Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Procedural justice and police legitimacy: a systematic review of the research evidence

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the published and unpublished empirical evidence on the impact of police-led interventions that use procedurally just dialogue focused on improving citizen perceptions of police legitimacy.

Methods

The systematic search included any public police intervention where there was a statement that the intervention involved police dialogue with citizens that either was aimed explicitly at improving police legitimacy, or used at least one core ingredient of procedural justice dialogue: police encouraging citizen participation, remaining neutral in their decision making, conveying trustworthy motives, or demonstrating dignity and respect throughout interactions. The studies included in our meta-analyses also had to include at least one direct outcome that measured legitimacy or procedural justice, or one outcome that is common in the legitimacy extant literature: citizen compliance, cooperation, confidence or satisfaction with police. We conducted separate meta-analyses, using random effects models, for each outcome.

Results

For every single one of our outcome measures, the effect of legitimacy policing was in a positive direction, and, for all but the legitimacy outcome, statistically significant. Notwithstanding the variability in the mode in which legitimacy policing is delivered (i.e., the study intervention) and the complexities around measurement of legitimacy outcomes, our review shows that the dialogue component of front-line police-led interventions is an important vehicle for promoting citizen satisfaction, confidence, compliance and cooperation with the police, and for enhancing perceptions of procedural justice.

Conclusions

In practical terms, our research shows the benefits of police using dialogue that adopts at least one of the principles of procedural justice as a component part of any type of police intervention, whether as part of routine police activity or as part of a defined police crime control program. Our review provides evidence that legitimacy policing is an important precursor for improving the capacity of policing to prevent and control crime.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We note that our Campbell Collaboration systematic review report includes indirect outcome measures of reoffending and revictimization (see Mazerolle et al. 2013).

  2. We note that the impact of legitimacy on places is being examined under a separate Campbell Collaboration review title.

  3. Constructs and items identified in Tyler (2006) and Tyler et al. (2007).

  4. The fourth element of procedural justice identified by Tyler (2004) and Mastrofski (2009): trustworthy motives, was captured by the outcome of trust/confidence in police.

  5. For details of how effect sizes were calculated for each study, please refer to Appendix 2 of the Campbell Collaboration systematic review (Mazerolle et al. 2013).

References

*Denotes that the study was included in the meta-analysis

  • Bennett, S., Denning, R., Mazerolle, L., & Stocks, B. (2009). Procedural justice: A systematic literature search and technical report to the National Policing Improvement Agency. Brisbane: ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrien, J., & Winship, C. (2002). An umbrella of legitimacy: Boston's Police Department – Ten Point Coalition Collaboration. In G. S. Katzmann (Ed.), Securing our children's future (pp. 200–228). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bond, C. E. W., & Gow, D. J. (1997). Policing the beat: The experience in Toowoomba, Queensland. In R. Homel (Ed.), Crime prevention studies, Vol. 7. Policing for prevention: Reducing crime, public intoxication and injury (pp. 154–173). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: a dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102(1), 119–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Dai, M. (2007). Procedural justice during police-citizen encounters. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinatti). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (UMI Number: 3280116).

  • Dai, M. Y., Frank, J., & Sun, I. (2011). Procedural justice during police-citizen encounters: the effects of process-based policing on citizen compliance and demeanor. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Dunworth, T., & Mills, G. (1999a). National evaluation of weed and seed: Akron, Ohio research report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.weedandseed.info/docs/studies_national/akron-oh.pdf

  • *Dunworth, T., & Mills, G. (1999b). National evaluation of Weed and Seed: Hartford, Connecticut research report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.weedandseed.info/docs/studies_national/hartford-ct.pdf

  • *Dunworth, T., & Mills, G. (1999c). National evaluation of Weed and Seed: Las Vegas, Nevada research report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.weedandseed.info/docs/studies_national/lasvegas-nv.pdf

  • *Dunworth, T., & Mills, G. (1999d). National evaluation of Weed and Seed: Manatee and Sarasota Counties, Florida research report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.weedandseed.info/docs/studies_national/manatee-sarasota-fl.pdf

  • *Dunworth, T., & Mills, G. (1999e). National evaluation of Weed and Seed: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania research report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.weedandseed.info/docs/studies_national/pittsburgh-pa.pdf

  • *Dunworth, T., & Mills, G. (1999f). National evaluation of Weed and Seed: Salt Lake City, Utah research report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.weedandseed.info/docs/studies_national/saltlakecity-ut.pdf

  • *Dunworth, T., & Mills, G. (1999g). National evaluation of Weed and Seed: Seattle, Washington research report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.weedandseed.info/docs/studies_national/seattle-wa.pdf

  • *Dunworth, T., & Mills, G. (1999h). National evaluation of Weed and Seed: Shreveport, Louisiana research report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.weedandseed.info/docs/studies_national/shreveport-la.pdf

  • *Eckert, R. (2009). Community policing as procedural justice: An examination of Baltimore residents after the implementation of a community policing strategy. (Master’s thesis, Villanova University). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (UMI Number: 1462400)

  • Fischer, R., Harb, C., Al-Sarraf, S., & Nashabe, O. (2008). Support for resistance among Iraqi students: an exploratory study. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(2), 167–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2010). Four ingredients: new recipes for procedural justice in Australian policing. Policing, 4(4), 403–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hall, P.A. (1987). Neighborhood Watch and participant perceptions. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (UMI Number: 0560502).

  • Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Toronto: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(1), 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hinds, L. (2009). Youth, police legitimacy and informal contact. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 24, 10–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Holland, R. C. (1996). Informal resolution: dealing with complaints against police in a manner satisfactory to the officer and the complainant. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 20(1), 83–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Home Office (2011). Crime in England and Wales: Quarterly update to September 2010. London: Author.

  • Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2010). What is trust and confidence in the police? Policing, 4(3), 241–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonathan-Zamir, T., & Weisburd, D. (2009). Does police performance increase in importance for the public during times of security threats, and do evaluations of procedural justice decline in importance? Findings from a quasi-experimental study of antecedents of police legitimacy in Israel. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Kerstetter, W. A., & Rasinski, K. A. (1994). Opening a window into police internal affairs: impact of procedural justice reform on third-party attitudes. Social Justice Research, 7(2), 107–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis (Vol. 49). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • *McGarrell, E. F., & Chermak, S. (2004). Strategic approaches to reducing firearms violence: Final report on the Indianapolis violence reduction partnership. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastrofski, S.D. (2009). Systematic social observation and legitimacy policing. Presentation.

  • Mastrofski, S. D., Snipes, J. B., & Supina, A. E. (1996). Compliance on demand: the public's response to specific police requests. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33(3), 269–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E., & Eggins, E. (2012). Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: main findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11292-012-9160-1.

  • Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., & Manning, M. (2013). Legitimacy in policing. Campbell Collaboration Library of Systematic Reviews. http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/141/.

  • McCluskey, J. D. (2003). Police requests for compliance: Coercive and procedurally just tactics. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCluskey, J. D., Mastrofski, S. D., & Parks, R. B. (1999). To acquiesce or rebel: predicting citizen compliance with police requests. Police Quarterly, 2(4), 389–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K. (2009). Public satisfaction with police: the importance of procedural justice and police performance in police-citizen encounters. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2012). Understanding cooperation with police in a diverse society. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 181–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Murphy, K., Hinds, L., & Fleming, J. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Policing and Society, 18(2), 136–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Panetta, M. J. (2000). Identifying and assessing citizen perceptions of police and community policing practices. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (UMI Number: 9971979)

  • Reisig, M. D., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. G. (2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 1005–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiss, A. J. (1971). The police and the public. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ren, L., Cao, L., Lovrich, N., & Gaffney, M. (2005). