specifics of the time and place in which they occur (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2017). The question is to what extent social and situational contexts affect (self-)legitimacy. In contrast, Reisig et al. (2021) argued that enhanced police legitimacy is equivalent across cultural, ecological, and/or individual factors. Given the conservative nature of police culture (Kutnjak Ivković et al., 2022), the latter argument seems reasonable; however, police organizations and culture are also influenced by local environments and cultures, making them distinct (Meško & Hacin, 2026).

Archer (2003) stated that society influences human agents. Following this argument, it can be argued that police officers’ self-legitimacy is the product of an environment that supports a particular image of power (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012). Police self-legitimacy cannot remain static, as police officers engage in a perpetual internal discussion to cultivate and maintain their identity as moral authorities (Tankebe, 2019). Through self-dialogue influenced by daily dangers, challenges, and failures of police work, police officers construct their identity (Langley & Ariel, 2024). Kutnjak Ivković et al. (2022) summarized self-legitimacy as not fixed or one-dimensional, but is constantly re-negotiated, reflecting how police officers perceive their authority. The current study presents one of the few comparative studies on police officers’ self-legitimacy and contributes to the literature on the nature of police self-legitimacy. Specifically, it tests police officers’ perception of their own legitimacy in a non-Western cultural environment, and different periods characterized by significant social changes (e.g., economic crisis and COVID-19 pandemic), as well as the influence of three key antecedents of self-legitimacy, namely relations with colleagues, supervisors’ procedural justice, and audience legitimacy. The study draws on data from surveys of police officers at 24 police stations in a former socialist cultural environment in Slovenia across three time periods (2013, 2016, and 2022). This article proceeds as follows. First, theoretical concepts of self-legitimacy and its antecedents are delineated, followed by a brief note on the Slovenian police to provide the necessary context for the study. Second, the methods and measures used to assess self-legitimacy across different periods are described. Finally, results from the statistical analyses are presented, and the relevance of the findings is discussed.

The Concept of Police Self-Legitimacy

Police officers are the most visible frontline representatives of authority, or, as Punch (2000, p. 322) designated them: “state made of flesh.” To accomplish their mandate, police officers must be able to rely on and draw upon residents’ support (i.e., acknowledging the legitimacy of their position in society; Reisig et al., 2021). This is one part of the dialogical nature of legitimacy. The positive perception of police self-legitimacy is the other part. Tyler (2024) argued that police officers think about their own identity, which justifies controlling others through force. Police officers’ self-legitimacy can be described as: (a) the self-confidence in the rightness of the authority they possess, (b) the attempts of police officers to justify the rightness of the authority in their eyes and cultivate a sense of identity, and (c) the degree of self-belief that police officers possess the moral rightness of their claims to exercise entrusted power (Tankebe, 2010). To achieve self-legitimacy, police officers constantly construct, affirm, or resist a confident self-image of a power holder (Tankebe, 2014). In other words, police officers must discover the source of moral authority, which vests them with legitimacy in concert with lawfulness (Gau & Paoline, 2021). By accomplishing this task, police officers gain a strong sense of self-legitimacy (i.e., the conviction in the rightfulness of their actions; Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012; Wuestewald, 2021). As Gau and Paoline (2021) noted, police officers who successfully resolve the moral challenges inherent in coercive authority excel in their work.

Police officers with a positive perception of self-identification view themselves as distinct from the rest of the public, and thus embody legitimacy (Bradford & Quinton, 2014; Doyle & Roche, 2023). Gau and Paoline (2021) argued that there is a split among scholars in their theoretical justifications for operationalizing the self-legitimacy construct. Police self-legitimacy can be conceptualized as bidimensional in nature (i.e., exogenous versus endogenous self-legitimacy; Debbaut & De Kimpe, 2023), comprising self-defined legitimacy (i.e., police officers’ belief in their entitlement to power) and public-justified legitimacy (i.e., police officers’ perception of how they are viewed by the public/[perceived] external legitimacy; Chen et al., 2025; Wolfe & Nix, 2017). Put differently, police officers’ self-identification refers to having the character necessary for legitimacy on the street (Peacock et al., 2023), while perceived external legitimacy refers to confirming the constructed identity with external audiences (Gau & Paoline, 2021). The latter form of self-legitimacy serves as a kind of mirror, in which police officers’ self-legitimacy depends on their perceptions of how legitimate the public views them (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012; Gau & Paoline, 2021).

Besides mostly positive outcomes of police officers’ self-legitimacy (e.g., organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and democratic policing techniques; Jonathan-Zamir & Harpaz, 2018; Nix & Wolfe, 2017; White et al., 2021), there is always a present threat of diminishing and excessive levels of self-legitimacy (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012; Kyprianides et al., 2022). A positive perception of their own legitimacy influences police officers’ ability to embrace a guardian mindset grounded in procedural justice and fair practices in their interactions with residents (Tankebe & Bottoms, 2024). In practice, this results in good relations between police officers and residents, which provide the basis for (democratic) community policing (Nix & Wolfe, 2017). Police officers with greater self-legitimacy are not only more prepared to engage in constructive cooperation with residents but also show greater restraint in using force (Bradford & Quinton, 2014; Tankebe & Meško, 2015). However, overconfidence in self-legitimacy may influence police officers’ perceptions of superiority and lead to abuse of power, as officers become authoritarian rather than authoritative (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2013; Wrong, 1979). In contrast, police officers who are under-confident about their self-legitimacy are more inclined to react impulsively and deny residents’ rights when interacting with them (Meško & Hacin, 2026). Besides the beneficial outcomes in relation to the public, positive perception of self-legitimacy influences police officers’ identification with the organization and internalization of the organizational goals, resulting in greater pro-organizational behavior (i.e., behaviors that are beneficial for the organization), while shielding police officers from negative experiences in the police organization (Tankebe, 2010; Wolfe & Nix, 2017).

Antecedents of Police Self-Legitimacy

The sources of police officers’ self-legitimacy are not fully understood due to an empirical gap in understanding the cultivation of agents of core antecedents (Bradford & Quinton, 2014). Police officers interact and are exposed to various audiences. The interactions with the latter provide the basis for the texture and quality of social relations, which are vital for verifying the self-image (Langley & Ariel, 2024). Empirical work (e.g., Hacin & Meško, 2022; Nix & Wolfe, 2017; Tankebe, 2019; Tankebe & Meško, 2015) exposed three prominent interactions between police and the public. This “recognition triad” is vital for receiving feedback and affirmation of police officers’ belief in their vested authority (Tankebe, 2019).

