A significant body of research has demonstrated the importance of procedurally fair policing in fostering citizens’ feelings of obligation to obey the police. A handful of recent studies have begun to explore the role of community processes within this relationship. They show perceptions of police use of procedural justice, and their consequences can vary according to community context. The present study utilizes data collected within a randomized controlled trial of procedural justice in policing, the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET). We find perceived community norms about obeying the police are strongly associated with individuals’ own feelings of obligation to obey police. Moreover, this relationship holds net of individual assessments of police. Second, procedurally just policing appears to have a greater effect on the obligation to obey police for those who believe others in their community feel less obligated to obey the police. Results demonstrate that one’s ties to the community can therefore moderate the associations between procedural justice and the obligation to obey police. The findings are interpreted within a social-psychological framework.
AntrobusE.ElffersH.WhiteG.MazerolleL. (2014). Non-response bias in randomized controlled experiments in criminology: Putting the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET) under a microscope. Evaluation Review, 37, 197-212.
2.
AschS. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In GuetzkowH. (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men (pp. 222-236). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.
3.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). 2011 census of population and housing basic community profile (Cat. No. 2001.0). Canberra: Author.
4.
BaumeisterR. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91(1), 3-26.
5.
BaumeisterR.HuttonD. (1987). Self-presentation theory: Self-construction and audience pleading. In MullenB.GoethalsG. (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 71-87). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
6.
BladerS. L.TylerT. R. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: Defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 747-758.
7.
BottomsA.TankebeJ. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102, 119-170.
8.
BradfordB.JacksonJ.HoughM. (2013). Police legitimacy in action: Lessons for theory and practice. In ReisigM.KaneR. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of police and policing (pp. 551-570). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9.
BradfordB.JacksonJ.StankoE. A. (2009). Contact and confidence: revisiting the impact of public encounters with the police. Policing and Society, 19(1), 20–46
10.
BrunsonR. K. (2007). “Police don’t like black people”: African-American young men’s accumulated police experiences. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(1), 71-101.
11.
CherneyA.MurphyK. (2013). Policing terrorism with procedural justice: The role of police legitimacy and law legitimacy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 46(3), 403–421.
12.
CialdiniR. B. (2001). Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 79(9), 72-81.
13.
CialdiniR. B.KallgrenC. A.RenoR. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24., pp. 201-234). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
14.
CialdiniR. B.KallgrenC. A.RenoR. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201-234). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
15.
Crime and Misconduct Commission. (2011). Public perceptions of the Queensland Police service: Findings from the 2010 Public Attitudes Survey. Brisbane, Australia: Author.
16.
De CremerD.BarkerM. (2003). Accountability and cooperation in social dilemmas: The influence of others’ reputational concerns. Current Psychology, 22, 155-163.
17.
De CremerD.SedikidesC. (2008). Reputational implications of procedural fairness for personal and relational self-esteem. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(1), 66-75.
18.
DornbuschS. M.ScottW. R. (1975). Evaluation and the exercise of authority. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19.
ElliottI.ThomasS. D. M.OgloffJ. R. P. (2011). Procedural justice in contacts with the police: Testing a relational model of authority in a mixed methods study. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 592-610.
20.
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.
21.
Goodman-DelahuntyJ. (2010). Four ingredients: New recipes for procedural justice in Australian policing. Policing, 4, 403-410.
22.
HindsL.MurphyK. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(1), 27-42.
23.
JacksonJ.BradfordB. (2009). Crime, policing and social order: On the expressive nature of public confidence in policing. The British Journal of Sociology, 60, 493-521.
24.
JacksonJ.BradfordB.HoughM.MyhillA.QuintonP.TylerT. R. (2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 1051-1071.
25.
JacksonJ.BradfordB.StankoB.HohlK. (2013). Just Authority? Trust in the police in England and Wales. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
26.
JohnsonC.DowdT. J.RidgewayC. L. (2006). Legitimacy as a social process. Annual Review Sociology, 32, 53-78.
27.
KochelT. R. (2012). Can police legitimacy promote collective efficacy?Justice Quarterly, 29, 384-419.
28.
LindE. A.TylerT. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
29.
LongM. A.CrossJ. E.ShelleyT. O. C.IvkovićS. K. (2013). The normative order of reporting police misconduct: Examining the roles of offense seriousness, legitimacy, and fairness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 76, 242-267.
30.
MazerolleL.AntrobusE.BennettS.TylerT. R. (2013). Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: A randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology, 51(1), 33-63.
31.
MazerolleL.BennettS.AntrobusE.EgginsE. (2012). Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: Main findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8, 343-367.
32.
MearesT. L. (2000). Norms, legitimacy and law enforcement. Oregon Law Review, 79, 391-416.
33.
MearesT. L. (2002). Signaling, legitimacy, and compliance: A comment on Posner’s law and social norms and criminal law policy. University of Richmond Law Review, 36, 407-422.
34.
MurphyK. (2013). Policing at the margins: Fostering trust and cooperation among ethnic minority groups. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 8, 184-199.
35.
MurphyK.CherneyA. (2011). Fostering cooperation with the police: How do ethnic minorities in Australia respond to procedural justice-based policing?Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44, 235-257.
36.
MurphyK.HindsL.FlemingJ. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Policing & Society, 18, 136-155.
37.
MurphyK.MazerolleL.BennettS. (2014). Promoting trust in police: Findings from a randomised experimental field trial of procedural justice policing. Policing & Society, 24, 405-424.
38.
MurphyK.TylerT. R.CurtisA. (2009). Does procedural justice help authorities when people question the underlying legitimacy of the law?Regulation & Governance, 3(1), 1-26.
39.
PaternosterR. (1987). The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues. Justice Quarterly, 4, 173-217.
40.
RosenbaumD. P.SchuckA. M.CostelloS. K.HawkinsD. F.RingM. K. (2005). Attitudes toward the police: The effects of direct and vicarious experience. Police Quarterly, 8, 343-365.
41.
SampsonR. J.BartuschD. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural) tolerance of deviance: The neighborhood context of racial difference. Law & Society Review, 32, 777-804.
42.
SmithJ. R.LouisW. R.TerryD. J.GreenawayK. H.ClarkeM. R.ChengX. (2012). Congruent or conflicted? The impact of injunctive and descriptive norms on environmental intentions.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 353-361.
43.
SmithH. J.TylerT. R.HuoY. J.OrtizD. J.LindE. A. (1998). The self-relevant implications of the group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, and treatment quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 470-493.
44.
SunshineJ.TylerT. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37, 513-548.
45.
ThibautJ. W.WalkerL. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46.
TylerT. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
47.
TylerT. R. (2008). Psychology and institutional design. Review of Law & Economics, 4(3), 801–887
48.
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.
49.
TylerT. R.HuoY. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
50.
TylerT. R.LindE. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. New York, NY: Academic Press.
51.
WeberM. (1968). Economy and Society: An Interpretive Sociology, Vols. 1-3, (Ed.), RothGWittichC. New York, NY: Bedminister.
52.
WenzelM. (2005). Motivation or rationalisation? Causal relations between ethics, norms and tax compliance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 491-508.
53.
WilliamsK. R.HawkinsR. (1986). Perceptual research on general deterrence: A critical review. Law & Society Review, 545-572.
54.
ZelditchM.Jr. (2006). Legitimacy theory. In BurkeP. J. (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 324-352). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
