Alarge body of literature has demonstrated that when authorities use procedural justice with those they regulate, people will be more satisfied with those authorities and will be more willing to cooperate and comply with their directions and rules. In the context of policing, procedural justice has also been shown to be important for shaping citizens' views about police legitimacy, their satisfaction with police and also in fostering cooperation with police. What remains largely unexamined, however, is whether the positive effect of procedural justice varies across different types of police-citizen encounters. Using survey data collected from a national sample of 1,462 Australians, the present study will examine the relative importance of procedural justice on overall ratings of police satisfaction across two types of police-citizen encounters (citizen-initiated contacts and police-initiated contacts). It will be shown that procedural justice is most important in police-initiated contacts, while police performance is most important in citizen-initiated contacts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlackD. (1980). Manners and customs of the police. New York: Academic Press.
2.
BraithwaiteJ. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BrocknerJ.WeisenfeldB. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 189–208.
4.
CaoL.FrankJ.CullenF. (1996). Race, community context and confidence in the police. American Journal of Police, 15, 3–22.
CorreiaM. (2000). The conceptual ambiguity of community in community policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 23, 218–232.
7.
DeckerS. (1981). Citizen attitudes toward the police: A review of past findings and suggestions for future policy. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 9, 80–87.
8.
GallagherC.MaguireE.MasgtrofskiS.ReisigM. (2001). The public image of police: Final report to the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Retrieved October 7, 2008, from http://www.theiacp.org/profassist/ethics/public_image.htm
9.
HindsL.MurphyK. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40, 27–42.
10.
MakkaiT.BraithwaiteJ. (1994). The dialectics of corporate deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31, 347–373.
11.
MaxsonC.HenniganK.SloaneD. (2003). Factors that influence public opinion of the police. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, United States Department of Justice.
12.
MurphyK. (2009). Procedural justice and affect intensity: Understanding reactions to regulatory authorities. Social Justice Research, 22(1), 1–30.
13.
MurphyK. (in press). Procedural justice and the regulation of tax compliance behaviour: The moderating role of personal norms. Forthcoming in AlmJ.Martinez-VazquezJ.TorglerB., (Eds.), Tax compliance and tax evasion. London: Routledge.
14.
MurphyK.HindsL.FlemingJ. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Policing and Society, 18, 138–157.
15.
MurphyK.MearnsM. (2008). The Public Safety and Security in Australia Survey: Survey methodology and preliminary findings. ARC Centre for Excellence in Policing and Security (Working Paper, October 2008). Canberra, Australia: The Australian National University.
16.
MurphyK.TylerT.R.CurtisA. (2009). Nurturing regulatory compliance: Is procedural justice effective when people question the legitimacy of the law?. Regulation and Governance, 3, 1–26.
17.
ReisigM.GiacomazziA. (1998). Citizen perceptions of community policing: Are attitudes toward police important. Policing, 21, 547–561.
18.
ReisigM.ParksR. (2000). Experience, quality of life and neighbourhood context: A hierarchical analysis of satisfaction with police. Justice Quarterly, 17, 607–630.
19.
SampsonR.BartuschD. (1998). Legal cynicism (and subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: The neighbourhood context of racial differences. Law and Society Review, 32, 777–804.
20.
ScedM. (2004a). Public satisfaction with police contact, Part I: Police-initiated contacts. (ACPR Current Commentary No. 8). Payneham, Australia: Australasian Centre for Policing Research.
21.
ScedM. (2004b). Public satisfaction with police contact, Part II: Self-initiated contacts. (ACPR Current Commentary No. 9). Payneham, Australia: Australasian Centre for Policing Research.
SkoganW. (2006). Asymmetry in the impact of encounters with police. Policing and Society, 16, 99–126.
24.
SkoganW.SteinerL. (2004). Community policing in Chicago: Year ten. Chicago, IL: Criminal Justice Information Authority.
25.
SmithP.HawkinsR. (1973). Victimization, types of citizen-police contacts and attitudes toward the police. Law and Society Review, 8, 135–152.
26.
SouthgateP.EkblomP. (1984). Contacts between police and public. (Home Office Research Study 77). HMSO, London.
27.
SunshineJ.TylerT.R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 513–547.
28.
ThibautJ.WalkerL. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
TittleC.BotchkovarE. (2005). Self-control, criminal motivation and deterrence: An investigation using Russian respondents. Criminology, 42, 307–353.
30.
TylerT.R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: A test of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830–838.
31.
TylerT.R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
32.
TylerT.R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850–863.
33.
TylerT.R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 323–345.
34.
TylerT.R.(2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. Annals of the American Academy, 593, 84–99.
35.
TylerT.R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
TylerT.R.FolgerR. (1980). Distributional and procedural aspects of satisfaction with citizenpolice encounters. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 281–292.
37.
TylerT.R.LindE. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 115–191). New York: Academic Press.
38.
WeitzerR.TuchS. (2004). Race and perceptions of police misconduct. Social Problems, 51, 305–325.
39.
WellsW. (2007). Type of contact and evaluations of police officers: The effects of procedural justice across three types of police-citizen contacts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 612–621.