Group solidarity presents one of the key concepts of police self-legitimacy. The presence of strong bonds of camaraderie increases relational social capital, resulting in more efficient policing task implementation (Tankebe, 2014). In the context of these relations, police solidarity, in the form of unconditional support among police officers, has to be acknowledged (Kappeler et al., 2015). Due to the challenges police officers face, bonds emerge among them that affirm identity (Crank, 2015). Strong relations between police officers, based on trust and respect, enhance confidence in their own legitimacy (Fragale et al., 2012; Tankebe & Meško, 2015). Nix and Wolfe (2017) found that police officers who develop good relations with their colleagues and enjoy working with them tend to have a more positive perception of self-legitimacy.

Police managers, within the sphere of internal social dynamics, serve as a direct representation of the police organization to officers, influencing their identification with the organization (Trinkner et al., 2016). Supervisors’ support and recognition of police officers’ work and efforts enhance their legitimacy. Conversely, supervisors’ failure to demonstrate commitment to procedural justice, reflecting neutrality, voice, respect, and accountability, undermines police officers’ sense of inner surety, self-worth, and standing within the police organization (Meško et al., 2024; Van Craen, 2016). Van Craen and Skogan (2017) argued that police officers expect to: (a) be treated respectfully and fairly, (b) have their opinions considered/acknowledged, and (c) be given explanations for organizational decision-making. Police officers’ self-legitimacy is promoted or undermined by the quality of interactions between them and supervisors (Bradford & Quinton, 2014). The latter are pivotal in creating a productive working environment and determining the level of acceptance, recognition, and treatment of police officers (Langley & Ariel, 2024).

The third set of relations relates to the public over whom police officers exercise their power (i.e., policed communities; White et al., 2021). Langley and Ariel (2024) pointed out that police officers, as public servants, value the opportunity to understand public sentiment and use it to evaluate their own legitimacy. Residents serve as effective conduits through which police officers interpret their responses, thereby consolidating or modifying their confidence in their self-legitimacy. Similar to other social relations, police officers’ relations with the public (i.e., audience legitimacy) serve as a form of identity confirmation (Tankebe, 2019). Police officers should invest their time in relations with the public, as dialogue with residents shapes their sense of self-legitimacy. As Bradford and Quinton (2014) noted, police officers’ sense of self-legitimacy is greater when they feel residents support them.

Individual characteristics should not be neglected as possible antecedents of police officers’ self-legitimacy. Research provided mixed findings regarding the influence of police officers’ tenure and education (Nix & Wolfe, 2017; Tankebe, 2014; Tankebe & Meško, 2015). Also, correlations between age, sex, and race, and self-legitimacy were weak or non-significant findings (Bradford & Quinton, 2014; Hacin & Meško, 2022; Nix & Wolfe, 2017; Tankebe & Meško, 2015). In contrast, some evidence suggests that the type of working environment influences police self-legitimacy (Meško & Hacin, 2023).

Police Officers’ Self-Legitimacy and Its Antecedents in Slovenia

Researching police self-legitimacy in the Slovenian cultural context began with Tankebe and Meško’s (2015) study on the antecedents of police officers’ self-legitimacy and its effects on their willingness to engage in pro-organizational behavior. Research on police self-legitimacy in Slovenia expanded from the first studies that focused on testing the applicability of Western models in a former socialist cultural environment (Tankebe & Meško, 2015) to testing new (possible) antecedents of self-legitimacy and its outcomes (Meško & Hacin, 2026; Prislan et al., 2017), exploring similarities and differences between different groups in the criminal justice system (namely police officers and prison officers; e.g., Hacin & Meško, 2022; Meško et al., 2014), and finally first tests of the effects of social context on police officers’ perception of their own legitimacy (Hacin & Meško, 2022; Meško & Hacin, 2023). The Slovenian approach to studying self-legitimacy has been positioned in a dialogical nature of police legitimacy (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012), while police self-legitimacy itself was framed as a normative alignment with the societal norms rather than a felt obligation to duty, and operationalized as police officers’ moral rightness, confidence in their own authority, and an internalized sense of representing the values of society. The latter presents the basis of police officers’ self-identification as the rightful authority in society (Doyle & Roche, 2023; Gau & Paoline, 2021). Testing different models of self-legitimacy exposed “the recognition triad” model (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012, 2013; Tankebe, 2019) as most suitable for the Slovenian cultural environment. Following this model, external legitimacy (i.e., audience legitimacy) in the form of police officers’ perception of public support was considered an antecedent of self-legitimacy, as perceived public support presents one of the crucial sources of self-legitimacy (Barker, 2001).

Past studies have revealed differences in correlations between identified antecedents and police officers’ self-legitimacy, as well as positive correlations between the latter and police officers’ support for democratic/community policing and pro-organizational behavior, and the mediating effect of self-legitimacy on the use of force (Meško & Hacin, 2026; Tankebe & Meško, 2015). The current study builds on identified differences in correlations between “core variables” and police self-legitimacy, which may be a consequence of social contexts. Results of comparing police officers’ self-legitimacy across different time periods (i.e., analyses performed on samples gathered at different times) revealed shifts in correlations. However, samples from only two time periods were compared (Hacin & Meško, 2022; Meško & Hacin, 2023). Also, from a broader comparative perspective on Slovenian work on self-legitimacy, it is clear that the operationalization of factors varied across studies, preventing rigorous comparison. In the present study, we base our analyses on samples from three time periods and apply strict standards for operationalization of factors to test whether shifts in correlations can be treated as isolated incidents or a general trend indicating that profound changes occurred in the police organization in the observed period, as the (at least partial) result of wider social changes. The latter included the effects of economic crisis, greater politicization of the police, diminishing community policing orientation, violent suppression of demonstrations during COVID-19, recruitment problems, a generational shift in the police force, etc. We estimate that at least some of the above-mentioned changes affected police officers’ perception of their own legitimacy (e.g., performing tasks that go against individual’s moral beliefs), as well as, colleagues (e.g., closing ranks when losing support of the public), supervisors (e.g., loss of confidence with police officers due to politically led decisions and not professionalism), and the public (e.g., use of violence, and fewer interactions with residents due to changes in police practices).

A Brief Note on the Slovenian Police

The Slovenian police was formed in 1992 as a centralized force within the Ministry of the Interior, replacing the former people’s militia. The three-level organizational structure is in place: the national level (the General Police Directorate), regional level (eight Police Directorates), and local level (99 police stations; Meško & Lobnikar, 2018; Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve, Policija, 2023). Community policing is the adopted policing philosophy of the Slovenian police. It began to develop in the 1990s based on Western models, but most elements (under a different name) had already been present in policing since the socialist era. Police cooperation with local communities has been stipulated in national legislation, resolutions, and community policing strategies (Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve, Policija, 2013; Resolucija o dolgoročnem razvojnem programu policije do leta 2025, 2015; Zakon o policiji, 1998). Meško and Klemenčič (2007) noted that challenges of implementing community policing in practice remain, primarily due to poor relations between the police and the public in larger communities. Ponsaers (2015) argued that, despite low levels of corruption among Slovenian police officers, trust in the police has been lower than in Western European countries. The Slovenian public’s trust in the police fluctuated and was frequently disrupted in the last decade. Alleged excessive use of police powers upon protesters during COVID-19 restrictions, and political interference in police work and management damaged its reputation as an independent institution. Nevertheless, the public’s trust in the police in recent years (in the period under observation, 2013 to 2022) has been growing; measurements of the Slovenian public trust in the police on a national sample where 10-point scale was used (1, no trust at; 10, complete trust) revealed the following results: 2013 (M = 5.04, SD = 2.42), 2016 (M = 6.02, SD = 2.39), and 2022 (M = 6.04, SD = 2.28; Hafner-Fink et al., 2014, 2023; Kurdija et al., 2016), indicating that isolated incidents have limited influence on the overall public’s perception of police officers.

Method

Study Design

The three-stage study reported here was implemented at 24 police stations in 2013, 2016, and 2022. The initial research model was designed to enable periodic measurement of police officers’ self-legitimacy in Slovenia. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the last round of the survey was delayed. The police stations included in the study were selected based on the following criteria. From each of the eight police directorates in Slovenia, three police stations were selected based on size, jurisdictional area, approximate number of police officers, and location (rural or urban). The selected 24 police stations comprise eight large, eight medium, and eight small police stations. Before the study was implemented in each period, all materials (including the research proposal, research plan, and questionnaire) were sent to the General Directorate and the Police Academy for examination and approval by the team of experts responsible for the research. Based on their recommendation, consent was obtained from the Director General of the Slovenian police. According to the rules for scientific research in Slovenia and at our home institution, such permission was sufficient at the time the studies were implemented.

The survey took place in May and June of 2013, 2016, and 2022 by a team of researchers (including the authors of this article). Police chiefs from selected police stations were contacted via email and/or phone to schedule survey dates. They informed all police officers at their stations about the study before implementing the fieldwork. Surveying began with the researchers’ introduction of the research and their invitation to all police officers to participate. Police officers who gathered in common areas of police stations were informed of the voluntary nature of their participation and the confidentiality of their answers. The indication of the latter can be observed in the fact that not all invited police officers who gathered in the common areas decided to participate—they were asked to leave the area. During the survey, police chiefs were not present in the common areas.

Researchers explicitly instructed police officers who agreed to participate not to put down their names, last names, or signatures on the questionnaire. After the introductory part, questionnaires (paper-and-pencil method) were distributed to police officers who agreed to complete them. After completion, the researchers immediately collected the questionnaires. Participants’ answers were later entered into a dataset; all datasets are available online under an open license at the Slovenian Social Science Data Archives.

Survey Instrument

The survey instrument was first developed by Tankebe (2014) and later translated to measure police officers’ self-legitimacy in Slovenia. The survey instrument was preliminarily tested on a sample of 30 police officers studying as part-time undergraduate students at the authors’ home institution (Tankebe & Meško, 2015). The questionnaire, following the initial survey of police officers at 24 police stations conducted in 2013, was modified and significantly expanded. The (core) questions that relate to self-legitimacy and its antecedents (relations with colleagues, supervisors’ procedural justice, and audience legitimacy) have been included in all three surveying periods (2013, 2016, and 2022).

Participants

In total, 1,470 police officers (529 in 2013, 478 in 2016, and 463 in 2022, representing 6.23%, 5.82%, and 5.50% of all police officers) from 24 police stations in Slovenia participated in the survey; the data that would allow us to compare the characteristics of survey participants with those of police officers employed at the police stations included in the survey are not available. Only fully completed questionnaires were included in the sample (491 from 2013, 461 from 2016, and 428 from 2022, representing 92.81%, 96.44%, and 92.44% of all survey participants). The characteristics of the three samples are outlined in Table 1. The characteristics of sampled police officers in all periods partially reflect the overall composition of police officers in Slovenia, particularly concerning sex (male/female): 2013 (75.8%/24.2%), 2016 (74.6%/25.4%), and 2022 (73.0%/27.0%) and education (high school/higher education): 2013 (71.7%/28.3%), 2016 (71.0%/29.0%), and 2022 (20.4%/79.6%; Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve, Policija, 2014, 2017, 2023).

Table 1:

Sample Characteristics

Demographics		2013	2016	2022
		n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Sex	Male	396 (80.7)	380 (82.4)	345 (80.6)
Sex	Female	95 (19.3)	81 (17.6)	83 (19.4)
Age (in years)	20–24	22 (4.5)	7 (1.5)	27 (6.3)
	25–29	89 (18.1)	47 (10.2)	39 (9.1)
	30–34	131 (26.7)	91 (19.7)	35 (8.2)
	35–39	120 (24.4)	128 (27.8)	65 (15.2)
	40–44	81 (16.5)	107 (23.2)	92 (21.5)
	45<	48 (9.8)	81 (17.6)	170 (39.7)
Education	Completed high school	360 (73.3)	288 (62.5)	145 (33.9)
Education	Higher education	131(26.7)	173 (37.5)	283 (66.1)
Years of service (in years)	< 1	3 (0.6)	10 (2.2)	1 (0.2)
	1–5	87 (17.7)	18 (3.9)	77 (18.0)
	6–10	108 (22.0)	92 (20.0)	22 (5.1)
	11–15	129 (26.3)	118 (25.6)	70 (16.4)
	16<	164 (33.4)	223 (48.4)	258 (60.3)
Work environment	Urban	287 (58.5)	280 (60.7)	167 (39.0)
Work environment	Rural	204 (41.5)	181 (39.3)	261 (61.0)

Measures

The following section describes survey items included in the factor analyses. Drawing on the findings of previous studies (Hacin & Meško, 2022; Meško & Hacin, 2023; Meško et al., 2014), four modified factors were operationalized from 15 survey items that reflected police officers’ perceptions of the measured variables rather than the actual observed variables. Each factor represents a small number of latent variables, greatly simplifying the interpretation of multivariate analyses to follow (Abdi, 2003; Field, 2009). All survey items included in the factor analyses featured a 5-point Likert-type response ranging from “strongly disagree” (coded 1) to “strongly agree” (coded 5). Factor scores were calculated as the average sum of variables highly correlated with the factor (the cut-off value was set at .50; see Supplemental Materials). A principal axis extraction with varimax rotation was used, and the following factors emerged from the factor analysis: (a) Self-legitimacy (four survey items included, see Meško & Hacin, 2026), for example, The powers I have as a police officer are morally right; I am sure that I have enough authority to do my job; (2013: M = 3.71, SD = 77,768, Cronbach’s α = .66, Kaiser–Meyer–Okin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) = .72; var. = 32.29%; 2016: M = 3.78, SD = .69, Cronbach’s α = .65, KMO = .72; var. = 32.36%; 2022: M = 4.25, SD = .63, Cronbach’s α = .82, KMO = .78; var. = 57.23%); (b) Relations with colleagues (three survey items included, see Meško & Hacin, 2023; Prislan et al., 2017), for example, I feel that my colleagues trust me; I feel supported by my colleagues; (2013: M = 3.96, SD = .69, Cronbach’s α = .85, KMO = .70; var. = 67.51%; 2016: M = 3.98, SD = .75, Cronbach’s α = .87, KMO = .74; var. = 69.20%; 2022: M = 4.24, SD = .67, Cronbach’s α = .89, KMO = .72; var. = 73.37%); (c) Supervisors’ procedural justice (five survey items included, see Meško & Hacin, 2023; Tankebe, 2019), for example, My supervisor treats me with respect and dignity; The decisions by my supervisor are always based on facts, not personal biases; (2013: M = 3.30, SD = .92, Cronbach’s α = .88, KMO = .87; var. = 61.88%; 2016: M = 3.47, SD = .88, Cronbach’s α = .88, KMO = .87; var. = 61.07%; 2022: M = 3.90, SD = .83, Cronbach’s α = .90, KMO = .87; var. = 64.38%); and (d) audience legitimacy (three survey items included, see Hacin & Meško, 2022; Meško & Hacin, 2023), for example, Most residents believe that the police treat them fairly; Most residents believe that police officers always obey the law; (2013: M = 3.15, SD = .76, Cronbach’s α = .81, KMO = .70; var. = 59.66%; 2016: M = 3.21, SD = .64, Cronbach’s α = .72, KMO = .67; var. = 46.98%; 2022: M = 3.40, SD = .69, Cronbach’s α = .80, KMO = .68; var. = 58.12%).

In addition to the four factors, five socio-demographic variables were included in the subsequent multivariate regression analyses undertaken to control for spuriousness. All employed variables were binary-coded (1 = yes, 0 = no): Sex (Male police officers), Age (< 39 years), Education (Completed high school), Years of Service (< 15 years), and Work environment (Urban setting). The normality assumption of the dependent variable “Self-legitimacy” was tested graphically (histogram, Q–Q, and P–P plots, residuals). The observed variables, as well as residuals, were normally distributed.

Statistical Procedures

Responses from police officers were entered into a dataset and analyzed using SPSS version 31. First, Pearson’s correlation tests were performed to examine correlations among the formed factors and to test for multicollinearity. The results highlighted all three core variables as positively correlated with police officers’ self-legitimacy (across all three periods) and ruled out multicollinearity threats, as all correlations were lower than .80 (Field, 2009). Further diagnostic tests confirmed the initial assessment: the Variance Inflation Factor for the variables was less than 1.78 (in 2013), 1.66 (in 2016), and 2.66 (in 2022). Following this initial test, multivariate regression analyses with self-legitimacy as a dependent variable were conducted to identify antecedents of police officers’ self-legitimacy in different periods.

Results

Before employing multiple regression analyses with robust standard errors, a multilevel random-intercept model (i.e., null model) without any covariates was built and tested for the random intercept, given the nested nature of the data. As the survey was conducted across 24 police stations, examining data clustering was necessary. The results indicated that the random intercept is statistically insignificant (p < .32). Consequently, the multilevel model was not built.

The regression analyses focused on estimating police officers’ self-legitimacy in 2013, 2016, and 2022 (see Table 2). Police officers’ perception of their own legitimacy in 2013 was correlated with Relations with colleagues (β = .19; p < .001), Supervisors’ procedural justice (β = .26; p < .001), Audience legitimacy (β = .19; p < .001), Years of service (β = −.13; p < .01), and Work environment (β = .13; p < .01). Similarly, in 2016, Relations with colleagues (β = .32; p < .001), Supervisors’ procedural justice (β = .16; p < .001), and Audience legitimacy (β = .23; p < .001) correlated with self-legitimacy of police officers. In 2022, police officers’ self-legitimacy correlated with Relations with colleagues (β = .38; p < .001). Overall, the models explained 25.6% (2013), 29.6% (2016), and 25.1% (2022) of the variance in the perception of police officers’ self-legitimacy.

Table 2:

OLS Regression Analysis Predicting Self-Legitimacy of Police Officers

Self-legitimacy	2013				2016				2022
Self-legitimacy	B	SE	β	t	B	SE	β	T	B	SE	β	t
Relations with colleagues	.17	.05	.19	3.45***	.28	.04	.32	6.42***	.37	.06	.38	5.89***
Supervisors’ procedural justice	.22	.04	.26	4.98***	.13	.04	.16	3.42***	.10	.06	.10	1.76
Audience legitimacy	.16	.04	.19	3.69***	.21	.05	.23	4.73***	.10	.06	.10	1.76
Sex (Male)	.09	.09	.04	1.02	.09	.09	.04	.98	−.18	.12	−.08	−1.55
Age (<39 years)	.09	.09	.05	.96	−.02	.09	−.01	−.25	−.11	.14	−.06	−.83
Education (Completed high school)	−.04	.08	−.02	−.54	−.09	.07	−.05	−1.37	−.08	.09	−.04	−.93
Years of service (<15 years)	−.23	.09	−.13	−2.64**	.01	.09	.01	.16	.10	.14	.05	.75
Work environment (Urban setting)	.21	.07	.13	2.99**	.02	.07	.01	.22	.01	.08	.01	.13
F	20.72***				23.79***				17.52***
R ²	25.6%				29.6%				25.1%
n	491				461				428

