Arrestees’ Perceptions of the Police

Abstract

Only a handful of studies have sought to explore the robustness of the relationship between procedural justice, police legitimacy, and willingness to cooperate with police among adults who have recently been arrested. The findings from those studies have raised questions about the durability of the framework for offenders, as well as whether there may be variation in perceptions of police across offender types. The current study explores these issues using data from interviews with a large, criminally diverse sample of recently booked arrestees in Maricopa County, AZ, from 2010 to 2012 (N = 2,262). Findings indicate that procedural justice is strongly associated with views of police legitimacy, and perceptions of police legitimacy do not vary by offender type. Procedural justice and legitimacy perceptions are powerful predictors of willingness to cooperate with the police. Results provide strong support for the extension of the normative, process-based framework to the arrestee population.

Keywords

procedural justice police legitimacy cooperation with police

Research has highlighted the limitations of the instrumental, deterrence-based approach to securing citizen cooperation with the police and compliance with the law (Tyler & Fagan, 2008). Scholars have recently offered an alternative framework that is normative and process based, whereby law-abiding behavior is derived from a perceived moral obligation to obey legal authorities (Tyler, 1990, 2006). This moral obligation is generated when legal authorities, such as the police, exercise their power in a fair, procedurally just manner. In simple terms, procedurally just behavior by officers leads to enhanced perceptions of police legitimacy (Mazerolle, Antrobus, Bennett, & Tyler, 2013; Tyler, 2006). This linkage has important implications for the police, as research has consistently shown that legitimacy can lead to greater levels of cooperation and compliance with the law (McEwan & Maiman, 1984; Paternoster, Brame, Bachman, & Sherman, 1997; Tyler, 1990, 2006; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). As a result, legitimacy has been increasingly recognized as an important outcome measure for the police.

Much of the research examining the procedural justice–legitimacy link has relied on general population samples, whereby respondents are asked to recall past encounters with the police. These studies have advanced our knowledge in important ways, but they often fail to capture the views and experiences of citizens who most frequently interact with the police. Although researchers have explored procedural justice and legitimacy views among prisoners (e.g., Reisig & Mesko, 2009) and crime victims (Laxminarayan, 2012; Murphy & Barkworth, 2014), only a handful of studies have sought to explore the robustness of the procedural justice–legitimacy framework among adults who have recently been arrested (e.g., Papachristos, Meares, & Fagan, 2012; Paternoster et al., 1997). The findings from those studies are mixed and have raised questions about the durability of the normative framework for the adult criminal justice-involved population (Papachristos et al., 2012; Reisig & Mesko, 2009).

Despite the inconsistent findings from the few studies examining the normative framework among arrestees, there are theoretical foundations which suggest that procedural justice and legitimacy should be valued among an offender population. Recent research has shown that when people feel fairly treated by the police, their own perceived value and social identity is enhanced, which leads to stronger “connections to the social groups those authorities represent” (Bradford, Murphy, & Jackson, 2014, p. 528; also see Blader & Tyler, 2009). The group engagement framework posits that procedural justice provides cues to individuals about their relationship and standing within a group (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992). Criminal offenders are arguably more uncertain than others about their group status, and they may value the normative framework as a mechanism to confirm and enhance their status. Nevertheless, the robustness of the normative framework for the arrestee population remains unclear and requires further study.

The current article explores these issues through an examination of the experiences of a large, criminally diverse group of more than 2,200 recently booked arrestees in Maricopa County, Arizona. From 2010 to 2012, arrestees were asked a series of questions that capture general perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy, as well as their likelihood of cooperating with the police under a variety of circumstances (e.g., calling the police or providing information). The sample includes a varied group of arrestees charged with a wide range of offenses including violent (n = 451, 19.94%), property (n = 464, 20.51%), drug (n = 625, 27.63%), and miscellaneous other (n = 722, 31.92%) crimes.¹

The authors use multivariate analysis to investigate two research questions. The first question involves whether the normative, process-based framework for law-abiding behavior extends to individuals who have recently been arrested. This question is examined through a series of multivariate analyses that assess the association between arrestees’ views of procedural justice and their perceptions of police legitimacy, while controlling for other relevant factors.

The authors also explore the final element of the normative framework by testing the impact of procedural justice and legitimacy perceptions on the willingness to cooperate with the police. The second research question centers on the extent to which there is variation in perceptions of procedural justice, legitimacy, and willingness to cooperate with police among different offender types.² The article concludes with a discussion of the theoretical implications for the normative, process-based framework for explaining law-abiding behavior, as well as the practical implications for assessing police behavior during formal arrest encounters.

Prior Research

Police Legitimacy and its Corollaries

Weber (1968) maintained that an institutional arrangement, like policing, is legitimate if it has the approval and voluntary support of those who belong to the institution’s group. Tyler (1990) defined legitimacy as “a psychological property of an authority, institution, or social arrangement that leads those connected to it to believe that it is appropriate, proper, and just” (p. 375). Tyler (2006) argued that legitimacy generates deference to authority through self-regulation, as people follow the law and obey the police because they believe it is the right thing to do (see also Sunshine & Tyler, 2003).

The value of legitimacy for police lies in how it shapes citizens’ attitudes and behavior. Prior research has consistently connected enhanced police legitimacy to important outcomes for the police, most notably citizen compliance with police commands during an encounter, cooperation with police authority (reporting crimes, providing information about crimes, etc.), and obedience to the law (Hinds, 2009; Hinds & Murphy, 2007; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002). In Tyler’s (1990) seminal study of Chicago residents, he found that citizen assessments of the legitimacy of authorities were predictive of self-reported minor offending (i.e., offending was more common among those who had lower levels of legitimacy). Using survey data from New York City residents, Sunshine and Tyler (2003) confirmed the relationship between perceived legitimacy and cooperation with the police, including increased willingness to report a crime (see also Tyler & Huo, 2002). Mastrofski, Snipes, and Supina (1996) and McCluskey, Mastrofski, and Parks (1999) both examined citizen behaviors during encounters with police and reported that compliance with police commands was strongly associated with citizens’ perceptions of legitimacy (see also Mazerolle, Bennett, Davis, Sargeant, & Manning, 2012).

Reisig and Mesko (2009) stated that the strong sense of obligation “to obey legal officials can mitigate individual self-interest during encounters with authorities, increase the odds that authorities’ decisions will be accepted, and elevate the likelihood that individuals will comply with legal statutes over the long run” (pp. 42-43). Tyler and Fagan (2008) concluded that enhanced feelings of police legitimacy increase the likelihood that citizens will report crimes in their neighborhood to the police. Kane (2006) extended this framework by suggesting that compromised legitimacy will not only lower citizen compliance and cooperation with the police, it may also lead to increases in crime, especially in disadvantaged neighborhoods as citizens solve their problems through alternative, sometimes violent means.

Procedural Justice as a Mechanism for Achieving Legitimacy

Mazerolle et al. (2012) articulated a logic model for generating police legitimacy, which identified five distinct pathways to enhance citizen attitudes of the police. These pathways include improved performance, engaging in distributive justice, relying on the law, and relying on the strength of their reputation (Mazerolle et al., 2012). The fifth mechanism for producing enhanced police legitimacy is procedural justice. Procedural justice is typically defined as the way in which police treat citizens and the fairness of the decisions that police make (Reisig & Lloyd, 2009; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Prior research has identified four key components of procedural justice: citizen participation (being given the opportunity to state one’s case), fairness and neutrality, dignity and respect, and trustworthy motives (Goodman-Delahunty, 2010; Tyler & Huo, 2002).³

Thibaut and Walker (1975) were among the first to apply the term “procedural justice” to characterize the role of process in formal decision making, and since that time, research has highlighted the importance of procedural justice as a mechanism for generating enhanced police legitimacy (Casper, Tyler, & Fisher, 1988; Hinds & Murphy, 2007; Leventhal, 1980; Lind, 1982; Lind & Tyler, 1988; McEwan & Maiman, 1984; Tyler, Rasinski, & Spodick, 1985). Tyler (1990) found that citizens who believed that they had been treated fairly by police (or the court) had more positive attitudes about the encounter and were more likely to view those authorities as legitimate compared with those who did not believe they had been treated fairly. A number of studies have found that procedurally just behavior by police during citizen encounters leads to citizens being more satisfied with the interaction itself, as well as the outcome (Mastrofski et al., 1996; McCluskey, 2003; Reisig, Bratton, & Gertz, 2007; Tyler & Wakslak, 2004; Wells, 2007). Sunshine and Tyler (2003) concluded that global views of procedural justice are a key ingredient for generating police legitimacy, and several studies have noted that the relationship persists even in encounters with negative outcomes (Tyler & Fagan, 2008).

Research has also documented that legitimacy is weakened when police are viewed as procedurally unjust (Fischer, Harb, Al-Sarraf, & Nashabe, 2008). Gau and Brunson (2010) found that aggressive use of stop and frisk tactics can compromise views of procedural justice and legitimacy among young Black males. Hagan, Payne, and Shedd (2005) examined racial/ethnic differences in perceptions of injustice (e.g., no procedural justice) among more than 18,000 Chicago public school students, and they found that Black students reported the highest level of perceived injustice, followed by Latinos, and that perceptions of injustice intensified with increased personal contact with police.⁴

In addition, though prior research is consistent on the importance of global views of procedural justice for generating legitimacy, Mazerolle et al. (2013) noted that the effect of police behavior in specific encounters on legitimacy is less clear (see also Gau, 2014). Skogan (2006) found that police can gain little in terms of global legitimacy through procedurally just behavior in a specific encounter. However, negative or procedurally unjust behavior can quickly undermine legitimacy through what Mazerolle et al. (2013) termed an “asymmetrical effect” (p. 37; see also Bradford, Jackson, & Stanko, 2009; Brandl, Frank, Worden, & Bynum, 1994; Hawdon, 2008). Mazerolle and colleagues (2013) explored this question through a randomized controlled trial that tested the impact of a short, procedurally just police encounter on both specific and generalized views of legitimacy. They found that motorists who received the procedurally just intervention reported more positive views of the police, both in the specific encounter and more generally, which challenged Skogan’s assertions of an asymmetrical effect.

Despite the strong empirical support for the normative-based framework, a number of scholars have identified limitations in the model espoused by Tyler and others. Beetham (1991) criticized Weber’s work on legitimate power (viewed as the foundation of the “Tylerian”⁵ model), arguing that there is an underlying structure to legitimacy (composed of three elements: legal validity [conformity to rules], shared values [moral alignment], and consent) that is common across societies regardless of cultural differences (see also Hough, Jackson, Bradford, Myhill, & Quinton, 2010; Jackson et al., 2012). Tankebe (2009) examined the normative framework in Ghana and found that cooperation with police was significantly influenced by perceptions of police effectiveness, not procedural fairness. Bottoms and Tankebe (2012) noted that the current body of research has over-emphasized the reaction of citizens and not properly accounted for the role of the power holder, as legitimacy is defined by a multilateral, fluid relationship among power holders and the audience.

In an empirical test of these arguments using citizen survey data from London, Tankebe (2013) found that legitimacy is composed of multiple dimensions including procedural fairness, distributive fairness (e.g., outcomes are important), lawfulness, and effectiveness. Based on his findings, Tankebe (2013) levied two critiques regarding the measurement of legitimacy under the “Tylerian” model: (a) “obligation (to obey the law) is better conceptualized as one consequence of perceived legitimacy, rather than as a component of legitimacy”; and (b) “the findings suggest that what police researchers have persistently tended to use as predictors of legitimacy (procedural fairness, distributive fairness, lawfulness, and effectiveness) are rather the constituent parts of legitimacy”⁶ (pp. 124-125).

Police Legitimacy among Criminal Justice Involved Populations

A small body of research has explored perceptions of procedural justice, police legitimacy and its corollaries among criminal justice-involved individuals.⁷ A number of scholars have explored procedural justice and legitimacy among victims of crime (Laxminarayan, 2012; Murphy & Barkworth, 2014; Wemmers, 2013). With regard to offender-based studies, Piquero, Fagan, and colleagues have written a series of papers examining the relationship between legal socialization and offending among court-involved juveniles. Piquero et al. (2005) tested the relationship between perceptions of procedural justice and two components of legal socialization—legitimacy and legal cynicism—among more than 1,300 juvenile offenders. They found that measures of legitimacy and legal cynicism were stable over time, and that views of procedural justice were highly correlated with both legal cynicism and legitimacy. In a follow-up study, Fagan and Piquero (2007) tested a combined rational choice and legal socialization framework for offending, finding again that procedural justice is a significant predictor of legitimacy, but not legal cynicism (see also Lee, Piquero, & Steinberg, 2010).

There have been notably fewer studies of perceptions of procedural justice and police legitimacy among adults involved in the criminal justice system, particularly those who have recently been arrested. Tyler (1988) interviewed 628 individuals accused of felony offenses both before and after adjudication of their cases, and found that procedural justice strongly influenced their perceptions of the law and the legitimacy of legal authorities (see also Casper et al., 1988). Paternoster et al. (1997) documented a connection between procedurally just behavior by police and lower rates of recidivism among domestic violence offenders. Alternatively, Reisig and Mesko (2009) examined elements of the normative framework using official prison records and survey data from 103 prisoners in a Slovene prison, and they found no relationship between measures of procedural justice and legitimacy.

More recently, Papachristos et al. (2012) examined perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy among a group of 141 active gun offenders in Chicago. The authors concluded that

The findings suggest that while criminals as a whole have negative opinions of the law and legal authority, these offenders are more likely to comply with the law when they believe in (a) the substance of the law, and (b) the legitimacy of legal actors, especially the police. (Papachristos et al., 2012, p. 398)

Papachristos et al. (2012) also found that there was variation in views among their sample of offenders, as gang members with strong criminal networks reported substantially weaker views of police legitimacy. Papachristos et al. noted that the findings are limited by their narrow sample (violent gun offenders in high-crime African American neighborhoods), and they called for additional studies that “will expand this type of research to other settings and offending populations” (p. 437). The current study responds to this call from Papachristos et al. by exploring perceptions of procedural justice, police legitimacy, and willingness to cooperate with police among a large, criminally diverse sample of recently booked and jailed arrestees from Maricopa County, Arizona.

Method

The authors examine data from interviews of 2,262 individuals arrested for a wide range of offenses by officers in more than a dozen different police departments in Maricopa County, Arizona, from June 1, 2010 through May 31, 2012. Data were collected through the Arizona Arrestee Reporting Information Network (AARIN), a locally funded initiative in Maricopa County that monitors drug use trends, treatment needs, and at-risk behavior among recently booked arrestees. The project was originally established in 1987 by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) under the auspices of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program, and later the Arrestee Drug Abuse Program (ADAM). In January 2004, ADAM operations were suspended by NIJ due to federal spending constraints. In 2007, Maricopa County re-established (and re-named) the program with local funding provided by the County Manager’s Office.

The AARIN project uses the same rigorous methodology as its predecessor (ADAM), grounded in a systematic sampling protocol with quarterly data collection from the county jail facility.⁸ During data collection periods, interviews are conducted with arrestees who are randomly selected based on booking time using a stock (i.e., arrested during non-data collection hours) and flow (i.e., arrested during data collection hours) selection process. Each selected arrestee was asked to complete the core AARIN instrument which, based on its predecessors from DUF and ADAM, gathers a range of self-report data on background and demographics as well as a wide range of individual-level attributes. At the end of the interview, each respondent was asked to provide a urine sample, which was analyzed for alcohol and four different drugs: marijuana, cocaine, opiates, and methamphetamine.⁹ Over the study period, more than 90% of approached adult arrestees agreed to participate in the study; and 90% of those who were interviewed also provided a urine specimen.

Sample

Table 1 displays the background characteristics of the arrestee sample (see Appendix A for correlation matrix).¹⁰ Three quarters of the sample were male (75.82%), and about half was White (47.04%). Over 70% graduated from high school, obtained their General Educational Development (GED) degree, or graduated college, and approximately 50% had at least part-time (legal) employment at the time of their arrest. Almost half of arrestees were currently incarcerated on a felony offense (47.44%), and they had been arrested on a variety of different types of charges, including property (20.51%), drug (27.63%), violent (19.94%), and other (31.92%) offenses.¹¹ The median number of in-person police contacts over the last year was two, and nearly one quarter had six or more prior contacts (this includes any type of formal contact, such as a stop, victim of a crime, witness, etc.). Fifty-eight percent had a prior arrest in the past 12 months. Approximately 11% tested positive for alcohol, and more than half (56.81%) tested positive for an illegal substance (cocaine, methamphetamine, opiates, or marijuana).¹²

Table 1:

Characteristics of Arrestee Sample

	%
Sex
Female	24.18
Male	75.82
Race/ethnicity
Black or African American	17.02
Hispanic or Latino	28.21
Native American	6.81
White	47.04
Other	0.92
Age (M)^a	32.47
Educational level
Did not graduate high school	27.19
High school/GED graduate	66.89
College (4-year) graduate	5.92
Employment status
Unemployed	41.07
Employed (full- or part-time)	48.89
Illegal income	10.04
Arrest charges
Misdemeanor	52.56
Felony	47.44
Offense type
Property	20.51
Drug	27.63
Violent	19.94
Other	31.92
Prior police contacts (past year median)	2.00
1 to 2 contacts	52.04
3 to 5 contacts	26.61
6 to 10 contacts	11.36
> 10 contacts	9.99
Prior arrest (past year)	58.53
Positive urinalysis (alcohol)	11.10
Positive urinalysis (illegal drug)	56.81
Illegal immigrant	8.49
Mental health history	36.30
N	2,262

Note. GED = General Educational Development.

Age measured as a continuous variable with a SD of 10.67 and range from 17 to 75.

Table 2 shows the sample by arresting agency. The first column illustrates that 43.77% of the sample was arrested by Department 1. The next largest percentage of arrests were made by Departments 2 (11.05%), 4 (9.77%), and 3 (7.07%).¹³ Table 2 also shows arrestee responses to the procedural justice, legitimacy, and cooperation items by arresting agency (see Appendix B for the specific items). The procedural justice, legitimacy, and willingness to cooperate scores are mean values based on a 4-point scale, with higher scores indicating more positive views (e.g., 0 = strongly disagree, 1 = disagree, 2 = agree, 3 = strongly agree). There is little variation across departments in terms of legitimacy scores, ranging from 2.70 to 3.54. Given the scale ranges from 0 to 6, Table 2 shows relatively low levels of perceived police legitimacy among arrestees. There is a similar pattern in the procedural justice scores with a range from 5.09 to 6.38 (scale ranges from 0-12).These findings are consistent with prior research indicating that criminal justice-involved individuals have more negative perceptions of police than the general population (Papachristos et al., 2012). Mean willingness to cooperate scores are similarly low, ranging from 11.01 to 15.36 (scale ranges from 0-24).

Table 2:

Sample Characteristics by Arresting Agency

	N	% Arrested	Legitimacy Score by Department (M)	Procedural Justice Score by Department (M)	Cooperation Score by Department (M)
Department 1	990	43.77	3.06	5.67	12.35
Department 2	250	11.05	3.07	5.67	12.86
Department 3	160	7.07	3.15	6.00	12.65
Department 4	221	9.77	3.00	5.64	13.36
Department 5	13	0.57	3.54	6.38	14.23
Department 6	22	0.97	3.09	5.59	15.36
Department 7	45	1.99	3.20	5.93	14.18
Department 8	10	0.44	2.90	5.60	12.70
Department 9	41	1.81	3.07	5.56	13.22
Department 10	67	2.96	2.94	5.64	12.25
Department 11	27	1.19	2.70	5.81	12.51
Department 12	139	6.15	2.88	5.09	12.37
Department 13	77	3.40	2.88	5.57	11.01
Department 14	120	5.31	3.11	6.20	14.93
Other	80	3.55	3.08	5.64	12.80
	N = 2,262		Score (0 to 6)	Score (0 to 12)	Score (0 to 24)

Note. Response set ranging from 0 to 3 per item, yielding a maximum possible additive scale score of 6 for Legitimacy, 12 for Procedural Justice, and 24 for Cooperation.

Independent Variables

The interview instrument captures a range of individual-level variables that serve as important covariates in the examination of the procedural justice–legitimacy relationship, including basic demographic information (age, sex, race/ethnicity, etc.), indicators of socio-economic status (education and employment), prior contacts with police, prior arrests, current charge information, drug use patterns, immigration status, and mental health. Moreover, a full test of the normative framework requires the inclusion of instrumental, deterrence-based variables. As a result, the authors also include two measures that represent the instrumental framework: distributive fairness (“Police generally do not treat racial or ethnic minorities differently”) and police effectiveness (“Police try to solve problems or do something when called”). Arrestees responded to each of the questions utilizing a Likert-type scale with responses for “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” “agree,” and “strongly agree” (scored 0-3). Arrestees were also presented with four procedural justice items commonly used in prior research (see Reisig et al., 2007) that cover quality of treatment and quality of decision making (e.g., “Police treat citizens with respect”), with higher scores indicating higher levels of procedural justice (same 0-3 scale).

Dependent Variables: Legitimacy and Willingness to Cooperate with Police

Arrestees were asked to respond to three legitimacy items commonly used in prior research (e.g., Nix et al., 2015; Reisig & Mesko, 2009) that capture obligation to obey the law and trust in the police: “You should accept police decisions, even if you think they are wrong,” “You should do what police tell you to do, even if you disagree,” “The police can be trusted to make decisions that are right for your community” (see discussion below regarding the trust measure which is dropped during the confirmatory factor analysis). The willingness to cooperate with police measure was created based on eight items commonly used in prior research (Reisig et al., 2007; for example, “How likely you would call police to report a theft/burglary where you were the victim”—see Appendix B for the items). The willingness to cooperate scale showed robust reliability (8 items; α = .938, mean inter-item r = .613). Factor analysis using principal component analysis with varimax rotation for the willingness to cooperate construct resulted in one factor being retained that accounted for 70.1% of the variation among the variables.¹⁴

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy Items

The authors conducted confirmatory factor analysis of the procedural justice and legitimacy items. Given that the indicators composing the latent variables in this study were categorical in nature, the authors used Mplus to perform confirmatory factor analysis because of its capability to accommodate non-normality (Hay, Wang, Ciaravolo, & Meldrum, 2015; Kaplan, 2000; Muthén, du Toit, & Spisic, 1997). The authors evaluated model fit by examining the mean- and variance-adjusted chi-square goodness-of-fit test statistic, the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Helstrom, Bryan, Hutchison, Riggs, & Blechman, 2004). The authors estimated the confirmatory factor analysis model (not shown) for both procedural justice and legitimacy. Notably, the trust item (“The police can be trusted to make decisions that are right for your community”) loaded well with both the legitimacy factor and the procedural justice factor, leading to poor overall model fit. As a result, this measure was set aside. Scholars have recently questioned the manner in which legitimacy and procedural justice are operationalized (e.g., whether procedural justice and legitimacy are distinct; whether trust and obligation to obey are components of legitimacy; Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012). The confirmatory factor analysis results support these concerns, and the authors return to this finding later in the article.

The authors re-ran the confirmatory factor analysis with the four procedural justice and two legitimacy items. Although the chi-square goodness-of-fit test failed to suggest a good model fit, χ² = 50.265, df = 8, p < .001, other model fit indices showed a good fit of the measurement model: CFI = .998, TLI = .996, RMSEA = .046 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). In addition, the constituent indicators for each latent variable all load significantly (all loadings at a level of p < .01, and greater than .60). The authors saved the factor scores derived from the confirmatory factor analysis, and used them for the main regression analyses.

Analysis

The authors use linear regression with robust standard errors to test whether the procedural justice–legitimacy link persists for this arrestee sample when controlling for other relevant covariates (the first research question). The authors were able to document arresting agency for each individual in the study, and as a consequence, the robust standard error models are clustered by the arresting agency. The authors first present a base model of legitimacy using the available individual-level covariates. The authors then re-examine the base model and include the procedural justice measure. This model also tests whether views of legitimacy vary by offender type (second research question). The final multivariate model assesses the impact of perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy on willingness to cooperate with police, while controlling for other relevant factors.

Results

Multivariate Analysis

Table 3 (left column) shows a base model predicting police legitimacy without the procedural justice measure (the instrumental variables are included). A number of arrestee attributes are statistically significant in directions consistent with prior research. For example, lower levels of legitimacy were reported among arrestees who are Black (Exp[b] = −.112), who reported receiving illegal income (Exp[b] = −.157), and who reported prior contacts with police (Exp[b] = −.048). Interestingly, higher levels of legitimacy were reported among arrestees who are in the country illegally (Exp[b] = .094).¹⁵ The distributive fairness and police effectiveness measures were also positively associated with legitimacy (Exp[b] = .228; Exp[b] = .400, respectively). A number of notable arrestee attributes were not related to views of police legitimacy including age, sex, Hispanic ethnicity, education level, and legal employment.

Table 3:

Predicting the Legitimacy/Procedural Justice Relationship for Arrestees

	Exp(b) (SE)	t-ratio	Exp(b) (SE)	t-ratio
Procedural justice	—	—	0.553 (0.022)	24.94**
Sex (males ref.)	−0.049 (0.037)	−1.33	0.012 (0.025)	0.46
Age	−0.001 (0.001)	−0.23	−0.001 (0.001)	−0.56
Race/ethnicity
White (ref.)	—	—	—	—
Black or African American	−0.112 (0.021)	−5.22**	−0.081 (0.033)	−2.49*
Hispanic or Latino	−0.008 (0.021)	−0.36	−0.017 (0.017)	−1.04
Native American	0.041 (0.029)	1.45	−0.011 (0.028)	−0.37
Other	−0.043 (0.126)	−0.34	−0.045 (0.107)	−0.41
Level of education
Did not graduate (ref.)	—	—	—	—
High school graduate	−0.031 (0.032)	−0.95	−0.043 (0.023)	−1.89
College graduate	0.009 (0.046)	−0.19	−0.002 (0.038)	−0.05
Employment status
Not employed (ref.)	—	—	—	—
Legal employment	−0.049 (0.039)	−1.26	−0.046 (0.025)	−1.86
Illegal income	−0.157 (0.036)	−4.32**	−0.107 (0.020)	−5.44**
Substance use
Positive alcohol urinalysis	0.019 (0.023)	0.79	0.071 (0.032)	2.18*
Positive drug urinalysis	−0.018 (0.022)	−0.80	0.021 (0.022)	0.95
Arrest charges
Misdemeanor (ref.)	—	—	—	—
Felony	−0.035(0.024)	−1.45	−0.023 (0.021)	−1.13
Property offense (ref.)	—	—	—	—
Drug offense	−0.011 (0.036)	−1.48	−0.007 (0.025)	−0.28
Violent offense	0.040 (0.028)	1.41	0.017 (0.033)	0.51
Miscellaneous offense	0.015 (0.037)	0.42	−0.016 (0.029)	−0.57
Prior arrest (past 12 months)	−0.026 (0.013)	−2.06	0.004 (0.017)	0.23
Prior police contact (past 12 months)	−0.048 (0.013)	−2.15*	−0.016 (0.012)	−1.33
Illegal immigrant	0.094 (0.041)	2.27*	0.072 (0.038)	1.89
Mental health history	−0.019 (0.019)	−1.01	0.004 (0.014)	0.27
Distributive fairness (instrumental)	0.228 (0.018)	12.61**	0.051 (0.013)	4.05**
Police effectiveness (instrumental)	0.400 (0.023)	17.27**	0.114 (0.024)	4.73**
N	2,262		2,262
Mcfadden’s R²	.269		.499

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

The right column of Table 3 displays the full regression model for legitimacy including the procedural justice measure. Respondents’ perceptions of procedural justice were significantly and positively tied to police legitimacy (Exp[b] = .553), and the addition of procedural justice increases the explanatory power of the model substantially (r² from .269 in Table 3 to .499). This is a significant finding that highlights the durability of the process-based framework for recently arrested, detained adults.

The second research question focuses on potential variation in legitimacy views by offender type. Results in Table 3 show that arrest charge type is not related to views of police legitimacy.¹⁶ Papachristos et al. (2012) had previously reported variation in legitimacy perceptions among their narrowly defined sample of gun offenders. The findings from this larger, much more diverse sample of offenders are not consistent with this earlier research. The full model in Table 3 also shows a number of other variables are negatively associated with legitimacy, including arrestee race (Black; (Exp[b] = −.081) and obtaining illegal income (Exp[b] = −.107). Higher levels of police legitimacy are reported among arrestees who tested positive for alcohol (Exp[b] = .071), and the distributive fairness and police effectiveness measures are again positively (and significantly) associated with legitimacy (Exp[b] = .051; Exp[b] = .114, respectively).

Table 4 examines whether procedural justice and legitimacy views are related to willingness to cooperate with the police. Three models are presented in Table 4 in a stepwise method. The left column shows a base model of willingness to cooperate (procedural justice and legitimacy withheld), and the center column shows the base model with only procedural justice included. The right column shows the full model with both procedural justice and legitimacy included. Results show strong support for the framework espoused by Tyler and colleagues, as both procedural justice (Exp[b] = .185) and legitimacy views (Exp[b] = .146) are strongly related to cooperation willingness (full model). The results across the three models also suggest that legitimacy mediates the effect of procedural justice on willingness to cooperate with police.

Table 4:

Predicting Cooperation With Police

	Exp(b) (SE)	t-ratio	Exp(b) (SE)	t-ratio	Exp(b) (SE)	t-ratio
Procedural justice	—	—	0.266 (0.023)	11.33**	0.185 (0.035)	5.33**
Legitimacy	—	—	—	—	0.146 (0.028)	5.12**
Sex (males ref.)	0.278 (0.032)	8.67**	0.307 (0.035)	8.75**	0.306 (0.037)	8.24**
Age	0.007 (0.001)	6.85**	0.007 (0.001)	6.09**	0.007 (0.001)	6.19**
Race/ethnicity
White (ref.)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Black or African American	−0.067 (0.036)	−1.82	−0.052 (0.034)	−1.51	−0.040 (0.035)	−1.14
Hispanic or Latino	−0.085 (0.051)	−1.68	−0.090 (0.048)	−1.87	−0.087 (0.047)	−1.84
Native American	−0.018 (0.045)	−0.39	−0.042 (0.042)	−1.00	−0.041 (0.042)	−0.97
Other	0.087 (0.203)	0.43	0.086 (0.190)	0.45	0.092 (0.187)	0.49
Level of education
Did not graduate (ref.)	—	—	—	—	—	—
High school graduate	0.081 (0.023)	3.53*	0.075 (0.024)	3.12*	0.081 (0.025)	3.24*
College graduate	0.355 (0.057)	6.19**	0.350 (0.063)	5.53**	0.350 (0.062)	5.65**
Employment status
Not employed (ref.)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Legal employment	0.076 (0.040)	1.90	0.077 (0.035)	2.19*	0.084 (0.035)	2.39*
Illegal income	−0.601 (0.062)	−9.68**	−0.577 (0.068)	−8.47**	−0.561 (0.070)	−8.02**
Substance use
Positive alcohol urinalysis	−0.170 (0.046)	−3.68*	−0.145 (0.050)	−2.88*	−0.155 (0.051)	−3.05*
Positive drug urinalysis	−0.213 (0.049)	−4.36**	−0.194 (0.048)	−4.08**	−0.197 (0.048)	−4.13**
Arrest charges
Misdemeanor (ref.)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Felony	−0.083 (0.020)	−4.26**	−0.078 (0.020)	−3.80**	−0.074 (0.018)	−4.10**
Property offense (ref.)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Drug offense	0.117 (0.056)	2.11	0.120 (0.054)	2.21*	0.121 (0.054)	2.23*
Violent offense	0.127 (0.079)	1.63	0.117 (0.083)	1.41	0.114 (0.079)	1.45
Miscellaneous offense	−0.032 (0.059)	−0.54	−0.047 (0.057)	−0.82	−0.045 (0.056)	−0.80
Prior arrest (past 12 months)	−0.161 (0.042)	−3.86*	−0.146 (0.042)	−3.48*	−0.147 (0.043)	−3.45*
Prior police contact (past 12 months)	−0.069 (0.015)	−4.58**	−0.053 (0.014)	−3.75*	−0.051 (0.014)	−3.65*
Illegal immigrant	0.294 (0.070)	4.20**	0.283 (0.064)	4.38**	0.273 (0.061)	4.46**
Mental health history	0.017 (0.031)	0.55	0.028 (0.031)	0.92	0.028 (0.031)	0.88
Distributive fairness (instrumental)	0.176 (0.022)	7.86**	0.091 (0.025)	3.55*	0.083 (0.025)	3.30*
Police effectiveness (instrumental)	0.319 (0.041)	7.79**	0.181 (0.040)	4.49**	0.165 (0.041)	4.04**
N	2,262		2,262		2,262
Mcfadden’s R²	.231		.257		.262

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

Moreover, a number of individual-level attributes are also significantly related to greater likelihood of cooperating with police (while controlling for procedural justice and legitimacy), including arrestees who are female (Exp[b] = .306), older (Exp[b] = .007), educated (Exp[b] = .081 for high school graduate; Exp[b] = .350 for college graduate), legally employed (Exp[b] = .084), arrested for a drug offense (Exp[b] = .121), and who are in the country illegally (Exp[b] = .273). The instrumental variables are also positively associated with willingness to cooperate (distributive fairness [Exp[b] = .083] and police effectiveness [Exp[b] = .165]). Arrestee attributes which were negatively associated with the willingness to cooperate outcome include illegal income (Exp[b] = −.561), testing positive for alcohol (Exp[b] = −.155) or drugs (Exp[b] = −.197), arrest on a felony charge (Exp[b] = −.074), prior arrests (Exp[b] = −.147), and prior police contacts (Exp[b] = −.051). Race/ethnicity was not related to likelihood of cooperation with police.

Discussion

The current study sought to test the robustness of the linkage between procedural justice, legitimacy, and willingness to cooperate with police among a large, criminally diverse sample of arrestees. The authors also examined whether views of procedural justice and police legitimacy might vary by offender type.

Procedural Justice and Other Predictors of Police Legitimacy

This study’s first finding of note is methodological in nature, emerging from the confirmatory factor analysis with procedural justice and legitimacy items. Several scholars have raised questions about the discriminant validity between procedural justice and legitimacy under Tyler’s conceptual model, with particular concerns regarding the trust element of legitimacy (Gau, 2011; Reisig et al., 2007). The factor analysis used in this manuscript contributes to this methodological debate, as the trust item loaded well with both the legitimacy factor (obligation to obey measures) and the procedural justice factor (respect, fair treatment, taking time to listen, etc.). Simply put, the trust in police item did not emerge as a distinct and independent component of legitimacy. Although the authors agree with Tankebe’s (2013) assessment that measurement questions do not undermine the broader support for “normative considerations . . . when analyzing cooperation with legal authorities” (p. 127), there are clearly important issues for future research to explore regarding the operationalization of the procedural justice and legitimacy constructs—especially trust in police.

With regard to the multivariate results, the authors first produced a base model predicting perceptions of police legitimacy with arrestee attributes (Table 3). The analysis identified a number of individual-level correlates that were significant predictors of levels of police legitimacy. Lower levels of legitimacy were found among arrestees who are Black, who had prior contacts with police, and who had received income illegally (a proxy for prior criminal behavior). Many of these findings are consistent with prior research (Friedman & Hott, 1995; Weitzer, 1999). Weitzer (2010) has previously noted that “race/ethnicity is one of the strongest predictors of citizen attitudes and experiences with the police” (p. 118).

A number of findings from the current study were not consistent with prior research, however. Several studies have highlighted that younger citizens tend to have less favorable attitudes toward the police (e.g., Hurst, Frank, & Browning, 2000). That was not the case in the current analysis. Prior research also suggests that Hispanics display more negative attitudes of police than Whites, though typically not as negative as Black citizens (Weitzer, 2010). In the current study, Hispanic ethnicity was not a significant predictor of legitimacy. This finding may be explained, in part, by the level of integration among the Hispanic population in Maricopa County, as nearly one third of county residents are Hispanic (United States Census, 2013).

To test whether the procedural justice–legitimacy connection persists among this arrestee sample, the authors specified the same base model but also included arrestee perceptions of procedural justice. Results showed that procedural justice is a strong predictor of arrestee views of police legitimacy. The strength of this relationship is noteworthy given that all respondents in this study had experienced a police encounter with a highly negative outcome (i.e., loss of freedom) within 48 hr of being interviewed. Also, the procedural justice measure remains significant independent of arrestee characteristics and the distributive fairness and police effectiveness measures. While both instrumental measures are statistically significant predictors of legitimacy, the strength of their association with legitimacy is notably weaker than the procedural justice–legitimacy relationship.

The authors also examined whether perceptions of police legitimacy might vary by offender type. Arrestees were classified into one of four categories based on their most serious criminal charge (violent, property, drug, and miscellaneous), as well as whether the charge was misdemeanor or felony. Results showed that offender type was not related to perceptions of police legitimacy. The explanation for the lack of variation across offender types is not entirely clear. It could be that all types of offenders in Maricopa County are relatively uniform in their perceptions of the police. It could also be that offenders tend to be generalists in terms of their offending, and as a result, the most serious charge only reflects the type of crime they are accused of committing in this most recent event (i.e., there is little offender specialization). Moreover, Papachristos et al. (2012) found that gang members reported substantially weaker views of the police (compared with other offenders). Although gang affiliation was not available for the arrestees in the current study, prior studies in Maricopa County show that only about 5% of the arrestee population is actively gang-involved (White, 2009). If variation in perceptions of police is most evident in gang members, the non-significant findings in the current study may be explained by the small proportion of active gang members among Maricopa County arrestees.

Predictors of Willingness to Cooperate with Police

The findings from the models predicting willingness to cooperate with police were similarly supportive of the normative, processed-based model espoused by Tyler (1990, 2006) and colleagues (Tyler & Fagan, 2008; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Both the procedural justice and legitimacy measures were strongly predictive of cooperation willingness. The willingness to cooperate with police is a complex phenomenon, however, that is influenced by a wide range of factors above and beyond perceptions of fairness and legitimacy. Arrestees who reported higher levels of willingness to cooperate included those who are female, older, better educated, employed, and those who are in the country illegally. Also, arrestees who perceived higher levels of distributive fairness, and who perceived the police to be effective, indicated higher levels of willingness to cooperate. Arrestees who received illegal income, who tested positive for drugs or alcohol, and who had prior arrests reported lower levels of cooperation willingness. Unlike the legitimacy outcome, there is some variation in willingness to cooperate across offender types. Specifically, individuals arrested on drug charges indicated higher willingness to cooperate with police, while felony offenders indicated significantly lower levels of willingness to cooperate. Thus, increased police legitimacy is one pathway to improving willingness to cooperate with police, but this important outcome is still strongly tied to individual-level characteristics of arrestees.

Implications of the Findings

The procedural justice–legitimacy–willingness to cooperate with police findings have a number of implications that are worthy of discussion. Results from Table 2 indicate that the perceptions of the variables of interest among this sample of arrestees are quite low. Prior research using general population samples has consistently indicated that citizens tend to perceive the police as fair and legitimate (Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Fagan, 2008), though perceptions vary notably by race/ethnicity (Weitzer, 2010). The lower perceptions among the arrestees in the current study are consistent with prior research (Papachristos et al., 2012) and not surprising given their backgrounds: nearly 60% had prior arrests, 50% had been arrested for a felony offense, 57% tested positive for an illegal drug, and more than 20% of the sample had experienced six or more police contacts in the last year. Clearly, this is a group of individuals with multiple prior experiences with police, many of which resulted in a highly negative outcome—arrest and detention.

Nevertheless, the procedural justice–legitimacy relationship is powerful among this arrestee sample, as is the link to willingness to cooperate with police. The durability of this framework highlights the critical importance of how police treat citizens during formal encounters. Even among individuals who have recently had a very negative experience with the police resulting in deprivation of their liberty, perceptions of fair and just treatment lead to acceptance of the police as a legitimate source of authority which, in turn, generates greater willingness to cooperate with police. This point also highlights how the process of police encounters (i.e., how police treat citizens) outweighs the importance of a specific encounter’s outcome, even if that outcome is negative (Paternoster et al., 1997; Tyler & Fagan, 2008).

Although the current study did not test a particular theoretical framework, the findings are supportive of recent work on the role of social identity and group engagement in generating law-abiding behavior. For example, the group engagement model posits that an individual’s behavior is influenced by the social identity the individual forms around a group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Group identity provides a lens to view self-worth (Tajfel, 1978), to make sense of people or situations (Tajfel, 1978), or to feel a sense of belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Tyler (2004) suggested that procedural justice communicates important identity-relevant information about people’s status in society. In other words, fair and respectful treatment by police serves to strengthen both perceptions of self-worth and identification with the larger law-abiding society (Bradford et al., 2014; see also Blader & Tyler, 2009). The process may be especially important for offenders who are more likely to be uncertain about their societal standing. Future studies should continue to explore this line of research.

Two other notable findings emerged from the analysis. The first involves immigration status. Four of the five multivariate models in Tables 3 and 4 show that arrestees who reported being in the country illegally indicated higher levels of police legitimacy, and greater likelihood of cooperating with police (compared with U.S. citizens). This finding is consistent with a number of prior studies that have documented more positive views of police among immigrants (compared with non-immigrants). For example, Davis and Hendricks (2007) found that Hispanic and Asian immigrants in Seattle held more favorable views of the police than non-immigrants. Wu et al. (2011) found similar results among Chinese immigrants in Chicago. Several scholars have suggested that immigrants’ views of American police may be shaped by past negative interactions with police officers in their native country. In effect, local police in the United States benefit from the very low expectations that have been set as a result of prior experiences with non-U.S. police (Davis, Erez, & Avitabile, 1998; Martinez, 2010; Wu, 2010).

The second notable finding involves arrestee race/ethnicity. The base model in Table 3 indicates that, compared with White arrestees, Black arrestees have significantly lower perceptions of police legitimacy. When the procedural justice measure is added to the model, the race variable is still significant but its effect has been attenuated considerably. Hispanic ethnicity is not related to views of police legitimacy. Table 4 shows that, when controlling for procedural justice and legitimacy views, arrestee race/ethnicity was not related to willingness to cooperate with the police. This race/ethnicity finding has important implications for the often-strained relationship between police and minority citizens because it suggests that procedurally just behavior during encounters with citizens (giving citizens a voice, treating them with dignity and respect, making fair and impartial decisions, and having trustworthy motives) represents a viable mechanism for generating enhanced views of the police and for increasing willingness to cooperate with the police, regardless of citizen race or ethnicity.

The current study suffers from several limitations. First, data were collected from one county in Arizona. Given the study location’s size and geography, the generalizability of the findings to jurisdictions in other parts of the country remains unknown. Second, with the exception of arresting agency, offense, and urinalysis data, all information collected from arrestees was self-reported. The limits of self-report surveys are well-known (honesty, memory problems, etc.), though some research suggests that arrestees are generally truthful in their responses during jail interviews (Berwick et al., 1991; Katz, Webb, Gartin, & Marshall, 1997).¹⁷ Those concerns should be kept in mind when reviewing the study findings. Third, the current study uses global measures of procedural justice and legitimacy, rather than questions that capture perceptions regarding the specific encounter that resulted in their arrest. Given the limited research on adult arrestees, the authors sought to initially explore these more general views—though future research should examine the impact of procedural justice in specific encounters (see Gau, 2014). Relatedly, the authors acknowledge that there are limitations regarding the ability to determine causal relationships among the key variables, given the manner in which the data were collected (survey-based, focused on global perceptions).

Despite these shortcomings, the current study does offer important insights on views of procedural justice, police legitimacy, and willingness to cooperate with the police among adult arrestees. Results demonstrate that the procedural justice–legitimacy–willingness to cooperate link is robust and extends to a criminally diverse sample of individuals who recently experienced a police encounter with highly negative outcome. In addition, arrestees’ global views of legitimacy are established and stable based on general views of police fairness, as well as a few individual-level characteristics. Perceptions of police legitimacy do not vary by offender type. Willingness to cooperate with police is a more complex phenomenon, though procedural justice and legitimacy are strong predictors of that important outcome. This evidence highlights the importance of the normative, process-based model for understanding police legitimacy, and for explaining compliance with the law and willingness to cooperate with police.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix B

Descriptive Statistics for Scales and Items

Scales and Items	M	SD	Skewness
Legitimacy	3.04	1.27	−0.34
You should accept police decisions even if you think they are wrong	1.34	0.77	−0.12
You should do what police tell you to do, even if you disagree	1.70	0.70	−0.76
Procedural Justice	5.69	2.65	−0.22
Police treat citizens with respect	1.48	0.80	−0.30
Police take time to listen to people	1.35	0.77	−0.12
Police treat people fairly	1.40	0.76	−0.17
Police respect citizens’ rights	1.45	0.77	−0.34
Cooperation (How likely would you be to call the police)	12.73	6.47	−0.34
To report a theft/burglary where you were the victim	1.77	1.03	−0.37
To report a minor (misdemeanor) crime	1.22	0.85	0.28
To report a serious (felony) crime	1.85	0.98	−0.50
To report a violent crime where you were the victim	1.85	1.02	−0.46
To report suspicious activity near your house/apartment/residence	1.54	0.95	−0.09
To report suspicious activity near your neighborhood	1.47	0.93	0.02
To provide information to help find a suspected criminal	1.48	0.97	−0.03
To provide information anonymously to help find a suspected criminal	1.52	0.98	−0.05

Note. Response set ranging from 0 to 3 per item, yielding a maximum possible additive scale score of 6 for Legitimacy, 12 for Procedural Justice, and 24 for Cooperation.

The research was funded by the Maricopa County, Arizona Manager’s office.

The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of Maricopa County.

Notes

Michael D. White is a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University (ASU), and is Associate Director of ASU’s Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety. He received his PhD in criminal justice from Temple University in 1999. Prior to entering academia, he worked as a deputy sheriff in Pennsylvania. His primary research interests involve the police, including use of force, technology, and misconduct. His recent work has been published in Justice Quarterly, Criminology and Public Policy, Criminal Justice and Behavior, and Crime and Delinquency.

Philip Mulvey is an assistant professor in the School of Criminal Justice Sciences at Illinois State University. He earned his PhD from Arizona State University in criminology and criminal justice, and also has degrees in psychology from University of Illinois, Boston College, and Northwestern University. Prior to entering academia, he was the project manager for the Northwestern Juvenile Project at Northwestern University. His focal research interests revolve around the interface between mental illness and the criminal justice system, issues of social control for disenfranchised populations, and criminal justice policy.

Lisa M. Dario is a doctoral candidate in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University, and is the managing editor of Justice Quarterly. She received her master of science degree in criminology and criminal justice from Arizona State University, and her bachelor of arts degree in psychology from The College of New Jersey. Her primary research interests involve the police, including use of force and legitimacy perceptions, and research methodology, specifically experimental design. Her recent work has been published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology, Crime and Delinquency, and Criminal Justice Studies.

References

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motive. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Beetham

(1991). The legitimation of power. London, England: Macmillan.

Berwick

D. M.

Murphy

J. M.

Goldman

P. A.

Ware

J. E.

Jr. Barsky

A. J.

Weinstein

M. C.

(1991). Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Medical Care, 29, 169-176.

Blader

S. L.

Tyler

T. R.

(2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extra-role behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 445-464.

Bottoms

(1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. Crime and Justice, 26, 205-281.

Bottoms

Tankebe

(2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102, 119-170.

Bradford

Jackson

Stanko

E. A.

(2009). Contact and confidence: Revisiting the impact of public encounters with the police. Policing & Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 19, 20-46.

Bradford

Murphy

Jackson

(2014). Officers as mirrors: Policing, procedural justice and the (re)production of social identity. British Journal of Criminology, 54, 527-550.

Brandl

S. G.

Frank

Worden

R. E.

Bynum

T. S.

(1994). Global and specific attitudes toward the police: Disentangling the relationship. Justice Quarterly, 11, 119-134.

10.

Casper

J. D.

Tyler

T. R.

Fisher

(1988). Procedural justice in felony cases. Law & Society Review, 22, 483-507.

11.

Davis

R. C.

Erez

Avitabile

(1998). Immigrants and the criminal justice system: An exploratory study. Violence and Victims, 13, 21-30.

12.

Davis

R. C.

Hendricks

N. J.

(2007). Immigrants and law enforcement: A comparison of native-born and foreign-born Americans’ opinions of the police. International Review of Victimology, 14, 81-94.

13.

Fagan

Piquero

A. R.

(2007). Rational choice and developmental influences on recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 715-748.

14.

Fischer

Harb

Al-Sarraf

Nashabe

(2008). Support for resistance among Iraqi students: An exploratory study. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30, 167-175.

15.

Franke

Bierie

MacKenzie

D. L.

(2010). Legitimacy in corrections: A randomized experiment comparing a boot camp with a prison. Criminology and Public Policy, 9(1), 89-117.

16.

Friedman

Hott

(1995). Young people and the police: Respect, fear and the future of community policing in Chicago. Chicago, IL: Chicago Alliance for Neighborhood Safety.

17.

Gau

(2014). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A test of measurement and structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 187-205.

18.

Gau

J.M.

(2011). The convergent and discriminant validity of procedural justice and police legitimacy: An empirical test of core theoretical propositions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 489-498.

19.

Gau

J. M.

Brunson

R. K.

(2010). Procedural justice and order maintenance policing: A study of inner-city young men’s perceptions of police legitimacy. Justice Quarterly, 27, 255-279.

20.

Goodman-Delahunty

(2010). Four ingredients: New recipes for procedural justice in Australian policing. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 4, 403-410.

21.

Hagan

Payne

M. R.

Shedd

(2005). Race, ethnicity, and youth perceptions of criminal justice. American Sociological Review, 70, 381-407.

22.

Hawdon

(2008). Legitimacy, trust, social capital, and policing styles: A theoretical statement. Police Quarterly, 11, 182-201.

23.

Hay

Wang

Ciaravolo

Meldrum

R. C.

(2015). Inside the black box: Identifying the variables that mediate the effects of an experimental intervention for adolescents. Crime & Delinquency, 61, 243-270.

24.

Helstrom

Bryan

Hutchison

K. E.

Riggs

P. D.

Blechman

E. A.

(2004). Tobacco and alcohol use as an explanation for the association between externalizing behavior and illicit drug use among delinquent adolescents. Prevention Science, 5, 267-277.

25.

Hinds

(2009). Youth, police legitimacy and informal contact. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 24, 10-21.

26.

Hinds

Murphy

(2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40, 27-42.

27.

Hough

Jackson

Bradford

Myhill

Quinton

(2010). Procedural justice, trust and institutional legitimacy. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 4, 203-210.

28.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

29.

Hurst

Y. G.

Frank

Browning

S. L.

(2000). The attitudes of juveniles toward the police: A comparison of Black and White youth. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 23(1), 37-53.

30.

Jackson

Bradford

Hough

Myhill

Quinton

Tyler

T. R.

(2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 1051-1071.

31.

Kane

R. J.

(2006). On the limits of social control: Structural deterrence and the policing of “suppressible” crimes.” Justice Quarterly, 23, 186-213.

32.

Kaplan

(2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

33.

Katz

C. M.

Webb

V. J.

Gartin

P. R.

Marshall

C. E.

(1997). The validity of self-reported marijuana and cocaine use. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 31-42.

34.

Laxminarayan

M. S.

(2012). The heterogeneity of crime victims: Variations in procedural and outcome preferences. Nijmegen, NL: Wolf Legal.

35.

Lee

J. M.

Piquero

A. R.

Steinberg

(2010). Ethnic identity and attitudes toward the police among African American juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 781-789.

36.

Leventhal

(1980). What should be done with equity theory? In Gergen

K. J.

Greenberg

M. S.

Willis

R. H.

(Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

37.

Liebling

(2004). Prisons and their moral performance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

38.

Lind

E. A.

(1982). The psychology of courtroom procedure. In Kerr

N. L.

Bray

R. M.

(Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 13-38). New York, NY: Academic Press.

39.

Lind

E. A.

Tyler

T. R.

(1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

40.

Martinez

Jr. (2010). Revisiting the role of Latinos and immigrants in police research. In Rice

S. K.

White

M. D.

(Eds.), Race, ethnicity and policing: New and essential readings (pp. 435-449). New York: New York University Press.

41.

Mastrofski

S. D.

Snipes

J. B.

Supina

A. E.

(1996). Compliance on demand: The public’s response to specific police requests. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 269-305.

42.

Mazerolle

Antrobus

Bennett

Tyler

T. R.

(2013). Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: A randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology, 51, 33-63.

43.

Mazerolle

Bennett

Davis

Sargeant

Manning

(2012). Legitimacy in policing (Campbell Systematic Review). Oslo, Norway: The Campbell Collaboration.

44.

McCluskey

J. D.

(2003). Police requests for compliance: Coercive and procedurally just tactics. New York, NY: LFB Scholarly Publishing.

45.

McCluskey

J. D.

Mastrofski

S. D.

Parks

R. B.

(1999). To acquiesce or rebel: Predicting citizen compliance with police requests. Police Quarterly, 2, 389-416.

46.

McEwan

C. A.

Maiman

R. J.

(1984). Mediation in small claims court: Achieving compliance through consent. Law & Society Review, 18, 11-50.

47.

Murphy

Barkworth

(2014). Victim willingness to report crime to police: Does procedural justice or outcome matter most? Victims and Offenders, 9, 178-204.

48.

Muthén

B. O.

du Toit

S. H. C.

Spisic

(1997). Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com/bmuthen/articles/Article_075.pdf

49.

Nix

Wolfe

S. E.

Rojek

Kaminski

R. J.

(2015). Trust in the police: The influence of procedural justice and perceived collective efficacy. Crime and Delinquency, 61, 610-640.

50.

Papachristos

A. V.

Meares

T. L.

Fagan

(2012). Why do criminals obey the law? The influence of legitimacy and social networks on active gun offenders. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102, 397-440.

51.

Paternoster

Brame

Bachman

Sherman

L. W.

(1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law & Society Review, 31, 163-204.

52.

Piquero

A. R.

Fagan

Mulvey

Steinberg

Odgers

(2005). Developmental trajectories of legal socialization among serious adolescent offenders. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 96, 267-298.

53.

Reisig

M. D.

Bratton

Gertz

M. G.

(2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 34, 1005-1028.

54.

Reisig

M. D.

Lloyd

(2009). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and helping the police fight crime: Results from a survey of Jamaican adolescents. Police Quarterly, 12, 42-62.

55.

Reisig

M. D.

Mesko

(2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and prisoner misconduct. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 41-59.

56.

Skogan

W. G.

(2006). Asymmetry in the impact of encounters with the police. Policing & Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 16, 99-126.

57.

Sparks

Bottoms

(1995). Legitimacy and order in prisons. British Journal of Sociology, 46, 45-62.

58.

Sparks

Bottoms

Hay

(1996). Prisons and the problem of order. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

59.

Sunshine

Tyler

T. R.

(2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37, 513-548.

60.

Tajfel

(1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In Tajfel

(Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 77-98). London, England: Academic Press.

61.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks.

62.

Tankebe

(2009). Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: Does procedural fairness matter? Criminology, 47, 701-730.

63.

Tankebe

(2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51, 103-136.

64.

Thibaut

J. W.

Walker

(1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

65.

Tyler

T. R.

(1988). What is procedural justice? Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law & Society Review, 22, 103-136.

66.

Tyler

T. R.

(1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

67.

Tyler

T.R.

(2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 84-99.

68.

Tyler

T. R.

(2006). Legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400.

69.

Tyler

T. R.

Fagan

(2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231-275.

70.

Tyler

T. R.

Huo

Y. J.

(2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

71.

Tyler

T. R.

Lind

E. A.

(1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). New York, NY: Academic Press.

72.

Tyler

T. R.

Rasinski

K. A.

Spodick

(1985). Influence of voice on satisfaction with leaders: Exploring the meaning of process control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 72-81.

73.

Tyler

T. R.

Wakslak

C. J.

(2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42, 253-281.

74.

United States Census. (2013). Maricopa County, Arizona. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04/04013.html

75.

Visher

(1991). A comparison of urinalysis technologies for drug testing in criminal justice. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

76.

Weber

(1968). Economy and society ( Roth

Wittich

Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

77.

Weitzer

(1999). Citizen perceptions of police misconduct: Race and neighborhood context. Justice Quarterly, 16, 819-846.

78.

Weitzer

(2010). Race and policing in different ecological contexts. In Rice

S. K.

White

M. D.

(Eds.), Race, ethnicity, and policing: New and essential readings (pp. 118-139). New York: New York University Press.

79.

Wells

(2007). Type of contact and evaluations of police officers: The effects of procedural justice across three types of police–citizen contacts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 612-621.

80.

Wemmers

(2013). Victims’ experiences in the criminal justice system and their recovery from crime. International Review of Victimology, 19, 221-233.

81.

White

M. D.

(2009). Arizona arrestee reporting information network annual adult report 2008. Phoenix: Center for Violence Prevention & Community Safety, Arizona State University.

82.

(2010). Immigrants’ perceptions of the police. Sociology Compass, 4, 924-935.

83.

Sun

Smith

(2011). Race, immigration, and policing: Chinese immigrants’ satisfaction with police. Justice Quarterly, 28, 745-774.