System contact and procedural justice policing

Introduction

Victims of crime are often relied upon to assist criminal justice agencies with reporting crime and when prosecuting offenders. Often overlooked by criminal justice officials, however, is the victim’s sense of wellbeing and quality of life after such encounters with the criminal justice system. Research has previously reported that many victims of crime feel re-victimised as they proceed through the criminal justice system (for a review see Wemmers, 2013). Research has found many victims report secondary victimisation from the criminal justice system when authorities hold victim-blaming attitudes (Campbell, 1998; Campbell et al., 2001; Madigan and Gamble, 1991) or when there is insensitive or unresponsive treatment from legal officials (Martin and Powell, 1994). Such treatment can lead to numerous detrimental outcomes for the victim, including anxiety, fear and feeling ostracised from the wider community in which they live. As an authority that often has first point of contact with crime victims, police need to be particularly mindful of preventing further victimisation, as it is at this stage that victims of crime can be particularly vulnerable.

While a large body of research has shown that people’s satisfaction with authorities and the criminal justice system more broadly increases when authorities engage in procedural justice practices (e.g., Hinds and Murphy, 2007; Tyler and Huo, 2002), there is limited research examining the link between the way police – as front-line responders – treat crime victims and the subsequent effect that such treatment can have on a victim’s quality of life. The present study specifically seeks to examine the role that procedural justice policing can play in promoting crime victims’ quality of life after system contact. Importantly, it also seeks to put forward a framework for understanding why procedural justice policing might improve crime victims’ overall quality of life; that framework draws heavily on theories of emotion. Survey data collected from crime victims will be utilised. We will show that when police officers use procedural justice in their contacts with victims of crime it can: (a) reduce negative emotions associated with system contact; (b) reduce victims’ subsequent fear of crime; and (c) reduce victims’ feelings of isolation within their community.

The impact of victimisation

Victims of crime can experience a range of emotions and conditions resulting from their victimisation experience. Studies of crime victims have consistently revealed a number of emotional and psychological consequences, including post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive episodes, anxiety, fear of crime, low self-esteem, complicated or traumatic grief, agoraphobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, social phobia, simple phobia and feelings of social exclusion (e.g. Boudreaux et al., 1998; Garofalo, 1979; Kilpatrick, 1984; Lang et al., 2002; Strang, 2003; Zlotnick et al., 2006).

Police, as first responders to many victimisation experiences, can further contribute to a victim’s distress through disrespectful treatment or through what victims often consider as invasive and insensitive questioning (Maier, 2008). Police are required to gather accurate testimony and as much evidence as possible when questioning victims. While the solicitation of negative emotion may not be intentional in these situations, the collection of this information may supersede the emotional needs of the victim. In order to investigate and later prosecute a case, police require as much detail as possible, but at what cost to the victim?

Campbell and Raja (1999) interviewed mental health professionals who had worked closely with rape victims and found most therapists believed contact with criminal justice agents such as the police and the prosecutor’s office could be harmful to rape survivors’ mental health. This may be linked, in part, to differences in how authorities believe they should handle a case compared to what victims expect when dealing with these authorities. Howley (1982, cited in Shapland, 1984) highlighted these differences, reporting that police believed professionalism and efficiency were of utmost importance when dealing with victims, while victims expected support, reassurance and more personal contact from police. Shapland (1984) further found victims were most concerned with the processes police followed; the outcome they received in their case mattered less (also see Murphy and Barkworth, 2014). Shapland found that the attitudes displayed by the police had the biggest impact on victims’ level of satisfaction with their contact. Victim satisfaction was closely linked to the demeanour of the police and whether police considered the case seriously; dissatisfaction with the police encounter was linked with experiences of uncaring or casual attitudes. Cattaneo and Goodman (2010) were specifically interested in studying the quality of life of victims of violence. They found victims were more likely to report improvements in quality of life, as well as a reduction in depression levels, when they had encountered an empowering experience when dealing with the criminal justice system. Cattaneo and Goodman found victims going through a court process were more likely to feel empowered when they were able to express their views and these views were considered in the decision process.

Together, the findings discussed above show the prominent role that criminal justice agents can play in influencing the subsequent wellbeing and quality of life experienced by victims after coming into contact with the criminal justice system. The findings specifically highlight the value of police, as first-line responders, using procedural justice in encounters with crime victims.

Procedural justice policing: What do we know?

Procedural justice occurs when authorities treat people fairly and make decisions fairly. When judging whether an encounter with a police officer is procedurally just, people often focus on four aspects communicated by an officer: respect, trustworthiness, neutrality and voice (Rankin and Tyler, 2009; Tyler, 2008; Tyler and Huo, 2002; Tyler and Murphy, 2011). Research suggests that people perceive an encounter to be more procedurally just when they have been treated with respect, politeness and dignity, and when they feel they have been allowed an opportunity to air concerns and be involved in resolving their case (i.e. voice) (Tyler and Huo, 2002). Perceived fairness is also achieved through a sense of trust in the authority, elicited by the officer acting in the best interests of the person with an open, honest and caring attitude, and through a sense that treatment and decisions are conducted or made in a neutral manner. If neutral, the authority bases their actions and decisions on fact rather than personal opinion (Rankin and Tyler, 2009; Tyler, 2008; Tyler and Huo, 2002; Tyler and Murphy, 2011).

A significant body of research has demonstrated the importance of procedural justice in police–citizen interactions. Procedural justice policing has been found to increase the public’s trust and confidence in police (Murphy et al., 2014; Tyler, 2003; Tyler and Huo, 2002), to increase the public’s satisfaction with police (Hinds and Murphy, 2007; Tyler and Huo, 2002) and to improve public perceptions of police legitimacy (Bradford et al., 2014; Hinds and Murphy, 2007; Murphy et al., 2008; Sunshine and Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990). Compliance behaviours have also been shown to increase when people feel they have been treated with procedural justice by a police officer (Jackson et al., 2012a; McCluskey et al., 1999; McCluskey, 2003; Mastrofski et al., 1996; Paternoster et al., 1997; Tyler, 1990). Specifically, if police use procedural justice during encounters with the public, people are more willing to obey the directives of police and will be more likely to obey the law in their everyday lives (Tyler, 1990). Cooperative behaviours such as voluntarily reporting crime and victimisation and willingly assisting police in their crime control efforts are behaviours that have also been shown to be positively influenced by procedural justice policing (Jackson et al., 2012b; Murphy et al., 2008; 2009; Murphy and Cherney, 2012; Reisig and Lloyd, 2007; Sargeant et al., 2014; Sunshine and Tyler, 2003; Tankebe, 2009; Tyler and Fagan, 2008).

Importantly, research has found that procedural justice can significantly improve crime victims’ satisfaction with police encounters (Elliott et al., 2011, 2012; Laxminarayan et al., 2013; Ruback et al., 2008; Wemmers, 1998). This effect was demonstrated clearly by Wheller and colleagues (2013) in their recent experimental field trial in England. Relative to victims in a control group, Wheller et al. (2013) found that victims who had contact with police officers trained in procedural justice were significantly more likely to report feeling satisfied with their police contact, and significantly more likely to rate police treatment of them as procedurally fair. Police who had not been trained in the use of procedural justice elicited significantly lower levels of victim satisfaction and evaluations of fair treatment. Victims of crime can also be encouraged to assist police by reporting subsequent crimes and victimisation if they feel they have been treated with procedural justice during an initial encounter (Elliott et al., 2012; Murphy and Barkworth, 2014). Such findings are particularly noteworthy considering the low rate of reporting by victims of crime (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010a; Fisher et al., 2003).

We are aware of only three studies to date that specifically attempt to link victims’ evaluations of procedural justice with their subsequent wellbeing and quality of life; only one of these studies focuses exclusively on police (see Elliott et al., 2014; Laxminarayan, 2012; Wemmers, 2013). Elliott et al.’s (2014) study utilised qualitative interviews from 110 crime victims to show that procedural justice during a police–victim interaction led victims to report a stronger sense of wellbeing; specifically, procedural justice ‘was beneficial in addressing the negative psychological consequences of crime by giving victims a sense of closure, empowerment, and making them feel safer’ (p.1). Elliott et al.’s results provide support for Cattaneo and Goodman’s (2010) finding that experiences of empowerment with criminal justice authorities can improve overall quality of life. Second, Wemmers (2013) found that procedural justice was able to reduce the post-traumatic stress symptoms experienced by victims of crime. Wemmers surveyed 146 crime victims on two occasions: once soon after the prosecutor received their case from the police and again six months later. In each survey, victims were asked about the procedural justice they received from both police and other criminal justice agents. Wemmers found that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms improved with time. However, while procedural justice had little to do with this improvement, victims who reported higher levels of procedural justice at time 1 were significantly less likely to report strong PTSD symptoms at time 1. Third, Laxminarayan (2012) surveyed 190 victims of serious crime. She found that receiving procedural justice from criminal justice agents was associated with a more positive quality of life; quality of life was measured via five items assessing the consequences that the criminal proceedings had on their self-esteem, their level of optimism, trust in the legal system, their faith in a just world and their ability to cope with crime. Taken together, these results demonstrate the importance of procedural justice as a therapeutic tool for improving victims’ quality of life outcomes.

Explaining these effects through an emotion framework

With procedural justice having such a positive influence on so many outcomes (and not just with victims), researchers have tried to understand why procedural justice might be so effective. Prominent here are studies that show that emotion plays a significant role in predicting why procedural justice influences people’s evaluations of authorities. Empirical studies have revealed that both positive and negative emotion can be elicited by experiences of procedural justice and injustice; those who experience procedural justice tend to be more likely to experience emotions such as happiness, while those who report experiencing procedural injustice are more likely to report emotions of anger, frustration, guilt or anxiety (e.g. Barkworth and Murphy, 2015; Krehbiel and Cropanzano, 2000; Weiss et al., 1999). Interestingly, some recent studies have shown that emotion can play an important mediating role between procedural justice and subsequent attitudes and behavioural reactions (e.g. Barkworth and Murphy, 2015; De Cremer and Den Ouden, 2009; Murphy and Tyler, 2008; VanYperen et al., 2000). For example, using both experimental and longitudinal survey data from Australians who had had a recent encounter with police, Barkworth and Murphy (2014) found that anger mediated the relationship between procedural justice and self-reported compliance behaviour; if people received procedural injustice from police they experienced more anger, resulting in lower levels of compliance and cooperation with the law and police.

But how can such findings explain why procedural justice might impact upon crime victims’ quality of life? Here we can draw upon theories that place emotion at the heart of explaining people’s reactions to law enforcement (e.g. Braithwaite, 1989; Karstedt et al., 2011; Lind and Van den Bos, 2002; Sherman, 1993; Van den Bos, 2009). Lind and Van den Bos’ (2002) uncertainty management theory, for example, is particularly noteworthy as it provides a framework for understanding the consequences of system contact on people’s subsequent reactions. The uncertainty management model suggests that procedural justice can be particularly important to people in situations that make them feel uncertain. Studies undertaken in the workplace context demonstrate that procedural justice is important to individuals who feel ‘uncertain’ about both their status within their organisation and how their employer will treat them (Lind and Van den Bos, 2002; Van den Bos, 2001). It is not unreasonable to expect that victims of crime will experience uncertainty – uncertainty about how their case will be viewed by police before they even contact them, and uncertainty about how society may view them (i.e. will they be believed, will they be blamed for their victimisation). Social psychological research has revealed that feelings of ‘uncertainty’ can increase people’s need to feel socially included in groups (Hogg and Abrams, 1993; Hogg and Mullin, 1999). Victims of crime, therefore, may feel particularly anxious about their level of acceptance by others in society.

The ‘uncertainty management’ literature further suggests that uncertainty about what to expect from a given situation causes negative emotions such as anger and anxiety (Van den Bos, 2001). To counterbalance such negative emotion, individuals who experience uncertainty will focus on fairness when forming judgements about authorities. This occurs because being treated with respect, being given a voice in decision making and experiencing unbiased procedures communicate to people that they are valued members of the group, which reduces their feelings of status uncertainty. Procedural justice is likely to be important to victims because it serves to communicate to them that they are valued members of society. This in turn will reduce feelings of uncertainty and the negative emotions that this uncertainty arouses.

Common in the emotion literature, and related to arguments made by uncertainty management theory, is the idea that events can be appraised as either harmful or favourable to one’s own goals and desires, and specific emotions are experienced as a result of this appraisal (e.g. Barkworth and Murphy, 2015; Giner-Sorolla et al., 2007; Mackie et al., 2000; Murphy and Tyler, 2008; Smith, 1993). Certain negative emotions (e.g. anger, anxiety, shame) may manifest when a judgement is made that a person or group is harming or threatening the self (Mackie et al., 2000: 602). It is these negative emotions that can then lead to negative behaviours as the individual attempts to protect the self. Such theories of emotion can similarly be used to explain why victims of crime may respond as they do to negative and procedurally unjust experiences with criminal justice agents. Murphy and Tyler (2008) use emotion theories to specifically argue that procedural injustice can threaten a person’s sense of self-worth. They suggest that people can experience negative emotions in response to such threats, and the experience of these negative emotions will determine how they will behave.

In the context of victimisation, therefore, unfair or disrespectful treatment can amplify a victim’s feelings of uncertainty, can threaten a victim’s self-worth and will leave a victim feeling upset, anxious or ashamed. Procedurally just treatment, in contrast, will serve to reduce status uncertainty and the negative emotions associated with such uncertainty, thereby resulting in more positive quality of life outcomes, including greater feelings of social inclusion and empowerment after victimisation. Victims of crime are understandably sensitive to how others perceive them. They are particularly sensitive to whether they will be believed and valued by authorities (see Murphy and Barkworth, 2014). Messages from authorities that communicate to victims that they are believed, valued and respected (i.e. procedural justice) are less likely to leave victims feeling isolated and excluded, because such treatment is less likely to elicit uncertainty and negative emotion. In other words, how a victim’s emotions are experienced and managed serves as the psychological mechanism explaining why and how procedural justice will have an impact upon their subsequent quality of life. If we want victims to feel safe, empowered and included within society, the priority of police should be to reduce the negative emotions experienced by victims of crime. We propose this can be achieved through procedural justice.

The present study

Both the Elliott et al. (2014) and Laxminarayan (2012) studies discussed above show that procedural justice has a positive influence on crime victims’ overall quality of life. Neither study, however, attempted to put forth a theoretical framework for understanding why this occurs. It is within this context that the present study seeks to extend their work. The present study seeks to examine the importance of procedural justice policing for enhancing crime victims’ feelings of social inclusion and empowerment after victimisation and system contact. It seeks to explore whether procedurally just treatment can reduce the negative emotions often felt by victims of crime when they come into contact with law enforcement. And, importantly, the present study specifically tests whether procedural justice enhances feelings of social inclusion and empowerment through reducing the negative emotion experienced by victims of crime. Based on the literature reviewed above, three specific hypotheses will be tested:

Procedural justice policing will reduce the negative emotions experienced by victims of crime when they come into contact with police;

Method

Participants and procedure

In 2009, a random sample of Australian citizens selected from the publicly available Electoral Roll was mailed an invitation to participate in a research study about crime, safety and policing in their neighbourhood. Voting is compulsory in Australia. Hence, all Australian citizens over the age of 18 are required by law to register their name and address on the Roll. A stratified random sampling technique was employed in the selection of citizens to account for variation in population size across State and Territory jurisdictions. In total, 2,088 people were selected and invited to participate.

The survey included approximately 360 questions that addressed topics such as perceptions of crime in the community, experiences of victimisation, encounters with the police, satisfaction with police activity and attitudes toward the police. The sample of participants selected was sent a survey package which included a copy of the survey, a reply paid envelope and a cover letter that explained the aims of the research, guaranteed confidentiality and included a Free-call 1800 number to be used for assistance. Three reminder letters were sent to non-responders over a period of three months to encourage completion of the survey, with a replacement survey and reply paid envelope also accompanying the second reminder letter. A total of 1,203 useable surveys were returned (58% response rate), and after accounting for out-of-scope individuals (i.e. those who had died, were incapable of completing the survey or who did not live at the address to which the survey was sent; N = 232), a final adjusted response rate of 65% was obtained (for details about the full survey instrument, the methodology adopted for the broader project and the main findings see Murphy et al., 2010).

As we were specifically interested in victims of crime who had had contact with the police in relation to their victimisation, a sub-sample of respondents who completed the survey was extracted; this sub-sample comprised those who had been a victim of either property or personal crime in the preceding 12 months and who had reported that victimisation to police. A total of 171 victims who fitted the selection criteria were identified. Table 1 presents means and standard deviations for demographic variables for the extracted sample. ¹

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Demographic details of extracted sample: Those who had experienced and reported victimisation to police in previous 12 months.

	Extracted sample (N = 171)
	M	SD	%
Age	53.93	14.56
Income (AU$’000s)	85.56	54.11
Gender
Male			45.9
Female			54.1
Education
Year 12 or lower			34.6
Cert.1 – Adv. Diploma			29.0
Bachelor Degree or higher			36.4

Results

In order to examine the impact of procedural justice policing on victims’ emotions and quality of life, a series of regression analyses were conducted. The first set of regression analyses used demographic measures as controls and the procedural justice variable to predict shame, anxiety and anger, respectively (see Table 2). The second set of analyses used demographics, procedural justice and emotions to predict fear (Table 3) and social inclusion (see Table 4). Variables were entered in blocks in Tables 3 and 4 to test whether the emotions of shame, anxiety and anger would mediate the effect of procedural justice on both fear and feelings of social inclusion.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Ordinary least squares regression analysis exploring the role of procedural justice policing on victims’ feelings of shame, anxiety and anger.

	Shame	Anxiety	Anger
Predictor	β	β	β
Age	−0.06	−0.05	−0.11
Gender (0 = Male)	0.12	0.14	0.10
Education	−0.10	0.04	0.04
Income	−0.12	−0.09	−0.05
Procedural justice	−0.56***	−0.46***	−0.59***
R 2	0.36	0.24	0.40
df	121	120	122

***p < 0.001.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Hierarchical regression analysis exploring the role of procedural justice policing and emotion on victims’ fear of crime.

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	Step 1	Step 2	Step 1	Step 2	Step 1	Step 2
Predictor	β	β	β	β	β	β
Age	−0.09	−0.11	−0.11	−0.11	−0.09	−0.12
Gender (0 = Male)	−0.24*	−0.20*	−0.23*	−0.21*	−0.24**	−0.21*
Education	0.00	−0.03	−0.00	0.01	−0.00	0.02
Income	0.04	0.00	0.04	0.03	0.04	0.03
Procedural justice	0.20*	0.01	0.20*	0.11	0.21*	0.05
Shame	–	−0.35**	–	–	–	–
Anxiety	–	–	–	−0.20*	–	–
Anger	–	–	–	–	–	−0.27*
R 2	0.08	0.16	0.08	0.11	0.09	0.13
F change	2.12	10.41**	2.10	3.85*	2.36*	5.51*
df	5,115	1,114	5,114	1,113	5,116	1,115

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; note: fear of crime is coded so a higher score indicates less fear (i.e. higher quality of life).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Hierarchical regression analysis exploring the role of procedural justice policing and emotion on victims’ feelings of social inclusion.

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
	Step 1	Step 2	Step 1	Step 2	Step 1	Step 2
Predictor	β	β	β	β	β	β
Age	0.24*	0.22*	0.27**	0.26**	0.24*	0.22*
Gender (0 = Male)	0.07	0.10	0.06	0.09	0.07	0.10
Education	−0.06	−0.08	−0.05	−0.05	−0.06	−0.05
Income	0.07	0.04	0.06	0.04	0.07	0.06
Procedural Justice	0.27**	0.15	0.27**	0.18	0.27**	0.16
Shame	–	−0.21**	–	–	–	–
Anxiety	–	–	–	−0.19*	–	–
Anger	–	–	–	–	–	−0.18#
R 2	0.16	0.19	0.18	0.21	0.16	0.18
F change	4.35***	3.86*	4.95***	3.95*	4.34***	2.63
df	5,115	1,114	5,114	1,113	5,116	1,115

^# p< 0.11; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p< 0.001.

It can be seen from Table 2 that procedural justice was negatively associated with all three emotions. Victims who felt they received greater levels of procedural justice from police when reporting their victimisation were significantly less likely to feel shame, anxiety or anger, respectively. Importantly, none of the demographic variables predicted emotional reactions; procedural justice was the sole predictor of emotions.

Step 1 of Tables 3 and 4 shows that procedural justice was also related to victims’ quality of life. Procedural justice was found to be positively and significantly related to both feelings of fear and social inclusion. If victims felt they had experienced greater levels of procedural justice from police after reporting their victimisation they were less likely to feel their quality of life had been impacted by fear of crime, and they were more likely to feel socially included in their community. Models 1, 2 and 3 in Table 3 also show that gender was related to fear. Unsurprisingly, female victims were more likely than male victims to feel their quality of life had been negatively affected by fear of crime. Age was also found to predict feelings of social inclusion, with older victims feeling higher levels of social inclusion (see Models 1, 2 and 3 in Table 4).

Where the findings become particularly interesting is in Step 2 of each model. First, turning to Table 3, we can see that the emotions of shame, anxiety and anger are all negatively related to the fear of crime variable. Those with higher levels of shame, anxiety and anger are less likely to feel safe (i.e. their quality of life has been more affected by fear of crime). Upon entry of these emotion variables at Step 2, we can also see that the previously significant relationship between procedural justice and fear disappears. Instead, only the three emotion variables continued to predict fear. These findings suggest that negative emotion can mediate the effect of procedural justice on victims’ fear levels. These mediation effects were confirmed via three significant one-tailed Sobel tests (z = 2.91, p<0.002 for shame; z = 1.82, p<0.03 for anxiety; and z = 2.29, p < 0.01 for anger, respectively).

Similar findings were obtained when examining the social inclusion models. In Table 4 (Model 1 and 2) we can see that shame and anxiety each significantly predicted the level of social inclusion that victims of crime experienced in their community. Those with greater levels of shame and anxiety were more likely to feel isolated in their community. Importantly, like the analyses presented above, the shame and anxiety emotions again fully mediated the effect of procedural justice on feelings of social inclusion; the procedural justice variable ceased to predict feelings of social inclusion once shame or anxiety emotions were accounted for. These mediation effects were confirmed via two significant one-tailed Sobel tests (z = 1.87, p < 0.03 for shame; z = 1.98, p < 0.02 for anxiety). The results for anger were slightly different. As can be seen in Step 2 of Model 3 in Table 4, when the anger variable was entered into the regression model, the significant effect of procedural justice disappeared. However, given that the anger variable itself did not significantly predict feelings of social inclusion, anger was not a true mediator for the effect of procedural justice on social inclusion. What we can conclude, however, is that when a victim’s emotions of anger are taken into account, procedural justice has little relationship to the victim’s feelings of isolation.

Taken together, the findings seem to suggest that procedural justice policing has an important role to play in enhancing the subsequent quality of life of victims of crime. This appears to be so because procedural justice reduces the negative emotions often experienced by victims of crime when they come into contact with legal authorities.

Discussion

The present study sought to examine the role that procedural justice policing plays in promoting crime victims’ quality of life after system contact. Three specific hypotheses were tested: (a) perceptions of police use of procedural justice will reduce the likelihood of various types of negative emotion experienced by crime victims; (b) procedural justice policing will have a positive influence on victims’ evaluations of their quality of life; and (c) emotions will mediate the relationship between procedural justice and quality of life.

We found a number of interesting results. First, procedural justice was able to predict victims’ emotions. Victims who believed they were treated in a procedurally unjust way by police officers when reporting their victimisation were significantly more likely to feel anger, frustration and resentment, were more likely to experience shame and embarrassment and were more likely to feel tense and anxious as a result of their system contact. These findings support Hypothesis 1, and much of the previous literature that demonstrates that system contact can leave victims of crime feeling vulnerable, ashamed and angry. Second, we found procedural justice was also associated with victims’ self-reported quality of life. Those victims who felt they had received unfair treatment from police were much more likely to express that their quality of life had been impacted by fear of crime. They were also more likely to express that they felt socially isolated in their community. Conversely, those who felt they received procedural justice from police were less likely to feel their life was impacted by fear and were less likely to feel isolated in their community. These findings support Hypothesis 2: receiving procedural justice from police appears to positively affect crime victims’ subsequent quality of life. Third, and importantly, the present study put forward a theoretical framework that attempted to explain why procedural justice might be linked to a victim’s evaluations about their quality of life. The framework drew heavily on existing emotion theories. It put forward the idea that procedural justice policing would influence crime victims’ subsequent quality of life because procedural justice serves to reduce the level of status uncertainty and negative emotions often experienced after system contact. We found support for Hypothesis 3; negative emotions did mediate the effect of procedural justice on victims’ self-reported quality of life.

Implications of the findings

So what do these findings tell us? The vast majority of procedural justice studies with victims of crime show a strong and consistent link between perceptions of fair treatment and victims’ satisfaction with the criminal justice system (for a review see Laxminarayan et al., 2013). Only a handful of studies to date, however, have investigated whether procedural justice received during a victim’s encounter with the police can also be linked to their subsequent wellbeing and quality of life after system contact. Our study suggests that an association between procedural justice policing and quality of life does exist; procedural justice can predict how crime victims feel about different aspects of their lives. While such a finding may not be surprising to scholars working in the victimisation literature, our results also highlight the fact that procedural justice may be able to be used effectively when police officers are called to a victimisation event. As noted in the Introduction, Wheller et al. (2013) found that crime victims exposed to police officers who had received procedural justice training were significantly more likely to evaluate the encounter as procedurally fair and were more satisfied with their police contact than were victims who had been exposed to officers who received no such training. Wheller et al.’s research tells us that police officers can be trained to use procedural justice and that it can be easily and effectively implemented in the field.

The fact that our findings show that procedural justice has the potential to impact upon the quality of life of victims of crime supports earlier research by Laxminarayan (2012), Wemmers (2013) and Elliott et al. (2012). Each of those authors found a link between legal authorities (police and court officials) treating victims with procedural justice and victims’ quality of life. In particular, Laxminarayan (2012) and Elliott et al. (2012) found that procedural justice improved victims’ self-esteem, their faith in a just world and their trust in legal authorities, and provided them with a sense of empowerment. Where our study extends those prior studies, however, is that it explains why procedural justice might have such positive effects on the quality of life of crime victims.

Theories of emotion in both the sociology and psychology literatures posit an important role for emotions in explaining how people react to events (e.g. Braithwaite, 1989; Karstedt et al., 2011; Sherman, 1993; Van den Bos, 2001). We know, for example, that offenders who are punished by legal authorities can feel stigmatised by their experience if the punishment serves to humiliate them for what they have done. John Braithwaite argues that when such shame-related emotions are managed by the offender in a counter-productive manner this can lead to anger, further retaliatory behaviour and subsequent re-offending (see Braithwaite, 1989; Braithwaite and Braithwaite, 2001). Victimisation experiences may operate in a similar fashion. There is no doubt that a victimisation event can be threatening to one’s sense of self. The literature is full of examples of crime victims feeling ashamed, anxious and angry about their victimisation, leaving them feeling uncertain about whether they will be believed or respected by authorities and members of the community (see Murphy and Barkworth, 2014). Police can further exacerbate these feelings of vulnerability and uncertainty through the way in which they treat victims (e.g. Campbell, 1998; Campbell et al., 2001; Madigan and Gamble, 1991; Martin and Powell, 1994; Wemmers, 2013; Van den Bos, 2001). In a victimisation situation where one’s sense of self has been threatened, feeling valued and respected through procedurally just treatment may be particularly important to crime victims. Fair treatment can foster a sense of validation and understanding of a victim’s situation and communicates to victims that they are valued, that they will be believed, that their best interests are taken into account and that they will be looked after. Such treatment can therefore protect them from the negative emotions that can result in destructive thoughts and behaviours. Our findings certainly add weight to the emotions literature by showing that procedural justice can reduce the negative quality of life outcomes experienced by crime victims because procedural justice reduces the negative emotions experienced by system contact. This is likely to be due to the fact that procedural justice reduces feelings of status uncertainty (see Van den Bos, 2001, 2009).

While our findings add support to uncertainty management theory and other emotion-based theories of system contact, they also have implications for police practice and policy. Given that victims of crime are likely to feel a high degree of uncertainty and negative emotion prior to even contacting the police, this requires a policing approach that is sensitive to these emotions and feelings of uncertainty. Police may not be able to solve the crime that victims report to them, but they can change the way in which they interact with victims of crime. Listening to victims, ensuring they communicate to victims that they have their best interests at heart and ensuring they treat all types of victim with respect, regardless of their background or victimisation experience, will create a situation in which victims of crime feel more satisfied with their system contact. Police agencies should ensure that all of their officers receive training in procedural justice so that they recognise the value that such treatment can have on a victim’s subsequent quality of life. Wheller et al.’s. (2013) study shows that such training is easy to implement and has far-reaching benefits for victim satisfaction. Given that the police rely so heavily on members of the public to report crime and victimisation, providing an experience that victims will view as procedurally fair will reduce their feelings of secondary victimisation, but it will also encourage victims to report subsequent victimisation to police in the future. Interactions that do not utilise procedural justice, in contrast, risk impacting on the long-term effectiveness of police, as victims of crime shy away from police out of fear of experiencing secondary victimisation and social exclusion.

Limitations of the study

While our study demonstrates that procedural justice can promote quality of life outcomes among crime victims, it is worth mentioning that there are some limitations inherent in our data. While these limitations do not discredit our findings, they should be taken into account when interpreting the results. First of all, our study only contained a relatively small sample of crime victims (N = 171). This is not dissimilar to other studies in the field, but it does raise a concern over whether the findings can be generalised to all victims of crime. The victims studied here had experienced a variety of different offences (e.g. burglary, assault, sexual assault, motor vehicle theft, vandalism of property). Laxminarayan et al. (2013) argue that such heterogeneity in victimisation samples is a limitation because there are subtle nuances in victimisation experiences that can occur across different victimisation contexts (for evidence of this see Murphy and Barkworth, 2014). These nuances cannot be ascertained when the sample is combined. Laxminayaran et al. therefore suggest that researchers should consider examining the impact of criminal justice processes across different types of crime victim separately. Murphy and Barkworth’s (2014) recent study points to the value of such an approach. They were able to show that procedural justice concerns mattered less for some types of crime victim; for other types of victim, procedural justice mattered a great deal in determining whether they would be willing to engage with police again. It is therefore possible that had we had a larger sample with which to work with, we might have found that procedural justice impacted differently upon quality of life outcomes for different types of crime victim.

A second limitation relates to the nature of our data. The present study utilised cross-sectional survey data. The true direction of causality between our variables cannot be determined with such data. We cannot be certain, for example, whether victims who are particularly emotional to begin with, or who have a lower quality of life, are less likely to evaluate police favourably, or whether the type of police treatment received caused more negative emotion and poorer quality of life to be experienced. These pre-existing feelings should be taken into account in future research to examine what impact they have over and above the effect of procedural justice on emotions and wellbeing. Further analyses of changes over time using longitudinal datasets may offer a more robust test for such relationships. Ideally, accessing a group of people prior to victimisation and then tracking their experiences in the criminal justice system after a victimisation event would be a much stronger test of the research questions posed in our study. Related to this limitation is the fact that we are unable to control for the time-lag between victimisation experience and interview. While we asked about victimisation experienced in the preceding 12-month period, some victims may have experienced victimisation 12 months prior to completing a survey, while for others it was only 1 month prior to the survey. Future research should control for this.

Third, we only had a limited number of quality of life measures available in our survey. We found there was a relationship between procedural justice and emotion, and between procedural justice and fear of crime and feeling isolated within a community, but perhaps if we had asked about the impact of police treatment on other aspects of quality of life (e.g. faith in a just world, self-esteem, a sense of empowerment, etc.) we may have failed to find relationships.

Finally, the amount of variation explained in some of our models was weaker than desired. While this was of less concern for the three models predicting emotion, the two models that used quality of life as dependent variables were only able to explain a maximum of 20% of the variation in quality of life responses. This suggests that other variables not contained in the models contribute to the quality of life experienced by victims of crime.

Conclusion

Despite the limitations of our study, we were still able to highlight some interesting results. Importantly, procedural justice policing can have a positive effect on a crime victim’s quality of life after system contact. Our research shows that a victim’s fear of crime and their feelings of social exclusion can be significantly reduced if police use a procedurally just approach when they first come into contact with a crime victim. Our findings suggest that the positive relationship between procedurally fair treatment and quality of life occurs because procedural justice serves to reduce the shame, anxiety and anger that can be experienced by victims coming into contact with the criminal justice system. In conclusion, our results highlight the importance of police officers always using procedural justice when they come into contact with crime victims. As noted earlier, victims of crime want and expect support and reassurance, and they desire a more personal approach from police. A procedural justice policing approach can deliver this.