Note. β = Standardized coefficient beta; se = Robust standard errors.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

Trinkner and Reisig (2022, p. 3) argued that: “Maintaining a stable system of rules, regulations, and social order is no easy task.” While police officers, as holders of authority, can enforce order through coercive means, such strategies become increasingly ineffective in complex societies. As societies mature and grow, authorities are not able to exercise complete control to maintain order. Consequently, the legitimacy and self-legitimacy of police are needed to promote compliant behavior among residents (Tyler & Trinkner, 2018). The findings on police self-legitimacy presented in the study support Bottoms and Tankebe’s (2021) argument that (self-)legitimacy depends on social contexts. Noteworthy differences in police officers’ perceptions of self-legitimacy and its antecedents emerged across survey periods. The samples were collected at the same police stations across all periods.

Nevertheless, findings should be interpreted with caution as the cross-sectional nature of the samples precludes causality claims. It can be assumed that wider changes in police organization and Slovenian society, such as loss of public confidence in the police, violent suppression of demonstrations, increasing politicization of police, etc., affected police officers’ self-legitimacy. Results show that police officers’ perception of self-legitimacy and its antecedents varied in observed periods. The following possible explanations for this phenomenon can be offered. The first relates to Gau and Paoline’s (2021) argument on the bidimensional nature of self-legitimacy (see also Debbaut & De Kimpe, 2023). It is possible that police officers’ self-legitimacy in the Slovenian cultural environment predominantly derives from the belief in their entitlement to authority, while external legitimacy has a minor role. This would explain greater police self-legitimacy in times when it does not enjoy widespread public support (Meško & Hacin, 2026); we further elaborate on this in the discussion of antecedents of self-legitimacy. The second explanation is more practical and derives from the specifics of the Slovenian context. The Slovenian police are faced with an increased human resources shortage, resulting in partial (or no) implementation of certain aspects of policing, especially community policing (Meško et al., 2024). Consequently, their activities are restricted to classic police tasks (e.g., patrolling, arresting suspects, and traffic control). Weak implementation of community policing activities may influence police officers’ sources of moral authority, leading them to justify their authority solely in performing classic police tasks rather than in developing relations within policed communities. This would explain why police self-legitimacy remains high, while relations with the public deteriorated. In contrast to Wolfe and Nix’s (2016) findings on the effects of police use of violence on self-legitimacy, the violent suppression of demonstrations during COVID-19 seems to have no adverse impact on police officers’ self-legitimacy or caused a “de-policing” effect.

Power holders must seek justification for their authority with subordinates and with themselves. Barker’s (2001) concentric model of legitimacy predicts that “the staff” has the greatest influence on power holders’ legitimacy, followed by “mighty citizens” and “ordinary citizens.” Applying this model in the field of police self-legitimacy suggests that prominent relations with colleagues, supervisors, and the public (should) constitute the three primary sources of police officers’ self-legitimacy (Tankebe & Meško, 2015). Overall, the findings confirmed that the recognition triad is vital for police officers to receive feedback and affirmation of their self-legitimacy (Tankebe, 2019). Examination of individual samples (by survey year) revealed that the antecedents of police self-legitimacy vary. The correlations between police self-legitimacy and relations with colleagues increased and were identified as the strongest predictor of police officers’ self-legitimacy in 2016 and 2022. In contrast, the importance of supervisors’ procedural justice decreased. While in 2013, the perceived supervisors’ fairness was the strongest predictor of police officers’ self-legitimacy, in 2022, no correlations were found. Audience legitimacy was generally identified as the weakest predictor of police officers’ self-legitimacy. These findings can be (at least partially) attributed to the broader changes in police organization and Slovenian society (discussed above).

Colleagues provide police officers with support in managing the daily stresses of police work and simultaneously offer them the much-needed validation of their position as the legitimate authority in society (Tankebe, 2019). It can be assumed that the quality of relations among police officers increased in the observed periods, due to the conflicting events that occurred in the police organization and society, namely the violent suppression of demonstrators during COVID-19, which confronts the philosophy and practice of community policing may have caused the division within the police force, as the majority of police officers performed their duties, due to the fear of repercussions (i.e., losing their job), while privately supporting the demonstrators. Also, ever greater political interference in policing (especially in police leadership) may lead to a loss of police officers’ trust in their leaders and, consequently, divisions along “us and them” lines within the police organization. Consequently, police officers turn to their colleagues to confirm their position as the legitimate authority. Similar to other studies (e.g., Nix & Wolfe, 2017; Tankebe, 2019), self-legitimacy was greater among police officers who felt recognized, supported, and accepted by their peers. While we acknowledge the possibility of other factors that could have influenced relations among police officers, we deem the above-stated reasons a plausible explanation of how changes at the societal and/or organizational levels influence relations among members.

Perception of supervisors as honest and capable leaders sets an example/standard for police officers and increases their sense of self-worth and self-legitimacy (Meško et al., 2024; Van Craen, 2016). Trinkner et al. (2016) argued that police managers represent the police organization to the officers and influence their self-identification as police officers. The interference of politicians in the work (and independence) of the police and especially the upper management of the police force may have decreased and ultimately removed (in the last observed period) supervisors as the source of police officers’ self-legitimacy. It is also possible that unfortunate events during demonstrations against COVID-19 restrictions that resulted in using police violence against demonstrators (orders from the managers that violate the inner moral compass of police officers) “removed” supervisors as the source of self-legitimacy for Slovenian police officers in the last observed period. This can be attributed to the supervisors’ failure to provide police officers with (acceptable) explanations for organizational decision-making (Van Craen & Skogan, 2017) and the apparent deterioration of relations between the groups (Bradford & Quinton, 2014). Finally, the systemic changes in the police, and the generational change of police officers may have caused the loosening of the hierarchical structure within the police force, where police officers’ alignment with the police organization and/or its leaders have become instrumental (i.e., avoiding sanctions) and not normative (i.e., internalized feeling of moral alignment with the institution and their leaders). Whether there is one of the above-stated reasons, a combination of them, or some alternative factor that influences the position of supervisors in the eyes of police officers, one thing is certain: the correlations have shifted in the observed periods.

Implementing democratic forms of policing requires police officers to strive for public recognition of their authority (Tyler & Trinkner, 2018). It seems that police officers wrongly interpreted adverse reactions from the public on their actions during the COVID-19 pandemic as an indicator of a significant and lasting deterioration of police officers-residents relations; measurements of public trust in police have shown an increase in the overall trust in police in Slovenian society (Hafner-Fink et al., 2014, 2023; Kurdija et al., 2016). Consequently, police officers may (temporarily) abandon the idea that, as public servants, they should understand the public and use it to evaluate their self-legitimacy (Langley & Ariel, 2024). Slovenian public opinion is rapidly changing, and the irrelevance of perceived audience legitimacy for police officers’ self-legitimacy may be only temporary. Residents serve as effective conduits through which police officers interpret their responses, thereby consolidating their perception of self-legitimacy (Tankebe, 2019). Interestingly, the correlations between audience legitimacy and self-legitimacy in 2022, when the public image of police deteriorated significantly, did not become negative but only weakened (further research is needed).

The contribution of this study to existing knowledge on police (self-)legitimacy can be summarized as follows. The study provides evidence in support of Bottoms and Tankebe’s (2021) theoretical assumptions on the unstable nature of police officers’ self-legitimacy and its antecedents. Empirical evidence was provided on the dependence of self-legitimacy on social contexts, namely, time (the comparative nature of the study). The findings also confirmed the recognition triad (i.e., sets of prominent relations with colleagues, supervisors, and the public) as antecedents of police self-legitimacy. Similar to other studies (e.g., Hacin & Meško, 2022; Tankebe, 2019; Tankebe & Meško, 2015), the strength of correlations between antecedents and self-legitimacy varied significantly, and the percentage of explained variance was relatively stable. The following main issues should be addressed in future studies. First, stronger empirical evidence is needed to test assumptions on the bidimensional nature of self-legitimacy (Debbaut & De Kimpe, 2023; Gau & Paoline, 2021), especially whether perceived audience legitimacy should be considered as a form of self-legitimacy or an antecedent of self-legitimacy (i.e., self-defined legitimacy). Second, new variables should be introduced in the existing models, as testing modified models of self-legitimacy in other regulatory organizations (e.g., prisons) exposed alternative sources of authority’s self-legitimacy (Hacin & Meško, 2023). Third, empirical evidence demonstrated positive outcomes of police legitimacy (e.g., Jonathan-Zamir & Harpaz, 2018; Nix & Wolfe, 2017; White et al., 2021). Testing correlations between self-legitimacy and beneficial police officers’ behavior (e.g., organizational commitment, interacting with residents, refraining from using force, etc.) should be the focus of future endeavors, as it would highlight the benefits of cultivating police officers’ self-legitimacy for policing practice in Slovenia. Fourth, the current study design(s) based predominantly on quantitative data should be supplemented in the future with qualitative data (i.e., mixed-method research approach) that would provide not only empirical evidence on the challenging nature of self-legitimacy and its antecedents, but also answers to why changes in police officers’ perception of their own legitimacy occur. Finally, while the comparative studies are valuable for further understanding of the complex nature of self-legitimacy, a proper longitudinal study still eludes researchers. A proper cohort (longitudinal) research design should be implemented in the future, allowing for a robust evaluation of the unstable nature of police legitimacy.

Limitations

The study reported in this article is not without limitations. As in all empirical studies involving survey respondents, the issue of their candor and sincerity arises. It is possible that police officers gave socially desirable answers during the survey due to fear of disclosure and potential consequences. To mitigate such behavior, confidentiality was ensured. Despite best efforts, some trepidation likely remained. The nature of the sample (i.e., [only] partial representativeness with the overall characteristics of all Slovenian police officers, and lack of data on police officers employed at the sampled stations) points out caution in generalization of the results. Due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, which captures police officers’ views in only one country, there is a possibility of bias. Police self-legitimacy and its antecedents can vary across cultural environments (e.g., Nix & Wolfe, 2017; Tankebe, 2019). A comparative study employing a mixed-methods approach should be implemented in the future. Causality must be acknowledged when interpreting the findings. The cross-sectional nature of the gathered samples limits the comparison of results. Across survey waves, differences in reliability and variance explained were observed. The differences in coefficient size (i.e., internal consistency and factor structure of self-legitimacy strengthen substantially in the last survey wave) may partially reflect variation in measurement precision. It is also possible that a substantive change in police officers’ understanding of their duties occurred. Further research is needed. The problem of measuring the impact of wider societal changes on police organization, and police officers’ self-legitimacy should also be highlighted, as the current study design, while identifying the shift in antecedents of self-legitimacy, cannot provide definitive answers as to why correlations (relations with colleagues, supervisors’ procedural justice, and audience legitimacy) have shifted in the observed periods. Future survey instruments should address this problem by including variables related to organizational changes (e.g., official policing policy, number of police officers, and their workload) and incorporating relevant statistical data into the models; also, the use of a mixed-methods approach would be beneficial for explaining why correlations shift.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-cjb-10.1177_00938548261433229 – Supplemental material for An Examination of Police Officers’ Self-Legitimacy: A Comparative Study in Slovenia

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cjb-10.1177_00938548261433229 for An Examination of Police Officers’ Self-Legitimacy: A Comparative Study in Slovenia by Gorazd Meško and Rok Hacin in Criminal Justice and Behavior

Footnotes

Authors’ Note:

The authors disclose receipt of the following financial support for the field research, authorship, and/or publication of this article by the Slovenian Research Agency’s grants (P5-0397) entitled “Safety and Security in Local Communities: Comparison of Rural and Urban Environments” and (J5-5548) entitled “Legitimacy and Legality of Policing, Criminal Justice and the Execution of Penal Sanctions.” The authors state that the paper complies with ethical standards. The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

ORCID iDs

Gorazd Meško

Rok Hacin

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material is available in the online version of this article at

Gorazd Meško is a Full Professor of Criminology at the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, University of Maribor, Slovenia. His research interests comprise policing, police legitimacy, and crime prevention.

Rok Hacin is an Associate Professor of Criminology at the Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, University of Maribor, Slovenia. His research interests comprise policing, police legitimacy, and crime and criminal justice statistics.

References

Abdi

(2003). Factor rotations in factor analyses. In Lewis-Beck

Bryman

Futing

(Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of social sciences research methods (Vol. 1, 1st ed., pp. 792–795). Sage. https://personal.utdallas.edu/~herve/Abdi-rotations-pretty.pdf

Archer

(2003). Structure, agency and internal conversation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139087315

Barker

(2001). Legitimating identities: The self-presentations of rules and subjects. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490163

Bottoms

A. E.

Tankebe

(2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102(1), 119–170. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/231036216.pdf

Bottoms

A. E.

Tankebe

(2013). “A voice within”: Power-holders’ perspectives on authority and legitimacy. In Tankebe

Liebling

(Eds.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: An international exploration (pp. 60–82). Oxford Academic.

Bottoms

A. E.

Tankebe

(2017). Police legitimacy and the authority of the state. In du Bois-Pedain

Ulväng

Asp

(Eds.), Criminal law and the authority of the state (pp. 47–88). Hart Publishing. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.7952

Bottoms

A. E.

Tankebe

(2021). Procedural justice, legitimacy and social contexts. In Meyerson

Mackenzie

MacDermot

(Eds.), Procedural justice and relational theory: Empirical, philosophical, and legal perspectives (pp. 85–110). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429317248-7

Bradford

Quinton

(2014). Self-legitimacy, police culture and support for democratic policing in an English constabulary. British Journal of Criminology, 54(6), 1023–1046. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azu053

Chen

Sun

Chao

Liu

(2025). Technology utilisation, self-legitimacy, and external procedural injustice: A study of Chinese police officers. Policing: An International Journal, 48(1), 194–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2024-0112

10.

Coicaud

J.-M.

(2002). Legitimacy and politics: A contribution to the study of political right and political responsibility. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490200

11.

Crank

J. P.

(2015). Understanding police culture (2nd ed.). Routledge.

12.

Debbaut

De Kimpe

(2023). Police legitimacy and culture revisited through the lens of self-legitimacy. Policing and Society, 33(6), 690–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2023.2183955

13.

Doyle

M. K.

Roche

S. P.

(2023). Investigating police self-legitimacy: Individual-level predictors of self-identification and perceived external legitimacy. Policing: An International Journal, 46(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-08-2022-0112

14.

Field

(2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Sage.

15.

Fragale

A. R.

Sumanth

J. J.

Tiedens

L. Z.

Northcraft

G. B.

(2012). Appeasing equals: Lateral deference in organizational communication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(3), 373–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212461439

16.

Gau

J. M.

Paoline

E. A.

(2021). Police officers’ self-assessed legitimacy: A theoretical extension and empirical test. Justice Quarterly, 38(2), 276–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1633387

17.

Hacin

Meško

(2022). Self-legitimacy of police officers in Slovenia. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 45(5), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-01-2021-0013

18.

Hacin

Meško

(2023). Self-legitimacy of prison workers and treatment of correctional clients: A study in Slovenian prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 51(1), 86–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231206844

19.

Hafner-Fink

Malnar

Kurdija

Uhan

Štebe

(2014). Slovensko javno mnenje 2013: Mednarodna raziskava Nacionalna identiteta, mednarodna raziskava Razumevanje vloge državljana in Ogledalo javnega mnenja [Slovenian public opinion 2013: International Survey National Identity, International Survey Understanding the Role of Citizens and Mirror of Public Opinion]. https://doi.org/10.17898/ADP_SJM13_V1

20.

Hafner-Fink

Uhan

Filipovič Hrast

Petrovčič

Kurdija

(2023). Slovensko javno mnenje 2022/1: Ogledalo javnega mnenja, raziskava o družini in spolnih vlogah (ISSP 2022), brezdomci, uporaba interneta [Slovenian public opinion 2022/1: A mirror of public opinion, Survey on Family and Gender Roles (ISSP 2022), homeless people, Internet use]. https://doi.org/10.17898/ADP_SJM221_V1

21.

Jonathan-Zamir

Harpaz

(2018). Predicting support for procedurally just treatment: The case of the Israel national police. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(6), 840–862. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818763230

22.

Kappeler

V. E.

Sluder

R. D.

Alpert

G. P.

(2015). Breeding deviant conformity. In Dunham

R. G.

Alpert

G. P.

McLean

K. D.

(Eds.), Critical issue in policing: Contemporary readings (7th ed., pp. 79–99). Long Grove.

23.

Kurdija

Hafner-Fink

Malnar

Podnar

(2016). Slovensko javno mnenje 2016/1: Raziskava o odnosu delo-družina, Stališča Slovencev o družinski problematiki in potrebah družin, Stališča o izbranih vidikih zdravja in zdravstva, Ogledalo javnega mnenja [Slovenian public opinion 2016/1: Survey on the work-family relationship, views of Slovenians on family issues and family needs, views on selected aspects of health and healthcare, public opinion mirror]. https://doi.org/10.17898/ADP_SJM161_V1

24.

Kutnjak Ivković

Maskály

Kule

Haberfeld

M. M

. (2022). Police code of silence in times of change. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96844-1

25.

Kyprianides

Bradford

Beale

Savigar-Shaw

Stott

Radburn

(2022). Policing the COVID-19 pandemic: Police officer well-being and commitment to democratic modes of policing. Policing and Society, 32(4), 504–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2021.1916492

26.

Langley

Ariel

(2024). Teaching police officers fairness: Lessons from a field trial in the United Kingdom. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-74367-2

27.

Meško

Eman

Modic

Hacin

(2024). Policijsko delo v skupnosti in partnersko zagotavljanje varnosti v lokalnih skupnostih [Community policing and partnership in providing safety and security in local communites]. Univerza v Mariboru, Univerzitetna založba, Fakulteta za varnostne vede.

28.

Meško

Hacin

(2023). Self-legitimacy of police officers in urban and rural environments. In Kutnjak

Ivković, Maskály

Donner

C. M.

Cajner Mraović

Das

D. k.

(Eds.), Exploring contemporary police challenges: A global perspective (pp. 61–72). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003136965-6

29.

Meško

Hacin

(2026). Police officers’ self-legitimacy and support for community policing. Police Practice and Research, 27(1), 42–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2025.2507119

30.

Meško

Klemenčič

(2007). Rebuilding legitimacy and police professionalism in an emerging democracy: The Slovenian experience. In Tyler

T. R.

(Ed.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: International perspective (pp. 84–114). Russell Sage Foundation.

31.

Meško

Lobnikar

(2018). Police reforms in Slovenia in the past 25 years. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 15(1), 236–250. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pay008

32.

Meško

Tankebe

Čuvan

Šifrer

(2014). Samozaznava legitimnosti policistov in pravosodnih policistov v Sloveniji: Perspektive postopkovne pravičnosti nadrejenih, odnosov s sodelavci in zaznane legitimnosti policije v javnosti [Self-legitimacy of police and prison officers in Slovenia: Perspectives on procedural justice of supervisors, relations with colleagues, and perceived legitimacy if the police in public]. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo, 65(3), 221–231.

33.

Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve, Policija [Ministry of the Interior, Police]. (2013). Zgodovina in razvoj policijskega dela v skupnosti [History and development of community policing]. https://www.policija.si/nase-naloge/druga-podrocja/policijsko-delo-v-skupnosti/zgodovina-in-razvoj-policijskega-dela-v-skupnosti

34.

Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve, Policija [Ministry of the Interior, Police]. (2014). Letno poročilo o delu Policije 2013 [Annual report on the work of the Police for 2013]. https://www.policija.si/images/stories/Statistika/LetnaPorocila/PDF/LetnoPorocilo2013.pdf

35.

Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve, Policija [Ministry of the Interior, Police]. (2017). Letno poročilo o delu Policije 2016 [Annual report on the work of the Police for 2016]. https://www.policija.si/images/stories/Statistika/LetnaPorocila/PDF/LetnoPorocilo2016.pdf

36.

Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve, Policija [Ministry of the Interior, Police]. (2023). Letno poročilo o delu Policije 2022 [Annual report on the work of the Police for 2022]. https://www.policija.si/images/stories/Statistika/LetnaPorocila/PDF/LetnoPorocilo2022.pdf

37.

Nix

Wolfe

S. E.

(2017). The impact of negative publicity on police self-legitimacy. Justice Quarterly, 34(1), 84–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2015.1102954

38.

Peacock

R. P.

Kutnjak Ivković

Cajner Mraovic

Borovec

(2023). Examining a third level of police organizational climate: Does organizational self-legitimacy shape officer attitudes on the job? Journal of Criminal Justice, 86(6), 102046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2023.102046

39.

Ponsaers

(2015). Is legitimacy police property? In Meško

Tankebe

(Eds.), Trust and legitimacy in criminal justice: European perspectives (pp. 93–110). Springer.

40.

Prislan

Meško

Lobnikar

Čuvan

(2017). Samozaznana legitimnost pri policistih v Sloveniji—primerjava med študijama v letih 2013 in 2016 [Self-legitimacy of Polcie Officers in Slovenia—A comparison between Studies in 2013 and 2016]. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo, 68(2), 100–115. https://www.policija.si/images/stories/Publikacije/RKK/PDF/2017/02/RKK2017-02_KajaPrislan_SamozaznanaLegitimnostPriPolicistihVSloveniji.pdf

41.

Punch

(2000). Police corruption and its prevention. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 8, 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008777013115

42.

Reisig

M. D.

Flippin

Meško

Trinkner

(2021). The effects of justice judgments on police legitimacy across urban neighborhoods: A test of the invariance thesis. Crime & Delinquency, 67(9), 1295–1318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128720977435

43.

Resolucija o dolgoročnem razvojnem programu policije do leta 2025 [The resolution of the long-term development program of the Police until 2025]. (2015). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia (No. 75/15). https://pisrs.si/pregledPredpisa?id=RESO107

44.

Tankebe

(2010). Identifying the correlates of police organizational commitment in Ghana. Police Quarterly, 13(1), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611109357324

45.

Tankebe

(2014). Rightful authority: Exploring the structure of police self-legitimacy. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2499717

46.

Tankebe

(2019). In their own eyes: An empirical examination of police self-legitimacy. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 43(2), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2018.1487870

47.

Tankebe

Bottoms

(2024). Legitimacy and evidence-based policy. In Welsh

B. C.

Zane

S. N.

Mears

D. P.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based crime and justice policy (pp. 223–244). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197618110.013

48.

Tankebe

Meško

(2015). Police self-legitimacy, use of force, and pro-organizational behavior in Slovenia. In Meško

Tankebe

(Eds.), Trust and legitimacy in criminal justice: European perspectives (1st ed., pp. 261–277). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09813-5_12

49.

Trinkner

Reisig

M. D.

(2022). The utility and limitations of the concentric diagram of legitimacy: Commentary on Hamm and colleagues. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 27(2), 160–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12224

50.

Trinkner

Tyler

T. R.

Goff

P. A.

(2016). Justice from within: The relations between a procedurally just organizational climate and police organizational efficiency, endorsement of democratic policing, and officer well-being. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(2), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000085

51.

Tyler

T. R.

(2024). The contributions of social/organizational psychology to policing. Organizational Psychology Review, 14(2), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866231225142

52.

Tyler

T. R.

Trinkner

(2018). Why children follow rules: Legal socialization and the development of legitimacy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190644147.001.0001

53.

Van Craen

. (2016). Understanding police officers’ trust and trustworthy behavior: A work relation framework. European Journal of Criminology, 13(2), 274–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370815617187

54.

Van Craen

Skogan

W. G

. (2017). Achieving fairness in policing: The link between internal and external procedural justice. Police Quarterly, 20(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611116657818

55.

Weber

(1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretative sociology (Vol. 2). University of California Press.

56.

White

D. R.

Kyle

M. J.

Schafer

J. A.

(2021). Police self-legitimacy and democratic orientations: Assessing shared values. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 23(4), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557211032603

57.

Wolfe

S. E.

Nix

(2016). The alleged “Ferguson Effect” and police willingness to engage in community partnership. Law and Human Behavior, 40(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000164

58.

Wolfe

S. E.

Nix

(2017). Police officers’ trust in their agency: Does self-legitimacy protect against supervisor procedural injustice? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(5), 717–732. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816671753

59.

Wrong

(1979). Power: Its form, bases and uses. Basil Blackwell.

60.

Wuestewald

M. I.

(2021). A legitimacy crisis? Exploring the relationships between police self-legitimacy, employee engagement, and civic engagement. Police Practice and Research, 23(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2021.1984913

61.

Zakon o policiji [Police Act]. (1998). Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia (No. 49/98). https://pisrs.si/pregledPredpisa?sop=1998-01-2140

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.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB