Abstract
Significant in the management of a safe and secure custodial environment is the compliance of incarcerated persons with the prison rules and the directives of prison officers. In recent years, there has been increased research focus on the role of normative compliance in the prison environment, which is postulated to derive from the perceptions of legitimacy and procedural justice of those who are incarcerated. This article presents the findings of a scoping review of the empirical literature as it relates to procedural justice and legitimacy in prison settings. This literature is charted and then analyzed across two primary themes, namely “Shaping Perceptions of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy” and “Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance.” The presence of normative compliance in prisons and the contribution of procedurally just treatment to perceptions of legitimacy held by persons who are incarcerated are discussed.
Introduction—Compliance in Prison Environments
Prison environments comprise unique closed “societies” in which the provision of safe and secure custodial care is dependent on the compliance of persons who are incarcerated with prison officers and with the prison regime more generally (Liebling & Price, 2003). Such compliance can be attained in different ways. Constraint-based approaches, for example, derive from the physical and structural limitations placed on those who are incarcerated (Irwin Rogers, 2015), while instrumental approaches tend to be rewarding or coercive in nature and are rooted in the authoritative power structures of the prison (Ferdik & Smith, 2016). That is, instrumental compliance assumes that those who are incarcerated are motivated to increase personal gains and limit losses, and will accordingly assess the opportunities and risks associated with compliance or otherwise.
Normative compliance differs from these as it is based upon acquiesce and cooperation. This is a form of compliance postulated to derive from the perceptions of the legitimacy of prison officers and the prison regime that are held by persons who are incarcerated (Jackson et al., 2010). From a social-psychological perspective, legitimacy is broadly referred to as a belief or perception of authorities as appropriate, proper, and just (Sparks, 1994), though it has also been conceptualized as a perceived obligation to comply with the directives of authority figures; the degree of support, trust, or confidence one holds in those in charge (Tyler & Bies, 1990), and as a quality held by an authority that encourages compliance (Tyler, 2003).
Legitimacy and the Prison Officer
Specific to the prison environment, Hepburn (1985), drawing on French et al. (1959), identified legitimate or positional power as a type of social power base held by prison officers based on their position of authority within the prison. As such, it is dependent on perceptions of the legitimacy of prison officer authority, which should be employed in a fair and lawful manner (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015). This is consistent with the assertion of Tyler (1990), who argued that perceptions of legitimacy, attained via shared expectations and the use of authority in a procedurally fair manner, are a significant determinant of the compliance of citizens with the law. Separately, Beetham (1991) distinguished between three criteria of legitimate power, namely conformity to rules, the justifiability of rules in terms of shared beliefs, and expressed consent, which refers to the reciprocal recognition of the rights held by both parties and which can encourage feelings of obligation to comply (Hacin, 2018).
Bottoms and Tankebe (2012) advance a dialogic, relative understanding of legitimacy involving continuous claims by power-holders and responses by audiences. They differentiate between audience legitimacy (i.e., the acceptance of those in authority as legitimate) and self-legitimacy, which relates to the extent to which the authority holder views their position of power as right and proper. Based on this work, Hacin and Fields (2016) present a dual model of legitimacy in prisons which incorporates both perspectives. Consistent with the views of Costa (2016) and Symkovych (2018), they argue that legitimacy is not fixed in nature, but develops through ever-evolving interpersonal relationships and dialogue. This necessitates that those in custody and prison staff are studied simultaneously. Legitimacy can also refer to the extent to which the rules or structure of a prison at an organizational level are perceived as fair (Franke et al., 2010). Indeed, this is congruent with Liebling’s (2004) articulation of the moral performance or climate of the prison, which encompasses the culture of the organization and the prison, and how aspects such as quality of life and dignity are managed.
Perceptions of legitimacy may therefore be important for maintaining a safe and secure prison environment. When those who are incarcerated view their relationships with officers as legitimate, they may be more likely to believe that such officers are entitled to make decisions and exercise power to uphold rules and maintain order (Crewe, 2011). They may also feel a greater obligation to comply with the directives of these officers, and with the rule of the prison regime more generally (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012). Similarly, prison officers who assert their authority or respond to challenges in an inappropriate manner (e.g., through harsh treatment or excessive use of force) may ultimately undermine their legitimacy, in turn contributing to rule breaking and a downward spiral of resistance and retribution (Murphy et al., 2015; Radburn et al., 2018).
Procedural Justice Theory
The development of procedural justice as a theoretical construct within the field of criminal justice has been ongoing for several decades. Typically defined as the perceived fairness with which one is treated by an authority figure, procedural justice theory postulates that individuals are not only interested in the outcomes of decisions made by authority figures, but also the manner in which those decisions are made (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Based on research in policing and the courts system, Tyler (1990) suggests that the perceived fairness of the procedures followed and treatment received by those in authority are a key determinant of legitimacy and the compliance of citizens with the law.
The hypothesized components of procedural justice have developed over time. Tyler and Lind (2002), for example, identified standing (i.e., dignity, politeness, and respect), neutrality, and trust as three factors that contribute to the perceived fairness of authoritative procedures. Later work by Tyler and Blader (2003) distinguished between decisional and treatment aspects of procedural justice, with the former referring to the quality of the decision made and the latter comprising the quality of the treatment received. Drawing upon the work of Beetham (1991) and Sparks and Bottoms (1995), Tyler (2003) articulated a procedural justice framework comprising four elements: voice, neutrality, treatment with respect and dignity, and trust in authorities. Voice refers to the extent to which one can contribute to and influence decision-making through formal mechanisms and opportunities. Neutrality addresses the extent to which decisions are based on a consistent application of rules, instead of the personal views of decision-makers (Murphy, 2017). Treatment with respect and dignity is associated with courtesy and the recognition of human rights, while trust in authorities can be accomplished by providing a platform to share concerns (Tyler & Huo, 2002).
Jackson et al. (2010) apply procedural justice theory to prisons by suggesting that perceptions of prison rules as transparent and applied by officers in a fair and consistent manner contribute significantly to the perceived legitimacy of prison officers and the regime, in addition to the likelihood of normative compliance. Legitimate relationships in prisons may also encompass factors such as the degree to which authorities help those who are incarcerated learn meaningful skills, develop opportunities after imprisonment, and provide a safe living environment. Indeed, the fact that prisons typically involve two unequal parties in semi-permanent relation to each other (Irwin Rogers, 2015) is markedly different to other domains in which procedural justice has traditionally been applied (such as policing), where third parties exercise power over other parties or individuals with whom they do not have any other relationship (Trammell et al., 2018).
The Current Review—Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Prisons
Drawing upon a comparative analysis of two maximum security prisons in the United Kingdom, Sparks and Bottoms (1995) were among the first to highlight a relationship between legitimacy and compliance in prison environments. They noted that though one regime was mostly unpopular and generated high levels of minor disciplinary problems, most of those who were incarcerated distinguished between the regime and the staff who administered it, who were considered in the main to be reasonable, fair, less coercive, and retained a degree of legitimate authority. The regime was also quite highly procedurally explicit and relatively consistent in its operation. In contrast, while the regime at the other prison was more relaxed and friendly, there was more fear, and when incidents did occur they were more likely to involve numerous people and the use of weapons. In a later study of five prisons also in the United Kingdom, Liebling (2004) determined that perceptions of order held by those who were incarcerated were influenced by their beliefs regarding the fairness or legitimacy of staff as well as by the quality of the relationships between staff and those in custody.
Partly in response to a call by Bottoms and Tankebe (2012) for further research on “junior” authority figures who regularly exercise power in their practice, a growing body of empirical research investigating legitimacy and procedural justice as they apply to the prison environment has been conducted in recent years. To date, however, no review of the empirical literature as it relates to procedural justice and legitimacy in the prison setting has been conducted. This is the focus of this article.
Method
A scoping review framework was employed as the methodological tool for this study. Scoping reviews typically seek to answer a broad question through a specified scope of inquiry (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). In contrast to more stringent systematic review frameworks, they tend to focus on identifying all relevant literature in a particular area and include a range of study designs. Here, the review process was based upon a five-stage process articulated by Arksey and O’Malley (2005), the first stage of which involved determining the research question at hand. The aim of this review fell broadly in line with that described by Daudt et al. (2013) (i.e., to “map the literature on a particular topic or research area and provide an opportunity to identify key concepts, gaps in the research; and types and sources of evidence to inform practice, policymaking, and research,” p. 44). To that end, we sought to determine “What is known about procedural justice and legitimacy in prisons based on the existing empirical literature?”
The second stage comprised a systematic literature search, which was conducted by searching the Google Scholar, Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO, Science Direct, and JSTOR electronic databases from January 1, 1990, to March 1, 2020. The start date of 1990 was chosen to ensure that the scope of the review was relatively recent. “Legitimacy” and “Procedural Justice” were combined variously with the following search terms in order to identify papers for review: “Prison,” “Incarcerated,” “Prisoner,” “Jail,” “Power,” “Authority,” “Compliance,” “Corrections,” “Inmate.” The reference lists in all identified primary studies and relevant review and discussion papers were also searched. The third stage involved selecting the studies to be included in this review. Papers were included only if they met each of the following criteria:
Specifically investigated the concepts of procedural justice and/or legitimacy,
Included empirical data collection procedures, and
Included persons who are incarcerated and/or prison officers as participants.
A range of study designs encompassing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method approaches were included. Papers not published in English, or in which participants were not recruited from adult prison populations or were not working with persons in prison (e.g., probation or community supervision), were excluded. Both review authors discussed and agreed upon the research question and search strategy for this review, after which one review author independently conducted the literature search and selected the studies to include in the review according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Stages 4 and 5 of the review process involved charting and then summarizing and analyzing the identified literature. A descriptive analytical approach was employed for these purposes. This involved first conducting a practical overview of all of the identified studies, in which information relation to the study authors, participants, country, design, research aim, and findings were extracted (see Table 1). Following this, an inductive thematic approach was used to summarize and analyze the literature. Rather than being guided by a particular theoretical framework, we adapted a data-driven approach and interpreted themes by analyzing the findings of the included studies. The findings of these stages are presented in the following results section. Both review authors contributed to the conduct of Stages 4 and 5 of the review process.
Chart of Reviewed Literature
Results
A total of 35 papers were included in the final review. Most (29) were quantitative (utilizing experimental or cross-sectional/longitudinal survey design), five were qualitative, and one was mixed-methods in nature. Although a start date of 1990 was applied for our literature search, much of the literature was relatively recent, with the earliest published in 2009, and 30 of the 35 papers published since 2015. An inductive thematic approach to analyzing this literature resulted in the generation of two primary themes, namely “Shaping Perceptions of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy” and “Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance” which are now presented in turn. For consistency, we use the terms “prisons,” “persons who are incarcerated,” and “prison officers” throughout the remainder of this article.
Shaping Perceptions of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy
The first body of empirical literature reviewed here relates to factors that influence perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy in the prison environment. We stratified this work across three subcategories. Namely these were perceptions of legitimacy, perceptions of procedural justice, and the dual model of legitimacy in prisons.
Perceptions of Legitimacy
Perhaps the most robust investigation as it relates to perception of legitimacy in prison environments comes from a number of cross-sectional studies with relatively large sample sizes. Brunton-Smith and McCarthy (2016), for example, analyzed longitudinal data from a four-wave panel study of 3,849 persons who are incarcerated in England and Wales (the Surveying Prisoners Crime Reduction project). It was found that those held in prisons where there were clearer systems in place to respond to problems, and where these systems were followed in a systematic and fair manner, were more likely to perceive the prison regime as legitimate. The authors suggested that a more procedurally just prison regime contributes to a more positive lived experience and greater perceived legitimacy in turn. Significantly, the authors also identified that perceptions of procedural fairness and legitimacy held by persons who are incarcerated can be fostered during initial interactions with staff and during their sentence. That is, initial interactions with staff were directly linked to subsequent assessments of staff legitimacy, while those placed on a basic or standard regime held less favorable views of legitimacy (when compared to those on an enhanced regime), as did those that who received additional punishments during their sentence or who reported spending more time locked in their cell.
Two other papers (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015; Wooldredge & Steiner, 2016) report on survey data collected from 5,616 persons who were incarcerated and 1,740 prison officers from 46 facilities in Ohio and Kentucky in the United States. Included in this analysis were a subsample of 1,880 who reported encounters with staff due to rule violations (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015). Among this subsample, those who perceived that the treatment they received from officers was more fair or more procedurally just held stronger beliefs regarding the legitimacy of prison officers. Similarly, those who felt they were treated unfairly during disciplinary processes were less likely to recognize the authority of prison officers as legitimate. Neither the outcomes, nor satisfaction with that outcome affected beliefs about officer legitimacy, suggesting that those who are incarcerated accepted accountability for their actions. The second paper (Wooldredge & Steiner, 2016) focused on the use of power by prison officers and its relationship to perceptions of officer legitimacy held by those who were incarcerated. The more officers relied on coercive power in their practice, the less likely it was that those who were incarcerated agreed that officers were fair, equitable, and did a good job. In contrast, greater perceived use of expert power corresponded with significantly higher perceptions of officer competence, fairness, and equity, while greater perceived use of positional (legitimate) power was significantly related to more favorable perceptions by those who were incarcerated.
Findings from other cross-sectional studies with smaller samples suggest that while perceptions of fair and procedurally just treatment contribute to perceptions of officer legitimacy, these perceptions are also influenced by a number of other factors. Hacin (2018), for example, identified that procedural and distributive justice, trust in authority, the effectiveness of prison staff, prison regime, age, and relations with others and prison staff were also significantly correlated with perceptions of the legitimacy of the prison staff. Smoyer et al.’s (2015) survey of 301 adult male and female persons incarcerated in the United States found that negative experiences while being incarcerated were significantly predictive of lower perceived legitimacy. However, the overall regression model in this study only explained 16% of the variance in criminal justice legitimacy scores, suggesting that other factors must contribute to perceptions of criminal justice legitimacy in this group.
The role of prison climate (i.e., the social, emotional, organizational, and physical characteristics of a prison setting) in shaping perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy was investigated experimentally by Franke et al. (2010). A total of 234 young adults were randomly assigned to serve a 6-month sentence at either a traditional prison or a military-style correctional boot camp. In the prison setting (but not the boot camp), delegitimizing experiences such as violence and perceived staff incompetence were identified as the norm. Positive experiences ultimately outweighed negative experiences in the boot camp setting, and participation in treatment and education was high. Also, and in keeping with previous findings, legitimacy was influenced by more than just procedural justice, as factors such as staff intentions, daily routines, environmental structure, humaneness, and interactions with other persons who were incarcerated all influenced others attitudes to authority. Qualitative work by Hacin and Meško (2018), which drew upon on structured interview data collected from a random sample of 193 persons held in Slovene prisons, also determined that perceptions of legitimacy in prison were influenced by a range of factors, including distributive and procedural justice, the quality of relationships with staff, and prison staff effectiveness.
Finally, novel qualitative research by Brown and Toyoki (2013) with persons incarcerated in Finnish prisons highlighted how some forms of identity work can serve as a form of internal legitimacy for prisons. That is, the researchers found that persons who were incarcerated ascribed pragmatic legitimacy to the prison as it served their personal interests and afforded them opportunities to work on preferred versions of their selves, while moral legitimacy was affirmed by helping them to become better people. Cognitive legitimacy was fostered through providing routine, everyday sense-making, and permitting them to work on aspirational selves. Those who were incarcerated ultimately viewed the prison environment as sufficiently legitimate to follow the rules and there was little serious disorder.
Perceptions of Procedural Justice
Staff and prison characteristics can contribute to perceptions of procedural justice, as evidenced by Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Molleman, et al. (2015), who analyzed data from the Prison Project (a large-scale survey of 1,610 persons held in Dutch pretrial detention centers) and the Dutch Correctional Staff Survey 2011 (n = 690). The attitudes of prison officers were not significantly related to the perceptions of procedurally just treatment held by persons who were incarcerated, though in units where officers had more positive attitudes toward rehabilitation, persons who were incarcerated were more positive about their relationships with prison officers. In units where there was a higher officer-to-persons incarcerated ratio and more female officers, those who were incarcerated perceived their treatment as more fair, respectful, and humane, and perceived their relationships with officers more positively.
The role of prison characteristics was also shown by Del Vecchio (2019), who investigated the effect of unit called T.R.U.E. (Truthfulness, Respectfulness, Understanding, and Elevating), in which 84 young adult males were housed with those serving long sentences to act as mentors. Perceptions of procedural justice were significantly higher among persons who were incarcerated and prison officers in the T.R.U.E. unit compared with age-matched controls in the general prison population, controlling for length of incarceration. Matekel (2018) conducted quantitative structured interviews with persons who were incarcerated in three different custody settings, namely medium, maximum, and close custody (a unique “middle ground” setting between medium and maximum custody). Those in the close custody subgroup reported significantly poorer perceptions of staff compared with their lower custody counterpart, suggesting that aspects of custody level may play a role in the development of procedural justice perceptions.
These findings are supported by qualitative investigations of procedural justice in prisons. Boone and Kox (2014), for example, interviewed 30 persons who were incarcerated and 36 staff (ranging from prison workers to governors) in the Tilburg Prison in the Netherlands. Tilburg Prison comprised unique setting for investigation as it was a Dutch prison populated by Belgians. The authors determined the prevailing individualized, open and friendly approach, which was favored by Dutch staff in their relationships with persons who were incarcerated for dynamic security purposes, was a significant contributory factor to satisfaction and their perceptions of respect and fairness. Bickers et al. (2019), based on interviews conducted with 19 sentenced persons, interpreted that they experienced little procedural justice, which had a negative effect on their relationships with prison officers and on their prison experience in general. Similarly, Trammell et al. (2018), based on interviews with 43 staff from four facilities in the United States, identified harsh language and threats of punishment from staff as evidence of procedural injustice. The authors suggested that while staff understood the principles of procedural justice and the importance of conveying respect, some responded to noncompliance with threats of punishment and aggressive communication. This delegitimized prison officer authority and the legitimacy of the rules.
That said, recent mixed-methods research by Jenness and Calavita (2018), which drew upon interviews with 40 persons who were incarcerated and official data provided by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, found that perceptions of procedural justice in the management of grievances were complicated by the outcomes. The authors suggested that the participants in their study were often unable to distinguish between an unfavorable outcome and an unfair process, and tended to infer that the process was unfair after receiving an unsatisfactory outcome. Significantly, the “stakes” associated with a grievance were negatively correlated with satisfaction with the outcome, suggesting that the role of outcomes in shaping satisfaction is magnified when the consequences are higher.
The Dual Model of Legitimacy
The dual model of legitimacy in prisons (Hacin & Fields, 2016) proposes that an understanding of legitimacy in prisons requires analysis of perceptions of officer legitimacy by persons who are incarcerated and the self-legitimacy of prison officers. Although Hacin et al. (2019) warn that self-legitimacy is unstable by nature and can vary over time and between different groups of prison staff, positive perceptions of self-legitimacy have been found to correlate with reduced willingness of prison officers to use force, in addition to officer support for rehabilitation (Akoensi & Tankebe, 2020). Three studies (Hacin et al., 2019; Meško et al., 2017; Meško & Hacin, 2020), reporting on survey data collected from prison officers across Slovenia, identified that age, the quality of relations with colleagues, distributive justice, supervisors’ procedural justice, and perceived audience legitimacy (that is, officers’ sense of their moral standing among those incarcerated) were each significantly predictive of the perceived self-legitimacy of prison officers. Interestingly, Meško et al. (2017) found that the influence of supervisors’ procedural justice on self-legitimacy was fully mediated by distributive injustice (e.g., salaries that are incommensurate with the demands of prison work), which negatively affected officers’ perceptions of self-legitimacy. Akoensi (2016), using data from 78 semi-structured interviews and observation of prison officers in Ghana, identified that officer self-legitimacy was shaped by their legal status and uniforms, while perceived audience legitimacy derived from self-discipline, close relationships, professional competence, respect for those in custody as humans, and making a difference in their lives. A later study (Akoensi & Tankebe, 2020), drawing on data from a survey of 1,062 prison officers also in Ghana, found that good relations with colleagues and being treated fairly by supervisors enhanced prison officers’ self-legitimacy.
Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance
The second body of empirical evidence reviewed here related to the issue of compliance. This research was primarily focused on determining the extent to which compliance with prison rules or the directives of prison officers was determined by perceptions of legitimacy and procedural justice by those incarcerated. We stratified this literature across four subcategories, namely predicting compliance, the process-based model of regulation, social distance, and recidivism.
Predicting Compliance
Two longitudinal investigations, both of which used independent disciplinary data, provide some good evidence for a relationship between procedural justice and incarcerated person compliance. Bierie (2013) analyzed monthly panel data covering a 7-year period from a formal grievance system used in U.S. federal prisons, to examine whether procedural justice in grievance management (i.e., rejections and timing of decisions) affected rates of prison violence. Distributive justice (complaint outcomes as granted or denied) did not significantly predict fluctuations in prison violence, though measures of procedural justice did. That is, violence within prisons was found to increase significantly with the number of late replies and rejections of complaints.
Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Eichelsheim, et al. (2015), using two waves of survey data and disciplinary reports from a sample of 806 Dutch incarcerated persons, found that those who reported that they were treated in a procedurally fair manner at Time 1 were less likely to report engaging in misconduct or receive a disciplinary report at Time 2 (defined as 3 weeks and 3 months after one’s pretrial detention period, respectively). Misconduct at Time 1 did not influence perceptions of procedural justice at Time 2, suggesting that prior misconduct history does not necessitate a perception of authorities as unfair, though perceptions of the process may. Interestingly, anger fully mediated the effect of procedural justice on misconduct, indicating that perceptions of unfairness led to anger, which in turn led to misconduct.
Further evidence for a relationship between procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance is provided by a number of cross-sectional studies, including two with reasonably large samples. Steiner and Wooldredge’s (2018) analysis of survey data from 3,886 persons who were incarcerated and 1,382 officers across 33 prisons in the United States determined that those with more positive perceptions of prison officer legitimacy tended to commit fewer nonviolent infractions (though they were not less likely to engage in violence). Similarly, prisons in which officers exercised their authority more lawfully and fairly, or relied more on their skills and expertise, had lower rates of violent or nonviolent rule violations. Among a subsample of those who had committed a rule violation, perceived legitimacy did not predict subsequent rule breaking, nonviolent or otherwise. However, stronger perceptions of procedural justice related to this violation were predictive of a lower likelihood of nonviolent misconduct (but not the number of violent offenses committed).
Bosma et al. (2020), analyzing data from 4,538 persons held in Dutch prisons and remand centers, found that greater perceived procedural justice and more positive staff relationships were predictive of a lower likelihood that they were to have registered or self-reported misbehavior. Maguire et al. (2021) surveyed 213 persons who were incarcerated in a U.S. transitional (i.e., minimum security) facility and found that their perceptions of procedural justice were directly and indirectly predictive of their cooperation and compliance. Procedural justice was directly correlated with obligation to obey and cooperation, and indirectly correlated with compliance. Finally, Campbell et al.’s (2020) survey of 144 persons who were incarcerated indicated that their perceptions of prison officer legitimacy were positively correlated with voluntary deference, while instrumental perceptions of officer effectiveness in controlling behavior were positively associated with perceived risk of being caught for rule violations. However, perceptions of legitimacy and some instrumental judgments were only weakly correlated with misconduct history, while perceptions of procedural justice were not significantly correlated with misconduct at all.
The Process-Based Model of Regulation
Other cross-sectional investigations of the relationship between procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance included three studies which tested Tyler’s (2003) “process-based model of regulation,” which proposes that perceptions of procedurally just treatment by an authority figure in their exercise of power can strengthen audience perceptions of the legitimacy of that authority figure, which in turn contributes to a self-regulatory norm of compliance (Tyler & Huo, 2002). Within a prison setting, this would suggest that fair and respectful exercise of authority by prison officers can contribute to a safe and secure custodial environment by promoting feelings of legitimacy and normative compliance (i.e., a sense of obligation to comply with the authority of the prison officer).
Reisig and Mesko (2009) reported mixed support for the model following analysis of structured interview data and official records from a sample of 103 persons held in a Slovene prison. Perceptions of legitimacy were only weakly correlated with self-reported and officer measures of misconduct, though procedural justice was inversely and significantly associated with both measures. Perceptions of legitimacy and procedural justice were not correlated, suggesting that while they may differ, both have the potential to influence misconduct. Stronger support for the model was reported in two recent studies with persons incarcerated in U.S. county jails. Baker et al. (2021) found that outside of demographic factors, prior misconduct, and a set release date, procedural justice was the strongest predictor of self-regulation in jails among their sample of 290 persons who were incarcerated. Similarly, Nuño and Morrow (2020), analyzing data from their sample of 443 persons who were incarcerated, reported a positive significant relationship between perceptions of procedural justice, trust, and obligation to comply with prison officers.
Social Distance
Two other recent studies indicate a relationship between perceived procedural justice, the legitimacy of prison staff and “social distance” (i.e., the extent to which an individual or group wishes to align with or remain out of reach of an authority figure). Barkworth and Murphy (2019), drawing on survey responses from 177 person incarcerated in Australian prisons, reported a strong association between perceptions of procedural justice and self-reported compliance with prison rules. Social distance, which was operationalized as “motivational posturing” in this study, was found to mediate the relationship between procedural justice and compliance. Meško and Hacin’s (2019) survey of 330 persons incarcerated in Slovene prisons found that their perceptions of procedural justice and the legitimacy of prison staff, the presence of violent subculture, and age were the strongest predictors of social distance. The authors cautioned that social distance appeared to be unstable by nature, varying over time and across different prison settings.
Recidivism
Finally, there was also some evidence that perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy may contribute to a lower risk of rearrest and recidivism beyond the prison setting. McCullough (2018), for example, identified that increased procedural justice corresponded with an increased likelihood of collaborating with others to plan for reentry and reduced likelihood of violent rearrest, though Dane (2012) reported that the perceived fairness of prison staff in a 90-day prison drug treatment program “Starting Treatment and Recovery Today” (START) was not related to postprogram recidivism among a sample of 78 persons who were incarcerated. More positive evidence in this domain is provided by two studies which included longitudinal survey data and objective conviction records. Beijersbergen et al. (2016) analyzed survey and conviction data of 1,241 persons as part of the Dutch Prison Project and identified that those who felt treated in a procedurally fair manner during imprisonment were less likely to be reconvicted in the 18 months after release. However, the effect was small and no evidence was found for a mediating role of legitimacy. This study also relied on a sample of incarcerated persons serving comparatively short sentences (up to a maximum of 9 months), meaning that those serving longer sentences may experience fewer benefits of procedurally just treatment. Separately, McCarthy and Brunton-Smith (2018) analyzed longitudinal survey data collected from 2,841 persons who were incarcerated across England and Wales. Interviews were conducted on reception to prison, again prior to release, and a third time 2 months after release. Those who held more positive views about staff legitimacy were significantly less likely to believe that they would go on to reoffend when interviewed prior to release, even when controlling for prior offending. Furthermore, those who held more positive views of the legitimacy of staff were significantly less likely to be reconvicted of an offense within a year of release. However, when prior offending history was controlled for, this effect was no longer significant, suggesting that perceptions of legitimacy only exert a moderate influence on reoffending behavior and can become outweighed by the cumulative impact of prior involvement in criminal activity.
Discussion
The published literature to date as it relates to empirical investigations of procedural justice and legitimacy in prison settings was analyzed here across two primary themes, namely shaping perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy, and the contribution of procedural justice and legitimacy to the compliance of persons who are incarcerated. In summary, there was much evidence to suggest that the consistent, fair, and respectful treatment of persons who are incarcerated is positively associated with their perceptions of the legitimacy of prison officers and prison regimes. Significant also in terms of implications for practice is that there is evidence that a perceived absence of fairness and respect in encounters between such persons and prison officers, including in grievance management, can undermine the perceived legitimacy of prison officer authority and contribute to negative relationships, conflict, noncompliance, and misconduct. Interestingly, recent research also suggests that how prison staff treat those who are incarcerated may also affect the social distance incarcerated persons attempt to put between themselves and prison staff, potentially making noncompliance more difficult to manage (e.g., Barkworth & Murphy, 2021). Prison staff at all levels should therefore be aware of the influence of normative compliance and legitimacy in the prison environment and strive to ensure that their actions are perceived as procedurally just as much as possible.
That said, there are number of caveats to this assertion which may of significance to practitioners and policy makers in this field. First, and consistent with assertions of Jackson et al. (2010) and Liebling (2004), procedural justice in prison settings may encompass more than just fairness of decisions or treatment from individual officers, but also the wider prison climate, general staff attitudes and performance, and outcomes received (e.g., Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Eichelsheim, et al., 2015; Jenness & Calavita, 2018). Second, legitimacy in the prison environment also seems to be determined by a number of factors, including procedural and distributive justice, custody level, and officers’ use of power (e.g., Franke et al., 2010; Hacin, 2018; Wooldredge & Steiner, 2016). Indeed, Tankebe (2013) posits that procedural justice is one of four components of legitimacy in criminal justice settings, alongside distributive justice (equal distribution of services across groups), authority lawfulness, and authority effectiveness. The practical implications of this are that while the actions of individual officers are significant in fostering positive perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy, the achievement of such perceptions is more than just the responsibility of the individual officer. Rather these should also be regarded as joint individual and organizational responsibilities, with focus placed on ensuring that both prison officers and the entire prison regime act in a just and fair manner across a range of domains.
Prison officers should also be aware that individual difference and demographic characteristics may moderate perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy. The relevance of this for custodial management is that legitimacy may be more challenging to generate among certain groups, and that different approaches may be required to encourage perceptions of fairness and legitimacy. For example, perceptions of officer legitimacy may improve with age (Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Molleman, et al., 2015; Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; McCullough, 2018; Smoyer et al., 2015; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015), though those who are in prison for the first time may perceive the legitimacy of the prison staff more positively than those with previous experience of the prison system (e.g., Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Molleman, et al., 2015; Hacin, 2018). There was also some evidence that those from minority ethnic groups tend to have poorer perceptions of prison officer legitimacy (e.g., Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; Smoyer et al., 2015; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015). Certain personality traits and the emotional state of persons who are incarcerated (especially anger) may also influence their perceptions of procedural justice and the legitimacy of their relationships with prison officers.
A further issue of applied significance is that while normative compliance does appear to exist in the prison environment, it is perhaps only one source or form of compliance. While positive perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy may reduce the likelihood of minor nonviolent rule infractions, their influence on more serious or violent disciplinary breaches is uncertain (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2018). Evidence for the influence of procedural justice and legitimacy on recidivism beyond the prison environment is also quite modest, as they seem to become outweighed by other factors such as prior involvement in criminal activity (Beijersbergen et al., 2016). While it is beyond the scope of this article to account for the full range of influences on compliance with prison officers or with prison rules, a range of factors, such as prior offending and the use of power by staff, also play a role (e.g., Campbell et al., 2020; Hacin & Meško, 2018). Those who are incarcerated may even view prison officers or the prison regime as illegitimate, but continue to comply out of fear, a lack of power, or for pragmatic purposes (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012; Carrabine, 2005).
Prison officers should also be aware that persons who are incarcerated may struggle to identify whether they have been treated in a fair manner, and be unable to distinguish between the actual outcomes of their interactions with prison officers/the prison regime and the nature of how those outcomes were produced. This relates to the fact that procedural justice and legitimacy are intertwined with the use of approaches based on instrumental power and compliance, the nature of which has changed much in many prison systems in recent years. For example, the introduction of prison reform initiatives such as education and training provision, drug/alcohol testing, therapeutic interventions, integrated sentence management, and incentivized regimes have all served to integrate a focus on rehabilitation with control and order (Crewe, 2011). These approaches require understanding as it relates to power dynamics in the prison system, the increasingly abstract nature of which may make perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy more difficult to form (Crewe et al., 2011).
Measuring Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Prisons
Almost all assessments of procedural justice and legitimacy were self-report in nature and based on the perceptions of officers or the prison environment held by persons who were incarcerated. In relation to procedural justice, some (e.g., Beijersbergen et al., 2014, 2016; Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; McCarthy & Brunton-Smith, 2018) assessed it as a prison level characteristic, relating to fair treatment and respect in line with Liebling’s (2004) work on prison quality and moral climate. Others (e.g., Barkworth & Murphy, 2021) examined Tyler’s (2003) four elements of respect, neutrality, voice, and trustworthiness in staff relationships, while Steiner and Wooldredge (2015) investigated perceptions of procedurally just treatment from officers in a recent encounter, drawing on Tyler’s (2003) view of procedural justice as a perceptions of quality of treatment and decision-making. This was an approach used by Reisig and Mesko (2009) and Maguire et al. (2021), who also included overall assessments of procedural fairness. Similarly, Dane (2012) and Hacin (2018) assessed procedural justice as perceptions of the fairness of decisions made by prison staff, while Campbell et al. (2020) conceptualized the antecedents of legitimacy in prison as including procedural fairness, fairness in decision-making, and perceptions of the quality of treatment. Nuño and Morrow (2020) and Baker et al. (2021) assessed procedural justice as perceptions of prison officer fairness informed by the process-based model of regulation. One study (Del Vecchio, 2019) assessed the perceptions of fairness and respect in the processes and regulations of the prison environment held by both officers and persons who were incarcerated, while two studies employed independent measures of procedural justice. That is, Bierie (2013) measured procedural justice as rejections and timing of decisions in grievance management, while Jenness and Calavita (2018) asked examined how specific aspects of grievances were managed in line with procedural justice components of participation, voice, and respect.
In relation to legitimacy, several assessed it as prison officer characteristic based on perceptions of fairness, effectiveness, trust, support, and honesty (e.g., Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; Hacin, 2018; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015, 2018). Campbell et al. (2020) assessed legitimacy as affect, obligation to obey the directives of prison officers, and trust in the prison system. Obligation to obey was also a feature of the assessment of legitimacy by Reisig and Mesko (2009) and Mesko and Hacin (2018), while Maguire et al. (2021) treated obligation to obey prison authorities as a mediator between procedural justice and cooperation and compliance. Beyond perceptions of prison officers, Smoyer et al. (2015) assessed perceptions of legitimacy as they related to the criminal justice system, while Franke et al. (2010) assessed perceived legitimacy of the criminal justice system in terms of attitudes toward the institutions themselves and practitioners within it. This variance across the literature is most likely due to the absence of single unified theoretical perspectives of procedural justice or legitimacy. Rather, definitions and models of procedural justice and legitimacy have developed over several decades of criminal justice research, which is probably why the empirical investigations reviewed here drew upon a range of conceptualizations and assessment tools.
Limitations and Future Research
A potential limitation of this review relates to the use of a descriptive analytical approach, incorporating thematic analysis procedures, to chart, summarize, and analyze the literature. This approach was ideally suited to the aim of this review in seeking to address a broad research question and “scope” a wide range of literature. However, quantitative statistical analysis beyond charting of the literature was not conducted, meaning that the results of the empirical studies included here were not combined and aggregated to yield weighted averages or effect sizes across these individual studies, or indicate contrasting results and patterns among them in a quantifiable manner. This should be born in mind by practitioners and policy makers when considering the applications of these findings.
An additional limitation relates to the nature of much of the research reviewed here, which was largely cross-sectional and employed correlational analysis. The quality of data obtained from survey research can be undermined by an unrepresentative sample and demand characteristics, while causal hypotheses associated with procedural justice and legitimacy could not be rigorously tested. However, it was welcome that many studies recruited large samples, including some with several thousand participants (e.g., Brunton-Smith & McCarthy, 2016; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015, 2018), while several studies utilizing experimental or longitudinal designs were also identified (e.g., Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Eichelsheim, et al., 2015; Bierie, 2013; Del Vecchio, 2019; Franke et al., 2010). These were complimented by a number of qualitative and mixed-methods investigations, which provided some rich, contextual insights into perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy in the custodial environment.
There are also a number of potential areas of future research arising from this study. First, determining whether and how staff can develop the requisite skills and knowledge to employ the principles of procedural justice and legitimacy in their day-to-day work would be of great value for maintaining legitimate staff relationships and the compliance of persons who are incarcerated. Officers must also be able to balance the security and welfare dimensions of their role, particularly as the somewhat artificial nature of their relationships with those who are incarcerated can become volatile and emotionally charged (Crewe et al., 2011). The skilled use of power by prison officers in their interpersonal relationships is critical in accomplishing fairness, order, and safety in prison (Liebling, 2011).
The extent to which certain groups of persons who are incarcerated hold disproportionately negative perceptions of procedural justice and officer legitimacy is worthy of future investigation and may need to be factored into future theoretical perspectives of these concepts. For example, Beijersbergen, Dirkzwager, Eichelsheim, et al.’s (2015) finding that anger fully mediated the effect of procedural justice on misconduct was informed by equity theory (Adams, 1965) and Agnew’s (2017) general strain theory. Since procedural justice theory currently does not include the mediating role of emotions, the incorporation of incarcerated person emotions (especially anger) into theoretical models of procedural justice may be a useful avenue of further research.
It is possible that the relationship between procedural justice and compliance is reciprocal in nature, in that those who comply with prison rules are treated more fairly, while those who receive fair treatment are more likely to comply with prison rules. It is unclear from the extant literature whether the value of procedural justice and legitimacy lie more in fostering normative compliance or in simply preventing misconduct. Finally, procedural justice research in the prison environment may benefit also from drawing upon advances in social identity approaches. That is, there is evidence from policing and crowd research that the inappropriate use of power can create a social context where victims unite around an emerging common identity, defined in terms of a perceived illegitimate relationship with authority (Radburn et al., 2018; Stott & Drury, 2000). A new social norm may then emerge in which noncompliance with authority is seen as right and proper, which may empower the subgroup to undermine authority and act collectively (Stott et al., 2012). This may be particularly useful in explaining instances where procedural injustice contributes to a lack of stability and control in the prison settings.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note:
There are no conflicts of interest to declare.
