In many societies around the world, segments of the public strongly distrust legal and political authorities. Regardless of how the distrust arises, it lessens the possibilities for future social cohesion, democratic governance, and successful economic development—factors that define strong communities. How can authorities build trust amid a legacy of distrust? In this review, the authors focus on relations between the police and communities and draw on two psychological literatures that articulate evidence-informed trust-building strategies. One, the procedural justice approach, concentrates on the fair and respectful exercise of authority during everyday interactions between individuals. The other, reconciliation, involves gestures that are carried out at the community level with the expressed intention of addressing past injustice and that promise changes in an authority's future relations with a community. This review concludes with policy recommendations, drawn from both literatures, describing a process of trust building that involves substantive improvements in procedural justice combined with reconciliatory gestures that signal a sincere intent to increase trust through service to communities.
References
1.
GillespieN., & SiebertS. (2018). Organizational trust repair. In SearleR. H., NienaberA.-M. I., & SitkinS. B. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to trust (pp. 284-301). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.
2.
Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman. (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
3.
RousseauD. M., SitkinS. B., BurtR. S., & CamererC. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trustAcademy of Management Review, 23, 393–404.
4.
TylerT. R., & JacksonJ. (2014). Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: Motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 78–95.
5.
TylerT. R., GoffP., & MacCounR. (2015). The impact of psychological science on policing in the United States: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective law enforcement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(3), 75–109
6.
Bijlsma-FrankemaK., SitkinS., & WeibelA. (2015). Distrust in the balance: Emergence and development of inter-group distrust in a court of lawOrganization Science, 26, 1018–1039
7.
SitkinS. B., & Bijlsma-Frankema, K. M. (2018). Distrust. In SearleR. H., NienhaberA.-M. I., & SitkinS. B. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to trust (pp. 50–61). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.
8.
TylerT. R. (2017). Can the police enhance their popular legitimacy through their conduct?Illinois Law Review, 2017, 1971–2008
9.
BiesR. J., BarclayL. J., SaldanhaM. F., KayA. A., & TrippT. M. (2018). Trust and distrust: Their interplay with forgiveness in organizations. In SearleR. H., NienhaberA.-M. I., & SitkinS. B. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to trust (pp. 302–326). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.
10.
NadlerA., & ShnabelN. (2015) Intergroup reconciliation: Instrumental and socio-emotional processes and the needs-based model. European Review of Social Psychology, 26, 93–125
HoughM., JacksonJ., BradfordB., MyhillA., & QuintonP. (2010). Procedural justice, trust, and institutional legitimacy. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 4, 203–210.
13.
SunshineJ., & TylerT. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37, 513–548.
14.
TylerT. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850–863.
15.
TylerT. R., & BladerS. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361.
16.
TylerT. R., & HuoY. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
17.
TylerT. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.
18.
TylerT. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press.
19.
TylerT. R., & LindE. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115–191.
20.
TylerT. R., FaganJ., & GellerA. (2014). Street stops and police legitimacy: Teachable moments in young urban men's legal socialization. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11, 751–785.
21.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
22.
DovidioJ. F., SaguyT., WestT. V., & GaertnerS. L. (2012). Divergent intergroup perspectives. In TroppL. R. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict (pp. 158–178). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
23.
GibsonJ. L. (2004). Overcoming apartheid: Can truth reconcile a divided nation?New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
24.
GibsonJ. L. (2009). Overcoming historical injustices: Land reconciliation in South Africa. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
25.
PettigrewT. F., & TroppL. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.
26.
BrownR., & HewstoneM. (2005) An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255–343.
27.
PettigrewT. F., & TroppL. R. (2011) When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. London, United Kingdom: Psychology Press
28.
SaguyT., DovidioJ. F., & PrattoF. (2008). Beyond contact: Intergroup contact in the context of power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 432–445
29.
ShnabelN., NadlerA., UllrichJ., DovidioJ. F., & CarmiD. (2009). Promoting reconciliation through the satisfaction of the emotional needs of victimized and perpetrating group members: The needs-based model of reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1021–1030
30.
CilliersJ., DubeO., & SiddiqiB. (2016, May 13). Reconciling after civil conflict increases social capital but decreases individual well-being. Science, 352, 787–794.
31.
BrouneusK. (2010). The trauma of truth telling: Effects of witnessing in the Rwandan Gacaca Courts on psychological health. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54, 408–437
32.
ChristO., HewstoneM., TauschN., WagnerU., VociA., HughesJ., & CairnsE. (2010). Direct contact as a moderator of extended contact effects: Cross-sectional and longitudinal impact on outgroup attitudes, behavioral intentions, and attitude certaintyPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1662–1674.
33.
WrightS. C., AronA., McLaughlin-VolpeT., & RoppS. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudiceJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73–90
34.
SaguyT., TauschN., DovidioJ. F., & PrattoF. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20, 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02261
35.
HeiderF. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 358–374.
36.
ReederG. D. (2009). Mindreading: Judgments about intentionality and motives in dispositional inferencePsychological Inquiry, 20, 1–18.
37.
WenzelM., Lawrence-WoodE., OkimotoT. G., & HornseyM. J. (2018) A long time coming: Delays in collective apologies and their effects on sincerity and forgiveness. Political Psychology, 39, 649–666.
38.
HornseyM. J., & WohlM. J. A. (2013) We are sorry: Intergroup apologies and their tenuous link to intergroup forgiveness. European Review of Social Psychology, 24, 1–31
39.
HornseyM. J., WohlM. J. A., & PhilpotC. B. (2015). Collective apologies and their effects on forgiveness. Australian Psychologist, 50, 106–114
40.
HaneyC. (1991). The Fourteenth Amendment and symbolic legality: Let them eat due process. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 183–204
41.
BachmanR., GillespieN., & PriemR. (2015). Repairing trust in organizations and institutions: Toward a conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 36, 1123–1142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615599334
42.
O'BrienT. R., TylerT. R., & MearesT. (2019). Building popular legitimacy with reconciliatory gestures and participation: A community-level model of authority. Regulation & Governance. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12264
43.
TylerT. R., & FaganJ. (2008) Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231–275
44.
O'BrienT. C., & TylerT. R. (2019) Authorities and communities: Can authorities shape cooperation with communities on a group level? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000202
45.
LitmanL., RobinsonJ., & AbberbockT. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 433–442
46.
MearesT. L., O'BrienT. C., & TylerT. R. (in press). Reconciling police and communities with apologies, acknowledgements, or both: A randomized experiment. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
47.
RotellaK. N., RichesonJ. A., & McAdamsD. P. (2015). Groups’ search for meaning: Redemption on the path to intergroup reconciliation. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 18, 696–715.
48.
HornseyM. J., BruijnP. D., CreedJ., AllenJ., AriyantoA., & SvenssonA. (2005). Keeping it in-house: How audience affects responses to group criticism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 291–312
49.
WohlM. J., HornseyM. J., & PhilpotC. R. (2011). A critical review of official public apologies: Aims, pitfalls, and a staircase model of effectiveness. Social Issues and Policy Review, 5, 70–100
50.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Proactive policing: Effects on crime and communities.https://doi.org/10.17226/24928
SkoganW. G., Van CraenM., & HennessyC. (2015). Training police for procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 319–334
56.
RosenbaumD. P., & LawrenceD. S. (2017). Teaching procedural justice and communication skills during police–community encounters: Results of a randomized control trial with police recruits. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13, 293–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9293-3
57.
AntrobusE., ThompsonI., & ArielB. (2019). Procedural justice training for police recruits: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15, 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9331-9
58.
OwensE. G., WeisburdD., AlpertG., & AmendolaK. L. (2016). Promoting officer integrity through early engagements and procedural justice in the Seattle Police Department Retrieved from National Criminal Justice Reference Service website: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/249881.pdf
59.
BradfordB., QuintonP., MyhillA., & PorterG. (2013). Why do “the law” comply? Procedural justice, group identification and officer motivations in police organizations. European Journal of Criminology, 11, 110–132
60.
De AngelisJ., & KupchikA. (2007) Citizen oversight, procedural justice, and officer perceptions of the complaint investigation process. Policing, 30, 651–671.
61.
De AngelisJ., & KupchikA. (2009) Ethnicity, trust, and acceptance of authority among police officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 273–279
62.
FarmerS. J., BeehrT. A., & LoveK. G. (2003). Becoming an undercover police officer. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 373–387
63.
HarrisC. J., & WordenR. E. (2014) The effects of sanctions on police misconduct. Crime and Delinquency, 60, 1258–1288.
64.
TaxmanF. S., & GordonJ. A. (2009) Do fairness and equity matter? An examination of organizational justice among correctional officers in adult prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 695–711.
65.
TylerT. R., CallahanP. E., & FrostJ. (2007). Armed, and dangerous (?): Motivating rule adherence among agents of social control. Law & Society Review, 41, 457–492.
66.
WolfeS. E., & PiqueroA. R. (2011) Organizational justice and police misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 332–353
67.
TrinknerR., TylerT. R., & GoffP. A. (2016). Justice from within: The relations between a procedurally just organizational climate and police organizational efficiency, endorsement of democratic policing, and officer well-being. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22, 158–172.
