Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Exploring the Digital Shift in Crime Reporting: A Study of In-Person and Online Preferences in the Context of Police Legitimacy and Trust in E-Governance and Technology
This research examines factors influencing citizens’ crime reporting preference—in-person versus online. We explore the influence of police related variables such as legitimacy, fear of the police, and fear of victimization, as well as technology-related variables that include tech-acceptance, trust in e-governance tools, and smartphone dependency. The data for the study came from a survey of 570 university students from St. Petersburg, Russia. Findings from ordinary least squares analysis indicate that police legitimacy is positively related to willingness to report in-person and through technology. Conversely, fear of the police is negatively associated with in-person reporting but positively related to reporting via technology. Technology-related variables, including acceptance, dependency, and trust in e-governance, are positively associated with willingness to report in the overall model. However, in the full model, police legitimacy remains only marginally significant in explaining willingness to report using technology. The implications of these findings are discussed in enhancing citizens’ reporting preferences amidst the inevitable technology creep into crime prevention and criminal justice administration.
AkinlabiO. M. (2022). Police-citizen relations in Nigeria: Obstacles to trust and cooperation with the police. In AkinlabiO. M. (Ed.), Policing and the rule of law in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 50–69). Taylor & Francis.
2.
AlathurS.Vigneswara IlavarasanP.GuptaM. P. (2014). Determinants of citizens’ electronic participation: Insights from India. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 8(3), 447–472. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-09-2013-0034
3.
AltinM.YilmazR. (2022). Adoption of cloud-based accounting practices in Turkey: An empirical study. International Journal of Public Administration, 45(11), 819–833. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1894576
4.
AndersonE. (2000). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city: Decency, violence and the moral life of the inner city (Reprint edition). W. W. Norton & Company.
BalaskasS.PanagiotarouA.RigouM. (2022). The influence of trustworthiness and technology acceptance factors on the usage of e-government services during COVID-19: A case study of post COVID-19 Greece. Administrative Sciences, 12(4), 129. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040129
7.
BanerjeeA.ChattopadhyayR.DufloE.KenistonD.SinghN. (2021). Improving police performance in Rajasthan, India: Experimental evidence on incentives, managerial autonomy, and training. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 13(1), 36–66. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20190664
8.
BaumerE. P. (2002). Neighborhood disadvantage and police notification by victims of violence. Criminology, 40(3), 579–616. 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2002.tb00967.x
9.
BeckA.ChistyakovaY. (2002). Crime and policing in post-Soviet societies: Bridging the police/public divide. Policing & Society, 12(2), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439460290002677
10.
BeethamD. (1991). Power and its need of legitimation. In The legitimation of power (pp. 42–63). Palgrave. 10.1007/978-1-349-21599-7_2
11.
BélangerF.CarterL. (2008). Trust and risk in e-government adoption. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2007.12.002
12.
BennettR. R.WiegandR. B. (1994). Observations on crime reporting in a developing nation. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 32(1), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1994.tb01149.x
13.
BickmanL.HelwigH. (1979). Bystander reporting of a crime: The impact of incentives. Criminology, 17(3), 283–300. 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1979.tb01295.x
14.
BlackD. (1976). The behavior of law New York. Academic.
15.
BoatengF. D. (2018). Crime reporting behavior: Do attitudes toward the police matter?Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(18), 2891–2916. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516632356
16.
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azu021
17.
BrockdorffN.Appleby-ArnoldS. (2015). The citizens’ perspective: awareness, feelings and acceptance of surveillance and surveillance systems for fighting crime in Europe. A quantitative study. University of Malta.
BurdenM.MeldeC.McGarrellE. F.HeinzeJ. E.FranzenS.MichaelsK. (2023). Adolescent attitudes toward police and crime reporting intentions. Journal of Crime and Justice, 46(5), 593–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2023.2204242
20.
CampbellR.RajaS. (1999). Secondary victimization of rape victims: Insights from mental health professionals who treat survivors of violence. Violence and Victims, 14(3), 261. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.14.3.261
21.
CarterL.BélangerF. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00183.x
22.
CeccatoV. (2019). Eyes and apps on the streets: From surveillance to sousveillance using smartphones. Criminal Justice Review, 44(1), 25–41. 10.1177/0734016818818696
23.
Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS). (2018). Status of policing in India report 2018: A study of performance and perceptions. Retrieved on April 2, 2024. http://commoncause.in/pdf/SPIR2018.pdf
24.
ChandraD. (2025). Examining the contours and challenges of national cybercrime reporting portal in countering digital financial frauds. Journal of Victimology and Victim Justice, 8(1), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/25166069241306546.
25.
Cobbina-DungyJ. (2021). “I’m afraid of cops:” black protesters’ and residents’ perceptions of policing in the United States. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 19(3–4), 244–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2021.1973638
26.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
DavisR. C.HendersonN. J. (2003). Willingness to report crimes: The role of ethnic group membership and community efficacy. Crime & Delinquency, 49(4), 564–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128703254418
29.
de GruijterM.de PootC. J. (2019). The use of rapid identification information at the crime scene; similarities and differences between English and Dutch CSIs. Policing and Society, 29(7), 848–868. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2018.1434177
30.
DekkerR.van den BrinkP.MeijerA. (2020). Social media adoption in the police: Barriers and strategies. Government Information Quarterly, 37(2), 101441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101441
31.
DistelB. (2020). Assessing citizens’ non-adoption of public e-services in Germany. Information Polity, 25(3), 339–360. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-190214
32.
DunleavyP.MargettsH. (2023). Data science, artificial intelligence and the third wave of digital era governance. Public Policy and Administration, 40(2), 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767231198737.
33.
DunleavyP.MargettsH.BastowS.TinklerJ. (2006). New public management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057
34.
DwivediY. K.RanaN. P.JanssenM.LalB.WilliamsM. D.ClementM. (2017). An empirical validation of a unified model of electronic government adoption (UMEGA). Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.03.001
EisenhutK.SauerbornE.García-MorenoC.WildV. (2020). Mobile applications addressing violence against women: A systematic review. BMJ Global Health, 5(4), e001954. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2019-001954
37.
ElphickC.PhilpotR.ZhangM.StuartA.WalkingtonZ.FrumkinL. A.NuseibehB. (2021). Building trust in digital policing: A scoping review of community policing apps. Police Practice and Research, 22(5), 1469–1491. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2020.1861449
38.
ErentzenC.SchullerR. (2020). Exploring the dark figure of hate: Experiences with police bias and the under-reporting of hate crime. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 62(2), 64–97. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2019-0035
EstienneE.MorabitoM. (2016). Understanding differences in crime reporting practices: A comparative approach. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 40(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2015.1086397
41.
European Commission. (2017). Attitudes towards the impact of digitisation and automation on daily life. Special Eurobarometer 460 Report. Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2759/835661
42.
FerraroK. F. (1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. State University of New York Press.
43.
FerraroK. F.LaGrangeR. L. (1992). Are older people most afraid of crime? Reconsidering age differences in fear of victimization. Journal of Gerontology, 47(5), S233–S244. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/47.5.S233
44.
FisherB. S.DaigleL. E.CullenF. T. (2010). Unsafe in the ivory tower: The sexual victimization of college women. Sage.
45.
FisherB. S.DaigleL. E.CullenF. T.TurnerM. G. (2003). Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(1), 6–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854802239161
46.
FordK.BellisM. A.JuddN.GriffithN.HughesK. (2022). The use of mobile phone applications to enhance personal safety from interpersonal violence–an overview of available smartphone applications in the United Kingdom. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 1158. 10.1186/s12889-022-13551-9
47.
GerberT. P.MendelsonS. E. (2008). Public experiences of police violence and corruption in contemporary Russia: A case of predatory policing?Law & Society Review, 42(1), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2008.00333.x
48.
GilbertD.BalestriniP.LittleboyD. (2004). Barriers and benefits in the adoption of e-government. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(4), 286–301. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550410539794
49.
GingerichD. W.OliverosV. (2018). Police violence and the underreporting of crime. Economics & Politics, 30(1), 78–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecpo.12102
50.
GoetschelM.PehaJ. M. (2017). Police perceptions of body-worn cameras. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(4), 698–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-017-9415-5
51.
GoldfinchS.GauldR.HerbisonP. (2009). The participation divide? Political participation, trust in government, and e-government in Australia and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(3), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2009.00643.x
52.
GooldB. J. (2003). Public area surveillance and police work: The impact of CCTV on police behaviour and autonomy. Journal of Surveillance and Society, 1(2), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v1i2.3352
53.
GoudriaanH. (2006). Reporting crime: Effects of social context on the decision of victims to notify the police. Universal Press.
54.
GrahamA.KuligT. C.CullenF. T. (2020). Willingness to report crime to the police: Traditional crime, cybercrime, and procedural justice. Policing: An International Journal, 43(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2019-0115
55.
GuptaK. P.SinghS.BhaskarP. (2018). Citizens’ perceptions on benefits of e-governance services. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 10(1), 24–55. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2018.091261
56.
GurinskayaA.NallaM. K. (2020). Citizen satisfaction with private police in Russia: Does satisfaction with public police matter?Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 36(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219890210
57.
GuzyN.HirtenlehnerH. (2014). Trust in the German police: Determinants and consequences for reporting behavior. In Trust and legitimacy in criminal justice: European perspectives (pp. 203–229). Springer International Publishing.
58.
HenningK.KahnK.WuschkeK.PetersonC.YakotsS. (2024). Online crime reporting: A new threat to police legitimacy?. Retrieved October 21, 2024. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/ccj_fac/123
59.
HenningK.YakotsS.PetersonC.KahnK.WuschkeK. (2023, April). The impact of online crime reporting on community trust. Police Chief Magazine.
60.
HoodaA.GuptaP.JeyarajA.GiannakisM.DwivediY. K. (2022). The effects of trust on behavioral intention and use behavior within e-government contexts. International Journal of Information Management, 67, 102553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102553
61.
IgbinoviaP. E. (1982). The police in trouble: Administrative and organisational problems in the Nigeria Police Force. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 28(2), 334–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019556119820208
IodaJ. V.ShvetsovaI. N.MarkovaO. M.GorlovaE. A.PonomarevS. V. (2025). Digital technologies in state and regional governance: The case of Russia. In Corporate social responsibility to the green growth of business and economy (pp. 351–356). Springer Nature Switzerland.
64.
IriberriA.LeroyG.GarrettN. (2006, January). Reporting on-campus crime online: User intention to use. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’06) (Vol. 4, pp. 82a–82a). IEEE.
65.
JacksonJ.BradfordB. (2019). Blurring the distinction between empirical and normative legitimacy? A methodological commentary on ‘police legitimacy and citizen cooperation in China’. Asian Journal of Criminology, 14(4), 265–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-019-09289-w
66.
JacksonJ.PóschK.OliveiraT. R.BradfordB.MendesS. M.NatalA. L.ZaneticA. (2022). Fear and legitimacy in São Paulo, Brazil: Police–citizen relations in a high violence, high fear city. Law & Society Review, 56(1), 122–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12589
67.
JamesV. J.LeeD. R. (2015). Through the looking glass: Exploring how college students’ perceptions of the police influence sexual assault victimization reporting. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(14), 2447–2469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514553116
68.
JaureguiB. (2014). Provisional agency in India: Jugaad and legitimation of corruption. American Ethnologist, 41(1), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.12061
69.
JonesJ. R. (2023). Causes of Fear: An Examination of Why Black Citizens are Afraid of Police in the United States. International journal of criminal justice sciences, 18(1), https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9451-0535
70.
KääriäinenJ.SirénR. (2011). Trust in the police, generalized trust and reporting crime. European Journal of Criminology, 8(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370810376562
71.
KabanovY.ChugunovA. V. (2017). Electronic “pockets of effectiveness”: E-governance and institutional change in St. Petersburg, Russia. Electronic Government: 16th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2017, St. Petersburg, Russia, September 4–7, 2017, Proceedings 16 (pp. 386–398). Springer International Publishing.
72.
KabanovY.VidiasovaL. (2019). C2g online trust, perceived government responsiveness and user experience: A pilot survey in St. Petersburg, Russia. Electronic Government: 18th IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2019, San Benedetto Del Tronto, Italy, September 2–4, 2019, Proceedings 18 (pp. 57–68). Springer International Publishing.
73.
KhondakerM. I.WuY.LambertE. G. (2017). Bangladeshi immigrants’ willingness to report crime in New York City. Policing and Society, 27(2), 188–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2015.1040795
74.
KolsakerA.Lee-KelleyL. (2008). Citizens’ attitudes towards e-government and e-governance: A UK study. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(7), 723–738. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550810904532
75.
KrivosheyM. S.AdkinsR.HayesR.NemethJ. M.KleinE. G. (2013). Sexual assault reporting procedures at Ohio colleges. Journal of American College Health, 61(3), 142–147. 10.1080/07448481.2013.769260
76.
KromreyJ. D.Rendina-GobioffG. (2003). An empirical comparison of regression analysis strategies with discrete ordinal variables. General Linear Model Journal, 29(1), 30–43.
77.
LantzB.WengerM. R.MalcomZ. T. (2022). Severity matters: The moderating effect of offense severity in predicting racial differences in reporting of bias and nonbias victimization to the police. Law and Human Behavior, 46(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000477
78.
LasleyJ. R.PalomboB. J. (1995). When crime reporting goes high-tech: An experimental test of computerized citizen response to crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 23(6), 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(95)00043-7
79.
LightM.Mota PradoM.WangY. (2015). Policing following political and social transitions: Russia, Brazil, and China compared. Theoretical Criminology, 19(2), 216–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480614568742
80.
LinningS. J.BarnesJ. C. (2022). Third-party crime reporting: Examining the effects of perceived social cohesion and confidence in police effectiveness. Journal of Crime and Justice, 45(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2020.1856706
81.
LumC.StoltzM.KoperC. S.SchererJ. A. (2019). Research on body-worn cameras: What we know, what we need to know. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(1), 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12412
82.
MaddoxL.LeeD.BarkerC. (2012). The impact of psychological consequences of rape on rape case attrition: The police perspective. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27(1), 33–44. 10.1007/s11896-011-9092-0
83.
MadanM.NallaM. K. (2015). Exploring citizen satisfaction with police in India: The role of procedural justice, police performance, professionalism, and integrity. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 38(1), 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-06-2014-0063
MaratE.McCarthyL. A. (2021). Justice, crime and citizenship in Eurasia: A socio-legal perspective. Europe-Asia Studies, 73(1), 1–7. 10.1080/09668136.2020.1844964
86.
MarcheS.McNivenJ. D. (2003). E-government and e-governance: The future isn't what it used to be. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 20(1), 74–86. 10.1111/j.1936-4490.2003.tb00306.x
87.
MaslennikovaL.VilkovaT.SobeninA.TabolinaK.TopilinaT. (2021). Using online services to report a crime. Wisdom, 2(18), 120–128. https://doi.org/10.24234/wisdom.v18i2.450
88.
MathuraM. (2022). Exploring citizens perception of the police role and function in a post-colonial nation. Social Sciences, 11(10), 465. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11100465
89.
MeškoG.HacinR.EmanK. (2014). Trust in police by Slovenian law and criminal justice and security students. Varstvoslovje, 16(4), 471–491.
90.
MietheT. D.DudinskayaT.ForepaughC.SousaW. H. (2025). Facial recognition technology in policing: A national survey of public support for this technology and privacy/safety concerns. Crime & Delinquency, 71(4), 1025–1051. 10.1177/00111287221150172
91.
MoravcováE. (2016). Willingness to cooperate with the police in four central European countries. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22(1), 171–187. 10.1007/s10610-015-9271-0
92.
MurphyK.BarkworthJ. (2014). Victim willingness to report crime to police: Does procedural justice or outcome matter most?Victims & Offenders, 9(2), 178–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2013.872744
93.
MurphyK.CherneyA. (2012). Understanding cooperation with police in a diverse society. The British Journal of Criminology, 52(1), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azr065
94.
MwiyaM.PhiriJ.LyokoG. (2015). Public crime reporting and monitoring system model using GSM and GIS technologies: A case of Zambia police service. International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile Computing, 4(11), 207–226.
95.
NallaM. K.GurinskayaA. (2022). Police legitimacy or risk-avoidance: What makes people feel safe?Journal of Crime and Justice, 45(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2020.1852950
96.
NallaM. K.HammJ. A.PaekS. Y. (2018). Is police integrity an important predictor of citizen satisfaction in police in post-colonial emerging democracies? The case of India. Asian Journal of Criminology, 13(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-017-9254-9
97.
NatarajanM. (2016). Rapid assessment of “eve teasing” (sexual harassment) of young women during the commute to college in India. Crime Science, 5(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-016-0049-6
98.
NeterJ.KutnerM. H.NachtsheimC. J.WassermanW. (1996). Applied linear statistical models. WCB McGraw-Hill.
99.
NormanG. (2010). Likert Scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
100.
O’CassA.FenechT. (2003). Web retailing adoption: Exploring the nature of internet users Web retailing behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 10(2), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6989(02)00004-8
101.
ParasuramanA. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050024001
102.
PavlouP. A.FygensonM. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS quarterly, 30(1), 115–143. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148720
103.
Pérez-MoroteR.Pontones-RosaC.Núñez-ChicharroM. (2020). The effects of e-government evaluation, trust and the digital divide in the levels of e-government use in European countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 154, 119973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119973
104.
PickettJ. T.GrahamA.CullenF. T. (2022). The American racial divide in fear of the police. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 60(2), 291–320.
105.
PryceD. K.JohnsonD.MaguireE. R. (2017). Procedural justice, obligation to obey, and cooperation with police in a sample of Ghanaian immigrants. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(5), 733–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816680225
106.
ReisigM. D.LloydC. (2009). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and helping the police fight crime: Results from a survey of Jamaican adolescents. Police Quarterly, 12(1), 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611108327311
107.
RogersE. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
108.
SakiyamaM.MietheT. D.LiebermanJ. D.HeenM. S.TuttleO. (2017). Big hover or big brother? Public attitudes about drone usage in domestic policing activities. Security Journal, 30(4), 1027–1044. 10.1057/sj.2016.3
109.
SchiffK. J.SchiffD. S.AdamsI. T.McCrainJ.MourtgosS. M. (2023). Institutional factors driving citizen perceptions of AI in government: Evidence from a survey experiment on policing. Public Administration Review. 85(2), 451–467.https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13754
110.
SchmidthuberL.HilgersD.GegenhuberT.EtzelstorferS. (2017). The emergence of local open government: Determinants of citizen participation in online service reporting. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3), 457–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.07.001
111.
SemukhinaO.ReynoldsK. M. (2014). Russian Citizens’ perceptions of corruption and trust of the police. Policing and Society, 24(2), 158–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2013.784290
112.
SladeE. L.DwivediY. K.PiercyN. C.WilliamsM. D. (2015). Modeling consumers’ adoption intentions of remote mobile payments in the United Kingdom: Extending UTAUT with innovativeness, risk, and trust. Psychology & Marketing, 32(8), 860–873. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20823
113.
SmorgunovL.PopovaO.TropinovaE. (2020, June). Citizens’ attitudes to e-government: A study across ten Russian regions. International Conference on Digital Transformation and Global Society (pp. 250–262). Springer International Publishing.
114.
SpohnC.TellisK. (2012). The criminal justice system’s response to sexual violence. Violence Against Women, 18(2), 169–192. 10.1177/1077801212440020
115.
SousaW. H.MietheT. D.SakiyamaM. (2018). Inconsistencies in public opinion of body-worn cameras on police: Transparency, trust, and improved police–citizen relationships. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 12(1), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/pax015
116.
SunI. Y.LiL.WuY.HuR. (2018). Police legitimacy and citizen cooperation in China: Testing an alternative model. Asian Journal of Criminology, 13(4), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-018-9270-4
117.
SunshineJ.TylerT. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5893.3703002
118.
TankebeJ. (2009). Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: Does procedural fairness matter?Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 47(4), 1265–1293.
119.
TankebeJ. (2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 51(1), 103–135.
120.
TerlizziA. (2021). The digitalization of the public sector: A systematic literature review. Rivista Italiana di Politiche Pubbliche, 16(1), 5–38.
TolsmaJ.BlaauwJ.Te GrotenhuisM. (2012). When do people report crime to the police? Results from a factorial survey design in The Netherlands, 2010. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-011-9138-4
124.
TrinknerR. (2019). Clarifying the contours of the police legitimacy measurement debate: A response to Cao and Graham. Asian Journal of Criminology, 14(4), 309–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11417-019-09300-4
TylerT. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice, 30, 283–357. https://doi.org/10.1086/652233
127.
TylerT. R. (2006). Why people obey the law (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
128.
TylerT. R.HuoY. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. Russell Sage Foundation.
129.
Van de WeijerS. G.LeukfeldtR.van der ZeeS. (2021). Cybercrime reporting behaviors among smalland medium-sized enterprises in the Netherlands. In Cybercrime in Context: The human factor in victimization, offending, and policing (pp. 303–325). Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-030-60527-8_17
130.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
131.
VenkateshV.ThongJ. Y.XuX. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412
132.
WaltersG. D.BolgerP. C. (2019). Procedural justice perceptions, legitimacy beliefs, and compliance with the law: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15(3), 341–372. 10.1007/s11292-018-9338-2
WeyrichP.ScolobigA.WaltherF.PattA. (2020). Do intentions indicate actual behaviour? A comparison between scenario-based experiments and real-time observations of warning response. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 28(3), 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12318
135.
WilliamsM. D.RanaN. P.DwivediY. K. (2015). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): A literature review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(3), 443–488. 10.1108/JEIM-09-2014-0088
136.
WoodM. A.RossS.JohnsD. (2022). Primary crime prevention apps: A typology and scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(4), 1093–1110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020985560
XieM.Ortiz SolisV.ChauhanP. (2024). Declining trends in crime reporting and victims’ trust of police in the United States and major metropolitan areas in the 21st century. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 40(1), 138–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862231190212
