Who Can You Trust? The Impact of Procedural Justice,Trust,and Police Officer Sex on Women's Sexual Assault Victimization Reporting Likelihood

Abstract

Sexual assaults are underreported to the police, even though this crime affects one in four college women. Using a vignette design, this study fills a gap in the literature by examining the influence of prior police perceptions, procedurally unjust treatment, and the sex of the responding officer on college women's likelihood to report sexual assault. Results indicate positive prior police perceptions significantly increase students’ perceived likelihood to report sexual victimization. Even when controlling for prior perceptions, procedurally unfair treatment significantly decreases the likelihood of future victimization reporting. Responding officer sex does not affect students’ decision to report.

Keywords

sexual assault victimization procedural justice police gender

Introduction

Recent national public attention on the hidden crime of sexual assault has resulted in widespread social movements, such as #MeToo and Time's Up. These social movements have encouraged victims to come forward and share their experiences, and this publicity has resulted in others recognizing their own sexual assault trauma (Chiwaya, 2018). Sexual assault is defined as sexual contact or behavior that occurs without explicit consent of the victim, which can include attempted rape, fondling or unwanted sexual touching, or forcing the victim to perform sexual acts (i.e., oral sex or penetrating the perpetrator's body) (Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS], 2014). According to the most recent national Clery Act statistics, one-third of crimes on campus were sexual offenses (32%), and the majority of these crimes target women as victims (BJS, 2014). Although college men also experience sexual violence, college women are more than four times as likely to be targeted given that one in four college women are sexually assaulted (BJS, 2014).

Even these high rates likely reflect a gross underrepresentation of college women's risk because the Clery data are limited to reported sexual assaults—and this highly personal and traumatic crime often goes unreported (Brubaker et al., 2017; Fisher et al., 2000, 2003, 2010). Official data suggest only about 20% of sexual assaults against students are reported to the police (BJS, 2014). These unreported crimes are a cause for concern because the police are unable to intervene in the situation, allowing for the perpetrator to potentially continue committing new sexual assaults. Previous research shows sexual assault survivors often do not report to police for many reasons, including fear of retaliation from the perpetrator, shame, guilt, and misunderstanding the incident as a bad sexual experience instead of a crime (Brubaker et al., 2017; Fisher et al., 2010; James & Lee, 2015; Moore & Baker, 2018; Sabina & Ho, 2014; Spencer et al., 2017).

Victims’ interactions with the police can have important implications for potential reporting rates. Specifically, the sex of the responding officer may impact a victim's likelihood to report in future because some victims may feel more comfortable reporting their victimization to an officer of the same sex (see also Jordan, 2002 and Oehme et al., 2015). College women's perceptions of police as trustworthy and fair may also play an important role in influencing whether or not to report sexual victimization. From a procedural justice perspective and literature on victimization generally, college women will be more likely to report sexual victimization if they perceive police behavior to be fair or just (Moore & Baker, 2018; Murphy & Barkworth, 2014). Sexual victimization is the focus of this study, rather than victimization in general because unlike other forms of victimization, it is often associated with more stigma to the victim (Fisher et al., 2003; Khan et al., 2018; Sabina & Ho, 2014; Sable et al., 2006). By its very nature, stigma has profound implications for one's standing within a group (i.e., a person might view stigma as a signal that they are not part of the group). Hence, people that are stigmatized are especially sensitive to group status (Major & O’Brien, 2005), which, in turn, influences their likelihood to cooperate with group authorities, such as law enforcement (Tyler, 2009).

Understanding the interconnected relationships between procedural justice, prior perceptions of the police, sex of the responding officer, and reporting sexual assault is important to explore for several reasons. For example, studying young women's perceptions of police and procedural justice has implications for policies to improve victim reporting, police officers’ interactions with community members, and the clearance rate for sexual assault crimes. Although previous research has separately examined sexual assault reporting (Brubaker et al., 2017; Fisher et al., 2010; James & Lee, 2015; Moore & Baker, 2018) and the impact of trust and procedural justice on cooperation with the police (Boateng, 2018; Donner et al., 2015; Murphy, 2017; Sharp & Johnson, 2009; Slocum, 2018; Tyler, 2004, 2011; Tyler & Blader, 2003; Tyler & Fagan, 2008; Tyler & Huo, 2002), little is known about the link between these concepts. Even less is known regarding how victims’ reporting behavior may change depending on the sex of the officer to whom they are reporting their victimization. To address the gaps in knowledge regarding these issues, the current study uses a vignette survey design to explore the link between (a) global perceptions of the police, (b) procedural justice in an interaction, and (c) the impact of the responding officer's sex on women's likelihood of reporting sexual assault.

Literature Review

Police Trust and Victimization Reporting

Police officers rely heavily on victim and citizen reporting of crimes. Police cannot protect the public from crime if police are not made aware of criminal events within the communities they serve (Tyler, 2011). Distrust and poor perceptions of the police contribute to unreported and underreported crime (Boateng, 2018; Nix et al., 2015; Sharp & Johnson, 2009; Slocum, 2018; Tyler, 2004, 2011; Tyler & Fagan, 2008; Tyler & Huo, 2002). In other words, trust is essential to the legitimacy of police (Sharp & Johnson, 2009). Police legitimacy refers to community members’ belief that the police are an appropriate and proper authority figure that has a right to prescribe and enforce appropriate behavior (Tyler & Jackson, 2013). When individuals believe the police are legitimate authorities, they feel a corresponding duty or obligation to obey police directives and the law more generally (Tyler & Huo, 2002). In other words, people voluntarily defer to an authority figure because they believe it is the right thing to do, given their perceived status of police in society. Trust in the police significantly increases victim cooperation and compliance (Gau, 2014; Reisig et al., 2007; Sharp & Johnson, 2009). People who distrust the police are less likely to perceive the police as legitimate and, therefore, may be less likely to feel it is their duty to cooperate with police (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003).

Attitudes toward the police include global and encounter-specific views, which are often intertwined, and both can influence cooperation and reporting likelihood (Gau, 2014). Global views refer to general views that are informed by many different sources such as personal experiences, views of friends and family, and media depictions. Specific views are perceptions or attitudes about police that are tied to specific face-to-face encounters or interactions a person may have with police. Encounter-specific perceptions and trust in the police can help inform a person's broader global view of the police (Gau, 2014). When community members view police interactions positively, either vicariously or from their own personal experiences, they are more likely to view the police as trustworthy (Mazerolle et al., 2013; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). Views of police trust can encourage cooperation in the form of reporting crime to the police, helping the police find a suspect, or assisting the police in a community watch program (Tyler, 2011; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). People who distrust the police are less likely to report victimization to law enforcement (Sable et al., 2006).

In terms of sexual assault reporting, trust in the police is extremely important to victims when deciding to report or not (Franklin & Garza, 2021; Henry et al., 2021). Fear of secondary victimization either by the police or the criminal justice system more broadly often acts as a barrier for individuals’ reporting of sexual assault (Henry et al., 2021; Sabina & Ho, 2014; Thompson et al., 2007). Secondary victimization can be understood as negative experiences such as being treated in upsetting ways, not being believed, being asked victim-blaming questions, or even being threatened with arrest (Franklin & Garza, 2021; Henry et al., 2021; Patterson, 2011). Blame and fear of not being believed by police has been found to significantly decrease the likelihood of reporting to the police (Henry et al., 2021; Sabina & Ho, 2014; Thompson et al., 2007). Thus, trust in law enforcement has a strong impact on the likelihood of reporting. It is imperative that law enforcement focus their efforts on increasing trust if they wish to help victims of sexual assault and increase cooperation. Victims often weigh the impact of police response when deciding to report formally to these entities.

Procedural Justice and Victimization Reporting

One key antecedent of police trust and legitimacy is procedural justice, which can also impact overall views of the police and victimization reporting. Procedural justice refers to the fairness of processes used by authority figures such as law enforcement, to reach specific outcomes or decisions (Tyler, 2006). Public perceptions of police procedural justice are often shaped by officers’ treatment of individuals and decision-making (Mazerolle et al., 2013; Tyler & Fagan, 2008; Williams & Nofziger, 2003). According to the group-value model of procedural justice (Tyler, 1989, 2006; Tyler & Lind, 1992), fairness on the part of authority figures acts as a signaling device whereby authorities communicate to individuals their status and membership within the group the authority represents. On this account, people are powerfully motivated to create and maintain memberships in valued groups as a source of identity, self-esteem, and positive self-regard (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). As a result, people are particularly sensitive to messages of inclusion and exclusion they receive from other group members. Fair treatment and decision-making on the part of authorities signal to individuals that they are an important and valued member of the group, amplifying and encouraging group identification over time (Tyler & Blader, 2003). As individuals meld their group identity with their self-concept, the group's goals, norms, and values become their own, and this encourages voluntary deference to group rules, cooperation with group members, and support for group authorities.

Procedurally just policing methods frequently lead to an increase in public trust and overall satisfaction with the police (Mazerolle et al., 2013; Murphy & Barkworth, 2014; Tyler & Fagan, 2008; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Factors that have been found to be important to victims when dealing with the police fall into four key elements of procedural justice: neutrality, respect, trustworthiness, and voice (Tyler, 2004, 2006). Taken together, these concepts mean that in order for police to be seen as procedurally just, police must (a) treat people in an even-handed and unbiased way; (b) recognize and respect the rights of those they are interacting with; (c) respond in a benevolent and caring manner, demonstrating trustworthiness; and (d) allow individuals to explain the situation and have their voice heard before a decision is made (Murphy & Barkworth, 2014; Tyler, 2004, 2006).

Procedural justice has been found to be influential for victims of different types of interpersonal crime such as cybercrime, domestic violence, sexual assault, and physical assault (Elliott et al., 2014; Graham et al., 2020; Henry et al., 2021; Hickman & Simpson, 2003; Murphy & Barkworth, 2014). Procedurally just treatment provides one way for law enforcement to promote and encourage increased victim cooperation. Procedurally fair treatment by law enforcement signals to victims that they are valued members of the group and indicates they will be treated fairly again in the future. Put simply, the likelihood of cooperating with the police increases when people feel like they are valued members of the community (Tyler & Blader, 2003). Previous research has shown that positive perceptions of procedural justice can lead to increases in police referrals for sexual assault victims (Henry et al., 2021). Receiving just treatment by the police may help alleviate some of the strain caused by victimization. Sexual assault victims in particular are often in a stigmatized, vulnerable state, which could lead them to question their status within the community. Procedurally just treatment can help reinforce a victim's identification with their community, potentially alleviating some of the stigma and trauma associated with this type of victimization.

When it comes to sexual assault reporting, some officers may not align themselves with procedurally just policing, especially when it comes to believing victims and classifying sexual assault cases as “unfounded” when taking reports. “Unfounded” sexual assault simply means that the officer taking the report believes that the report is a lie (Murphy-Oikonen et al., 2020; Rotenberg, 2017). Although previous research has found that false reports of sexual assault are rather rare, official police classifications of “unfounded” sexual assault are quite high in comparison (Ferguson & Malouff, 2016; Murphy-Oikonen et al., 2020). The problem with sexual assault reports being classified as “unfounded” by police can be attributed to a number of different reasons including believability of the victim, alcohol consumption, not fitting into the “real rape” stereotype, and officers’ level of rape myth acceptance (Murphy-Oikonen et al., 2020; O’Neal & Hayes, 2020). Believability and respect are two major contributors to procedural justice, so when victims are not viewed as credible and their cases are classified as “unfounded,” this signals to the individual that the police officer may not be operating in a procedurally just way. It tells the victim that they are not necessarily a valued member of the group as proposed in procedural justice theory and can be an indication of how they may be treated in the future. By listening to victims and seeing their sexual assault reports as founded and believable, that is, using procedural justice, officers can reinforce victims’ group membership and potentially influence their future behavior.

Officer Sex and Victimization Reporting

There has been very little research examining how the sex of a police officer influences the likelihood of reporting victimization among the public within the procedural justice framework. Prior research regarding how officer sex impacts sexual assault reporting behavior has often been understudied in the criminology field, with some studies suggesting that the empathetic rapport of the officer matters most when interviewing victims (Kim et al., 2020; Webster et al., 2021). Although not directly examining the gender of an officer, these studies show that being empathic, honest, nonjudgmental, and attentive are important to victims and can help build rapport (Kim et al., 2020; Webster et al., 2021). Additionally, these findings could lend to support to the idea that procedural justice is of the upmost importance to victims, given its emphasis on respect, fairness, voice, and trustworthiness. By utilizing supportive, empathetic interviewing techniques, police officers can increase communication and possibly improve their interactions with victims.

Most research examining police officer sex has focused on attitudes about sexual victimization held by officers, rape myth acceptance, and their response to certain crimes, such as intimate partner violence (IPV) or sexual assault (Meier & Nicholson-Crotty, 2006; Morabito et al., 2017). For example, female correctional officers often have more positive attitudes toward victims of sexual assault and IPV, are less likely to victim blame, and are more likely to view the victim as credible compared to male officers (Cook & Lane, 2012; Lockwood & Prohaska, 2015). However, these studies examined correctional officers as opposed to law enforcement and only examined victims retrospectively without exploring how an officer's beliefs and attitudes impact their interactions with victims (Cook & Lane, 2012; Lockwood & Prohaska, 2015). The impact of these positive attitudes on victim reporting is relatively unknown due to the lack of research examining how this may shape police interactions with victims (Lockwood & Prohaska, 2015). Given that few studies examine how victims perceive being treated by male versus female officers and the impact officer sex can have on victimization reporting, the current study aims to fill this gap in research by examining what role, if any, officer sex may play in reporting sexual assault victimization or if the type of interviewing (e.g., procedural justice) matters more.

Current Study

The current study examines the impact of college women's perceptions of procedural justice and police trust on their perceived likelihood to formally report future sexual assault victimizations. We also examine if the responding officer's sex impacts victims' reporting likelihood. The following hypotheses were tested using original survey data from college women who were presented with a 2 (procedural justice/injustice) × 2 (female/male responding officer) vignette design. We hypothesize that: (1) more positive global perceptions of police (e.g., trust and effectiveness) will be associated with an increased likelihood of reporting sexual assault to the police in the future; (2a) women who receive the procedurally unjust treatment manipulation will be less likely to report sexual assault to the police in the future; (2b) positive global perceptions of police measured prior to the hypothetical encounter and receiving procedurally unjust treatment by the police will both significantly impact reporting likelihood; and (3) the likelihood of reporting in the future will increase if a female officer responds, regardless of the type of treatment.

Method

The current study involved the development and administration of an original survey for the purposes of understanding the relationship between procedural injustice and sexual violence victimization among college students using vignettes. The survey was administered electronically to female college students who were enrolled in classes that met in person at a large public university in the southwestern United States. With approval from the university's institutional review board, we accessed students by requesting instructors teaching courses during the fall 2018 semester to invite their students to participate in the study. Instructors were selected using a random sample of 15% (n = 160) of courses being offered across the entire university. Due to random sampling, the 160 courses included both undergraduate and graduate classes from a number of academic areas. Participants who self-identified as female (n = 578) responded to a sexual assault vignette, and this reflects our final sample for the current study.

Experimental Design

The vignette (see online Appendix, supplemental material) depicted an acquaintance rape situation occurring in a dorm room and then a police-victim encounter to address reporting the crime. The situation was drawn from qualitative studies with victims of sexual assault who have had experiences with the police. The vignette followed a 2 (procedural injustice: yes/no) × 2 (sex of responding officer: female/male) between-subjects experimental design. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions using the online survey platform's randomization option in order to ensure all conditions were distributed evenly. After reading their assigned scenario, participants answered a number of follow-up questions including narrative checks and perceptions of the situation presented in the vignette.

In order to test the believability and clarity of each of the vignettes, a pilot study was conducted among a group of 25 undergraduate students enrolled in a criminal justice research methods class. Female students were given the sexual assault scenario with both the procedural just and unjust conditions as well as the male and female officer condition. Students were told the nature of the study and asked to read the vignettes for clarity and believability. The students were asked to make notes directly on the hard copy to identify wording that seemed unclear or confusing. Physical copies of all surveys were collected and examined in order to ascertain if any changes needed to be made to the vignettes to make them easier to understand. Based on the pilot study, only a few minor modifications were suggested and incorporated based on the students’ comments such as phrasing or grammatical suggestions.

Sample Description

Among the 578 female participants, ages ranged from 18 to 65 with an average age of 21 years (see Table 1). A large portion of participants were white (n = 278; 48%). The remaining 52% were comprised of women who identified as Hispanic/Latinx (n = 171; 30%), African American/Black (n = 39; 7%), Native American or American Indian (n = 17; 3%), Asian or Pacific Islander (n = 50; 9%), and other race/ethnicity (n = 23; 4%). In terms of class standing, the largest proportion of the sample were freshmen (n = 285; 50%) followed by sophomores (n = 82; 14%), juniors (n = 90; 16%), seniors (n = 74; 13%), and graduate students (n = 41; 7%). The sample also included a wide range of academic disciplines with at least one participant from 14 of the possible 15 academic colleges. In comparison to the larger university population, this sample is relatively younger and represents a slightly more racially diverse sample, especially in regard to Hispanic/Latino, African American/Black, and Native American/American Indian students.

Table 1.

Summary Statistics of Variables (Full Sample; N = 578).

Variables	Frequency (n)/mean	(SD)	Range
Race/ethnicity
White/Caucasian	48% (278)
Hispanic/Latino	30% (171)
African American or Black	7% (39)
Native American or American Indian	3% (17)
Asian or Pacific Islander	9% (50)
Other race/ethnicity	4% (23)
Grade
Freshman	50% (285)
Sophomore	14% (82)
Junior	16% (90)
Senior	13% (74)
Graduate	7% (41)
Prior police contact
Called the police	26% (148)
Witnessed a crime	16% (92)
Committed a crime	2% (11)
Been a victim of a crime	9% (49)
Ride along	3% (15)
Internship	3% (16)
Family member/friend is a police officer	26% (149)
Current/former police officer	1% (4)
Other	11% (66)
None	36% (207)
Previous victimization
Physical assault	14% (81)
Sexual assault/rape	26% (148)
Theft	20% (114)
Vandalism	6% (36)
Other	2% (12)
None of the above	55% (316)
Age	20.65	5.24	18–65
Global police perceptions	3.39	0.85	1–5
Reporting likelihood	3.45	1.52	1–5

A large proportion of the women indicated they had come into contact with the police at least once in the past year (n = 371; 64%). Of these women, 39% (n = 224) experienced self-initiated contact, 2% (n = 11) experienced contact with the police due to their criminal behavior, and 24% (n = 136) experienced some other type of contact, such as having a friend or family member who is a police officer or participating in a ride-along or internship (see Table 1). A remarkably high number of women had experienced some type of victimization since entering college (n = 256; 45%). More specifically, the women had experienced physical assault (n = 81; 14%), sexual assault (n = 148; 26%), theft (n = 114; 20%), vandalism (n = 36; 6%), or some other type of victimization (n = 12; 2%).

Dependent Variable

Reporting Likelihood

The dependent variable measures women's perceived likelihood of reporting future sexual assault victimization to the police. Participants were asked to rate their likelihood of reporting sexual victimization to the police after reading one of the four vignettes. Upon reading the vignette, participants were asked “How likely would you be to report this incident to the police if it were to happen to you in the future?” Response options were extremely unlikely ( = 1), unlikely ( = 2), neutral ( = 3), likely ( = 4), and extremely likely ( = 5).

Independent Variables

Global Police Perceptions Scale

Participants were asked to rate their agreement with 13 separate statements adapted from previous research pertaining to their own personal trust in police, their perceptions of police effectiveness, and perceptions of procedural justice (James & Lee 2015; Moore & Baker, 2018; Murphy & Barkworth, 2014; Tyler, 2006). These questions were asked prior to the presentation of the vignette scenario in order to understand respondents’ global perceptions of the police without the potential impact of the vignette scenario (see Table 1 in online Appendix, supplemental material, for list). Items were adapted from a well-known and validated perceptions of police trust and effectiveness and procedural justice scale (see Murphy & Barkworth, 2014; Tyler, 2006) with the following sample items: “The police do a good job of preventing crime,” “The police treat people as if they can be trusted to do the right thing,” and “The police try to be fair when making decisions.” Participants were asked to rate their agreement with all 13 statements with response options of strongly disagree ( = 1), somewhat disagree ( = 2), neither agree nor disagree ( = 3), somewhat agree ( = 4), and strongly agree ( = 5).

Although prior literature has conceptualized police trust, police effectiveness, and police perceptions of procedural justice as distinct constructs (e.g., Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Jackson, 2013), an exploratory factor analysis (eigenvalue = 7.58, loadings > 0.60) revealed that all 13 items loaded on a single factor. Previous research has shown that views of police trust and effectiveness are commonly associated with one another and can be used to establish a person's global perspective of the police in general (Gau, 2014). Therefore, the 13 items were averaged for each participant into an overall scale variable with high reliability (α = 0.946). Higher scale scores indicate more positive global police perceptions.

Procedural Injustice

We included a procedural injustice manipulation in the vignette design to understand its impact on victim reporting behavior (Elliott et al., 2014; Murphy & Barkworth, 2014). There were two different treatment conditions presented to participants: procedural injustice or procedural justice. The difference was whether the responding officer followed the four key elements of the model as described earlier, including neutrality, respect, trustworthiness, and voice. In the procedural injustice encounter, the officer does not believe the victim, asks revictimizing questions, and does not allow the victim to share her story. In the procedural justice encounter, the officer treats the victim with respect, recognizes and is sensitive to her trauma, and allows the victim to share her account of what happened.

Sex of Responding Officer Condition

Participants were randomly given either a male or female responding officer. Officer sex was made clear in the vignette by using gendered language to describe the officer (i.e., she, her, he, him) and gendered officer names (i.e., Elizabeth and Benjamin).

Control Variables

A number of control variables were included in order to determine whether the vignettes were sufficiently balanced across all conditions, including age, class standing, race/ethnicity, prior police contact, and prior victimization. Age of the participant was measured continuously in years. Participants were asked about their current class standing with choices including freshman ( = 1), sophomore ( = 2), junior ( = 3), senior ( = 4), and graduate student ( = 5). Participants were asked about their race or ethnicity and were given the choices of White/Caucasian, Hispanic or Latino, African American or Black, Native American or American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, and other. Race was dichotomized (White = 0, non-White = 1) for analysis purposes.

In order to gauge participants’ prior exposure to the police, and the degree to which this might have influenced their perceptions of police in the current study, participants were asked about their contact with the police. Response options were collapsed into a categorical variable with a total of four categories, including no prior contact with the police ( = 0); those with self-initiated contact ( = 1) which included calling the police, witnessing a crime, being a victim of a crime, doing a ride-along, and doing an internship; those with other contact with the police ( = 2) which included: family member/friend is a police officer, respondent is a current/former police officer, and other contact; and those in the offender contact category ( = 3).

Participants were asked if they had ever been a victim of a crime in the past. Crime types included physical assault, sexual assault/rape, theft, vandalism, and other crime. Due to low base rates in some of these victimization variables, they were all collapsed for the ease of analysis and to increase overall power. Victims of at least one of these crimes were coded as 1 and those who had never been a victim of one of these crimes were coded as 0. This variable was not used in the same analysis as prior police contact, to avoid potential multicollinearity.

Analytic Plan

Several tests were performed to ensure the experimental conditions were perceived as intended and to establish balance. In order to determine whether the participant correctly perceived the procedural injustice manipulation as intended, we conducted manipulations checks. In order to assess whether balance was achieved, we also used balance checks to determine whether the sample demographics and prior experiences were similar across the four experimental conditions. One-way ANOVA tests determined that there were no statistically significant differences between the procedural justice and injustice vignette groups as well as the male and female responding officer groups based on participants’ age, race, class standing, prior police contact, and previous victimization. Given that the vignettes were sufficiently balanced across the two experimental conditions (results not shown), the multivariate models presented below did not contain control variables (Flippin et al., 2019).

Due to the ordinal nature of the dependent variable, ordinal regression was used to estimate the effects of prior perceptions of police effectiveness and trust and the two experimental manipulations: procedurally unjust treatment and responding officer sex on victimization reporting likelihood. Diagnostic tests were also performed to ensure that these models did not violate the parallel lines assumption. Separate models were conducted to test the first two hypotheses pertaining to the individual impact of both prior perceptions of the police and procedurally unjust treatment on the future likelihood of victimization reporting. A combined model contained variables from the first two models to understand the collective impact on victimization reporting likelihood. The final model examined the role of responding officer sex, procedurally unjust treatment, and prior perceptions of the police on future reporting.

Results

Manipulation Checks

To determine whether the procedural injustice manipulation was effective, several ANOVA tests were performed (see Table 2). Once participants read the vignette, they were asked to rate their agreement with three statements regarding the tenets of procedural justice (respect, participation, and trustworthiness) based on the vignette they received. The statements were: “The police officer treated you with respect,” “The police officer allowed you to explain the incident fully,” and “The police officer was reassuring and comforting.” Response options ranged from strongly disagree ( = 1) to strongly agree ( = 5). The means for the procedural injustice condition were significantly lower compared to those for the procedural justice condition (see Table 2). This shows that the participants perceived the experimental conditions of procedural justice as intended.

Table 2.

One-Way ANOVA Models Testing Procedural Justice Manipulations (N = 571).

		Respectful treatment		Allowance of voice		Comforting & reassuring
		Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Procedural injustice
Yes		1.97	1.25	2.15	1.05	1.67	1.15
No		4.40	0.95	4.36	1.22	4.05	1.15
	F	677.60***		513.34***		610.31***

***p < .001.

Global Police Perceptions

The first research question pertained to whether overall trust and perceptions of police are associated with the perceived likelihood of reporting sexual assault. Consistent with expectations, global police perceptions were significantly associated with reporting likelihood (Model 1, Table 3). Women with higher police effectiveness and trust scores were significantly more likely to report sexual assault. More specifically, an increase of one point on the police effectiveness and trust scale resulted in a 35% increase in the likelihood of being in the extremely likely to report to the police category.

Table 3.

Ordinal Logistic Regression for Reporting Likelihood (N = 567).

	Reporting likelihood
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
Variables	B(SE)	Exp(B)	B(SE)	Exp(B)	B(SE)	Exp(B)
Global police perceptions	0.305 (0.097)**	1.35	-	-	0.295 (0.098)**	1.34
Procedural injustice	-	-	−1.719 (0.164)***	0.179	−1.722 (0.165)***	0.178
Likelihood ratio χ²	9.89**		109.80***		116.99***

Note. Procedural Injustice: yes = 1, no = 0.

**p < .05, ***p < .001.

Procedural Injustice

Next, we estimated the impact of the procedural injustice manipulation on women's likelihood to report sexual assault. In support of our hypothesis, the findings show that receiving procedurally unjust treatment significantly decreased the likelihood of reporting victimization in the future (Model 2, Table 3). Those who received the procedural injustice condition were 82% less likely to be in the extremely likely to report category compared to those who received the procedural justice condition.

Prior Perceptions and Procedural Injustice

The third model combines both the first and second models in order to understand how women's previously held beliefs about police effectiveness and trust impact future reporting likelihood when they receive procedurally unjust treatment (Model 3, Table 3). When global police perceptions were included in the model, both emerge as significantly associated with future reporting likelihood. Consistent with Model 1, global perceptions of the police were significantly associated with the likelihood of reporting victimization to the police. In line with Model 2, the procedural injustice condition significantly decreased the likelihood of reporting victimization in the future. The overall impact of each of these variables did not decrease when they were both included in the model. This finding supports our third hypothesis, both global perceptions of the police and encounter-based procedurally unjust treatment had a significant impact on the likelihood of reporting sexual assault in the future.

Sex of Responding Officer

For the final set of analyses, sex of responding officer was first regressed onto reporting likelihood by itself. The sex of the responding officer had no significant impact on future reporting likelihood (Model 1, Table 4). The next test examined the impact of the two experimental stimuli (procedural injustice and responding officer sex) on reporting likelihood (Model 2, Table 4). In this model, only the procedural injustice condition had a significant and negative impact on future reporting likelihood; the sex of the responding officer was again not significant. The final model examined the two experimental stimuli and women's previous perceptions of police effectiveness and trust on their impact likelihood of future victimization reporting (Model 3, Table 4). In the final full model, only the procedural injustice condition and previous perceptions of the police were significant, the sex of the responding office was not significant. The procedural injustice condition significantly decreased the likelihood of reporting in the future. Prior perceptions of the police were associated with a significant increase in the likelihood of reporting in the future, similar to the previous full model. These findings fail to support the fourth hypothesis, given that having a responding officer of the same sex was not significantly associated with the likelihood of future reporting.

Table 4.

Ordinal Logistic Regression for Reporting Likelihood in the Sexual Assault Sample With the Inclusion of Officer Gender (N = 459).

	Reporting likelihood
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
Variables	B(SE)	Exp(B)	B(SE)	Exp(B)	B(SE)	Exp(B)
Male responding officer	0.002 (0.169)	1.003	0.026 (0.178)	0.179	−0.018 (0.177)	0.981
Procedural injustice	-	-	−1.875 (0.028)***	0.153	−1.868 (0.187)***	0.154
Global police perceptions	-	-	-	-	0.329 (0.154)**	1.390
Likelihood ratio χ²	0.00		103.07***		107.43***

Note. Sex of responding officer: 1 = male, 0 = female; Procedural injustice: yes = 1, no = 0.

**p < .05, ***p < .001.

Discussion

The main objective of the current study was to explore the impact of global police perceptions and procedurally unjust treatment on victims’ decision to report future victimizations to law enforcement. This study also aimed to understand what role, if any, the sex of the responding officer has on victims’ likelihood to report sexual assault in the future. Using data from college women the findings reveal that what matters for influencing victims’ reporting behavior is global police perceptions and experiences of just treatment—not the officer's sex. Global attitudes about the police, as well as encounter-specific officer behavior, influence future cooperation in the form of victimization reporting. Previously held beliefs about the police are important to victims, but victims also use specific encounter-based interactions as another indication of future treatment.

The current study builds upon prior research in several ways. Although some research shows that increased police trust increases sexual assault reporting (Boateng, 2018; James & Lee, 2015; Moore & Baker, 2018; Slocum, 2018), and receiving procedurally unjust treatment lowers reporting likelihood (Elliott et al., 2014; Hickman & Simpson, 2003; Murphy & Barkworth, 2014), the current study is among the first to examine these complex relationships collectively. These findings are consistent with prior literature examining how global perspectives of the police, as well as encounter-specific interactions, have strong impacts on the assessment of police (Gau, 2014). Prior perceptions did not reduce the overall impact of receiving procedurally unjust treatment in this study, emphasizing that although people come into interactions with an overall view of the police, fairness within a specific encounter can still be influential (Gau, 2014). The way a person is treated by law enforcement in an encounter has important implications for reporting behavior, regardless of how they feel about police more generally.

Consistent with prior literature regarding the importance of procedural justice, this study found that receiving procedurally unjust treatment led to a lower likelihood to report future victimizations (Elliott et al., 2014; Hickman & Simpson, 2003; Murphy & Barkworth, 2014). Victims’ views of the police are strengthened when they are listened to, treated fairly, and feel supported during the reporting process, which is an indicator of how they may be treated again in the future. Sexual assault victims often state their lack of reporting stems from fears of stigmatization and exclusion (Fisher et al., 2000; Sabina & Ho, 2014; Sable et al., 2006). Perhaps more importantly, the current findings suggest that procedural justice may be a way for responding officers to reduce such fears, given their functional role as a means to communicate group status, value, and inclusion to individuals (Tyler & Lind, 1992). In doing so, officers could not only reassure the victims but also help to maintain their social bonds with the wider community around them.

Policy Implications

These findings have several noteworthy implications for law enforcement, college campuses, and policymakers. The importance of continuing research examining sexual assault victimization in college student samples is highlighted by this study. In this sample, 25% of participants reported being a victim of sexual assault or rape. Although this study examined hypothetical situations, a large portion had actually experienced this type of crime. Findings from the current study suggest that improving interactions between police and college students may increase the likelihood of students reporting their victimization as suggested by current literature examining secondary victimization and unfounded victimization (Ferguson & Malouff, 2016; Henry et al., 2021; Murphy-Oikonen et al., 2020; Sabina & Ho, 2014; Thompson et al., 2007). When victims are treated with respect, they will be more likely to utilize the police and report their victimizations in the future. Without victims’ cooperation, police and policymakers are unable to fully understand victims’ needs when it comes to service provision and prevention efforts.

The findings from the current study support using procedurally just methods when interacting with victims, which have strong implications for current policing methods. Women in our sample who responded to a procedurally unjust treatment vignette were significantly less likely to report victimization to police, a finding that clearly supports the use of procedurally just policing methods when interacting with victims. This finding suggests that when victims are not believed or have their stories questioned, they may be hesitant to reach out to the police again in the future (Henry et al., 2021). Indeed, victims who are treated in a procedurally just manner are more likely to report their crimes, have higher confidence and satisfaction in the police, and be more likely to cooperate, leading to higher levels of trust (Elliott et al., 2014; Murphy & Barkworth, 2014; Tyler, 2011). Law enforcement agents promoting procedurally just treatment when responding to victims of sexual assault may potentially yield more compliance and cooperation among victims, a critical need given the large number of college women who do not report these victimizations to law enforcement (BJS, 2014; Fisher et al., 2010). If sexual assault is to be reduced, through legal channels, it is imperative that law enforcement know the extent of the problem, which can only be achieved through victim reporting. Procedural justice in this regard is a promising strategy to increase victim reporting.

An emphasis on procedural justice may reduce the likelihood that victims will be blamed for the incident by officers (Greeson et al., 2014; Maier, 2008; Murphy & Barkworth, 2014). Avoiding victim-blaming statements and questions, allowing the victim to fully tell his or her story, and acting in a caring, polite manner are examples of ways police can increase procedurally just treatment that was highlighted in this study. This can not only help reduce potential secondary victimization from the criminal justice system (see Henry et al., 2021; Sabina & Ho, 2014; Thompson et al., 2007) but can also help victims receive some form of closure because their cases will be believed and not classified as unfounded. Providing specialized training to law enforcement about procedurally just methods, in addition to specific sexual assault training, may help lead to reduced revictimization. Given the scant research examining the impact of these types of training in relation to cooperation from the public, more research is needed to assess their impact (Nagin & Telep, 2020).

Limitations

There are several limitations of the current study that are important to consider when contextualizing the findings. First, the sample is comprised of women enrolled at one large southwestern university, which may not be generalizable to other students across universities or the general population. Second, while vignettes may not always be relatable to the respondent, they have been extensively used within the criminological literature (Allen & Meadows, 2017; Brown et al., 2018; Moore & Baker, 2018; Nason et al., 2019; Reisig et al., 2018). In order to successfully overcome these criticisms commonly associated with this type of methodology, this study included a pilot study in which students were asked to make notes directly on a hardcopy of the vignettes to identify unclear or confusing wording and believability. Additionally, nearly all of our respondents stated that the vignettes were realistic (96%; n = 549) and that the participant could clearly imagine themselves in the situation (98%; n = 560); thus, finding strong support for the believability of the scenarios presented. Vignettes though, only assess a participant's intention to behave in a certain way but cannot measure how participants may actually behave. This limitation highlights the importance of future research examining actual behavior, although it has been found that intentions are moderately correlated with actual behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

Third, this study presents procedural justice in a dichotomous way, with police acting either in a procedurally just manner, utilizing fair methods and allowing victims to have a voice, or in a procedurally unjust manner with the officer being rude, disrespectful, and unfair. In reality, behavior may be more fluid and reflect a combination of procedurally just and unjust treatment. Police may also act in other ways, including a more bureaucratic or “business as usual” manner without being excessively disrespectful or respectful when interacting with victims. In this sense, it is important to recognize that police may treat victims in a variety of ways, which may have a different impact on victims’ decision to report that was not examined in this study.

One final limitation pertains specifically to the examination of officer sex. Our analysis dropped 110 cases because these participants failed to properly identify the sex of the officer they received in their vignette. This limitation may explain the lack of significant findings for this hypothesis, warranting more research in this area. The online format of the survey may have also contributed to this error because participants may not have known they could go back and refer to the vignette as they could if the survey was administered on paper. Although we do not consider this to be a limitation, it is worth noting that the political and social climate during survey administration in fall 2018 (e.g., #MeToo, Time's Up, Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing) may have increased participants’ interest in the survey topic or their willingness to disclose the previous victimization.

Future Research and Conclusions

Future research is needed that includes men and women enrolled in multiple universities across the United States. Students in rural versus urban universities may have different perceptions of the police and interactions with the police that may influence their likelihood to report sexual assault victimization (Jacobsen, 2015; MacDonald & Stokes, 2006; Miller & Pan, 1987; Nofziger & Williams, 2005; Sharp & Johnson, 2009; Williams & Nofziger, 2003). When considering what is currently known about sexual assault reporting as a whole, it is clear that there are still many unanswered questions regarding what influences reporting behavior. An in-depth examination of the reasons victims attribute to why they did not report would also be important to study as well as how important these factors are. The framework used in this study could also be applied to sexual assault victimization of other demographic groups outside of the college setting to see whether there are similarities. Examining how perceptions of the police and procedural justice shape victims’ likelihood to report other crimes such as domestic violence is also important for expanding what is known about victimization reporting. Taking what has been established in this study, research would benefit from examining the practices that are currently being used by law enforcement and how victims actually perceive police. In doing so, law enforcement can become better informed about what victims actually find helpful and what would lead to increased victimization reporting.

In the end, the current study fills a critical gap in prior research by exploring global perceptions of the police, procedural justice in an interaction, and victim reporting behaviors. Research examining possible factors influencing the likelihood of reporting has focused on situational context and individual characteristics, not the influence of global perceptions (including measures of trust, police effectiveness, and perceptions of procedural justice), procedurally just treatment, and the sex of the responding officer (Fisher et al., 2003; James & Lee, 2015; Moore & Baker, 2018; Sabina & Ho, 2014; Sable et al., 2006; Slocum, 2018). Treating victims in a procedurally just way in addition to positive global perceptions of the police increase reporting to police, which allows the field of criminology to have a clearer understanding of the true nature of sexual assault victimization.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-vaw-10.1177_10778012221097139 - Supplemental material for Who Can You Trust? The Impact of Procedural Justice, Trust, and Police Officer Sex on Women's Sexual Assault Victimization Reporting Likelihood

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-vaw-10.1177_10778012221097139 for Who Can You Trust? The Impact of Procedural Justice, Trust, and Police Officer Sex on Women's Sexual Assault Victimization Reporting Likelihood by Kayleigh A. Stanek, Kathleen A. Fox, Cody W. Telep and Rick Trinkner in Violence Against Women

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kayleigh A. Stanek

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Kayleigh A. Stanek is a third-year doctoral candidate in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. Her research focuses on criminal justice responses to victims and victimization, specifically sexual assault and domestic violence. She is also interested in victimization among special populations such as college students, Indigenous women and other minority groups, and offenders and inmates. Among these groups, she is particularly interested in exploring victims’ needs in terms of programming and criminal justice responses.

Kathleen A. Fox is a professor in the School of Criminology & Criminal Justice at Arizona State University and Director of the Research on Violent Victimization Lab. She earned her Ph.D. in Criminology, Law & Society from the University of Florida. Her research focuses primarily on crime victimization, particularly among underserved populations, including Indigenous women and girls, migrant women and girls, and incarcerated offenders. Her research examines violent victimization and gender-based violence and has appeared recently in the American Journal of Public Health, Criminology, Justice Quarterly, and Journal of Family Violence.

Cody W. Telep is an associate professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. His research focuses on synthesizing research to assess what works in policing; partnering with agencies to examine the impact of police practices on crime, disorder and citizen perceptions of legitimacy; and examining and increasing receptivity to research and evidence-based practice in policing.

Rick Trinkner is an assistant professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. Broadly speaking, his research seeks to understand why people follow rules and defer to authority and how regulatory agencies can best foster support from those they serve.

References

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Allen

K. T.

Meadows

E. A.

(2017). The use of vignettes to empower effective responses to attempted sexual assault. Journal of American College Health, 65(4), 250–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2016.1278376

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Boateng

(2018). Crime reporting behavior: Do attitudes toward the police matter? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(18), 2891–2916. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516632356

Brown

A. L.

Horton

Guillory

(2018). The impact of victim alcohol consumption and perpetrator use of force on perceptions in an acquaintance rape vignette. Violence and Victims, 33(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.33.1.40

Brubaker

S. J.

Keegan

Guadalupe-Diaz

X. L.

Beasley

(2017). Measuring and reporting campus sexual assault: Privilege and exclusion in what we know and what we do. Sociology Compass, 11(12), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12543

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). (2014). Special report: Rape and sexual victimization among college-aged females, 1995–2013 (NCJ 24871). U.S. Department of Justice.

Chiwaya

. (2018, October 11). New data on #MeToo’s first year shows ‘undeniable’ impact. NBCNews . https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-data-metoo-s-first-year-shows-undeniable-impact-n918821

Cook

C. L.

Lane

(2012). Examining differences in attitudes about sexual victimization among a sample of jail officers: The importance of officer gender and perceived inmate characteristics. Criminal Justice Review, 37(2), 191–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016812436548

10.

Donner

Maskaly

Fridell

Jennings

W. G.

(2015). Policing and procedural justice: A state-of-the-art review. Policing, 38(1), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-12-2014-0129

11.

Elliott

Thomas

Ogloff

(2014). Procedural justice in victim-police interactions and victims’ recovery from victimization experiences. Policing and Society, 24(5), 588–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2013.784309

12.

Ferguson

C. E.

Malouff

J. M.

(2016). Assessing police classifications of sexual assault reports: A meta-analysis of false reporting rates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45(5), 1185–1193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0666-2.

13.

Fisher

Daigle

Cullen

(2010). Unsafe in the ivory tower: The sexual victimization of college women. Sage.

14.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2000). The sexual victimization of college women. National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

15.

Fisher

B. S.

Daigle

L. E.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2003). Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(1), 6–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854802239161

16.

Flippin

Reisig

M. D.

Trinkner

(2019). The effect of procedural injustice during emergency 911 calls: A factorial vignette-based study. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15(4), 651–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09369-y

17.

Franklin

C. A.

Garza

A. D.

(2021). Sexual assault disclosure: The effect of victim race and perpetrator type on empathy, culpability, and service referral for survivors in a hypothetical scenario. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(5–6), 2327–2352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518759656

18.

Gau

J. M.

(2014). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A test of measurement and structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-013-9220-8

19.

Graham

Kulig

T. C.

Cullen

F. T.

(2019). Willingness to report crime to the police: Traditional crime, cybercrime, and procedural justice. Policing, 43(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2019-0115

20.

Greeson

M. R.

Campbell

Fehler-Cabral

(2014). Cold or caring? Adolescent sexual assault victims’ perceptions of their interactions with the police. Violence and Victims, 29(4), 636–651. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00039

21.

Henry

T. K. S.

Franklin

T. W.

Franklin

C. A.

(2021). Facilitating sexual assault reporting on the college campus: The role of procedural justice in bystander decisions to provide police referrals. Violence Against Women, 27(11), 2066–2091. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220954289

22.

Hickman

L. J.

Simpson

S. S.

(2003). Fair treatment of preferred outcome? The impact of police behavior on victim reports of domestic violence incidents. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 607–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5893.3703005

23.

Jacobsen

S. K.

(2015). Policing the ivory tower: Students’ perceptions of the legitimacy of campus police officers. Deviant Behavior, 36(4), 310–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.935653

24.

James

V. J.

Lee

D. R.

(2015). Through the looking glass: Exploring how college students’ perceptions of the police influence sexual assault victimization reporting. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(14), 2447–2469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514553116

25.

Jordan

(2002). Will any women do? Police, gender, and rape victims. Policing, 25(2), 319–344. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510210429392

26.

Khan

S. R.

Hirsch

J. S.

Wambold

Mellins

C. A.

(2018). ‘I didn’t want to be ‘that girl’’: The social risks of labeling, telling, and reporting sexual assault. Sociological Science, 5, 432–460. https://doi.org/10.15195/v5.a19

27.

Kim

Alison

Christiansen

(2020). Observing rapport-based interpersonal techniques to gather information from victims. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(2), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000222

28.

Lockwood

Prohaska

(2015). Police officer gender and attitudes towards intimate partner violence: How policy can eliminate stereotypes. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 10(1), 77–90.

29.

MacDonald

Stokes

R. J.

(2006). Race, social capital, and trust in the police. Urban Affairs Review, 41(3), 358–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087405281707

30.

Maier

S. L.

(2008). “I have heard horrible stories…”: rape victim advocates’ perceptions of the revictimization of rape victims by the police and medical system. Violence Against Women, 14(7), 786–808. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208320245

31.

Major

O’Brien

L. T.

(2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 393–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070137

32.

Mazerolle

Antrobus

Bennett

Tyler

T. R.

(2013). Shaping citizen perception of police legitimacy: A randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 51(1), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00289.x

33.

Meier

K. J.

Nicholson-Crotty

(2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 850–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00653.x

34.

Miller

J. L.

Pan

M. J.

(1987). Student perceptions of campus police: The effects of personal characteristics and police contacts. American Journal of Police, 6(2), 27–44.

35.

Moore

Baker

(2018). An exploratory examination of college students’ likelihood of reporting sexual assault to police and university officials: Results of a self-report survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(22), 3419–3438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516632357

36.

Morabito

M. S.

Pattavina

Williams

L. M.

(2017). Active representation and police response to sexual assault complaints. Journal of Crime and Justice, 40(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2016.1216730

37.

Murphy

(2017). Challenging the ‘invariance’ thesis: Procedural justice policing and the moderating influence of trust on citizens’ obligation to obey police. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(3), 429–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9298-y

38.

Murphy

Barkworth

(2014). Victim willingness to report crime to police: Does procedural justice or outcome matter most? Victims and Offenders, 9(2), 178–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2013.872744

39.

Murphy-Oikonen

McQueen

Miller

Chambers

Hiebert

(2020). Unfounded sexual assault: Women’s experiences of not being believed by the police. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520978190

40.

Nagin

D. S.

Telep

C. W.

(2020). Procedural justice and legal compliance: A revisionist perspective. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(3), 761–786. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12499

41.

Nason

E. E.

Rinehart

J. K.

Yeater

E. A.

Newlands

R. T.

Crawford

J. N.

(2019). Prior sexual relationship, gender and sexual attitudes affect the believability of a hypothetical sexual assault vignette. Gender Issues, 36(3), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-018-9227-z

42.

Nix

Wolfe

S. E.

Rojek

Kaminski

R. J.

(2015). Trust in the police: The influence of procedural justice and perceived collective efficacy. Crime & Delinquency, 61(4), 610–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128714530548

43.

Nofziger

Williams

L. S.

(2005). Perceptions of police and safety in a small town. Police Quarterly, 8(2), 248–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611103258959

44.

Oehme

Stern

Mennicke

(2015). A deficiency in addressing campus sexual assault: The lack of women law enforcement officers. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 38, 337–372. https://doi.org/10.1163/2210-7975_hrd-9963-2015004

45.

O’Neal

E. N.

Hayes

B. E.

(2020). “A rape is a rape, regardless of what the victim was doing at the time”: Detective views on how “problematic” victims affect sexual assault case processing. Criminal Justice Review, 45(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016819842639

46.

Patterson

(2011). The linkage between secondary victimization by law enforcement and rape case outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(2), 328–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510362889

47.

Reisig

M. D.

Bratton

Gertz

M. G.

(2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 1005–1028. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807301275

48.

Reisig

M. D.

Mays

R. D.

Telep

C. W.

(2018). The effects of procedural injustice during police-citizen encounters: A factorial vignette study. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(1), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9307-1

49.

Rotenberg

(2017). Police-reported sexual assaults in Canada, 2009 to 2014: A statistical profile. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.

50.

Sabina

L. Y.

(2014). Campus and college victim responses to sexual assault and dating violence: Disclosure, service utilization, and service provision. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014521322

51.

Sable

M. R.

Danis

Mauzy

D. L.

Gallagher

S. K.

(2006). Barriers to reporting sexual assault for women and men: Perspectives of college students. Journal of American College Health, 55(3), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.55.3.157-162

52.

Sharp

E. B.

Johnson

P. E.

(2009). Accounting for variation in distrust of local police. Justice Quarterly, 26(1), 157–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820802290496

53.

Slocum

L. A.

(2018). The effect of prior police contact on victimization reporting: Results from the police—public contact and national crime victimization surveys. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 34(2), 535–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9345-x

54.

Spencer

Mallory

Toews

Stith

Wood

(2017). Why sexual assault survivors do not report to universities: A feminist analysis. Family Relations, 66(1), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12241

55.

Sunshine

Tyler

T. R.

(2003). The role of the procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5893.3703002

56.

Thompson

Sitterle

Clay

Kingree

(2007). Reasons for not reporting victimizations to the police: Do they vary for physical and sexual incidents? Journal of American College Health, 55(5), 277–282. https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.55.5.277-282

57.

Tyler

T. R.

(1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 830–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.830

58.

Tyler

T. R.

(2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716203262627

59.

Tyler

T. R.

(2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.

60.

Tyler

T. R.

(2011). Why people cooperate: The role of social motivations. Princeton University Press.

61.

Tyler

T. R.

Blader

S. L.

(2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07

62.

Tyler

T. R.

Fagan

(2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people fight crime in their communities? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6(1), 231–275.

63.

Tyler

T. R.

Huo

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

64.

Tyler

T. R.

Jackson

(2013). Future challenges in the study of legitimacy and criminal justice. In Tankebe

Liebling

(Eds.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: An international exploration (pp. 83–104). Oxford University Press.

65.

Tyler

T. R.

Lind

A. E.

(1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(3), 115–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60283-X

66.

Webster

W. S.

Oxburgh

G. E.

Dando

C. J.

(2021). The use and efficacy of question type and an attentive interviewing style in adult rape interviews. Psychology. Crime & Law, 27(7), 656–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1849694

67.

Williams

S. L.

Nofziger

(2003). Cops and the college crowd: Young adults and perceptions of police in a college town. Journal of Crime and Justice, 26(2), 125–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2003.9721185

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB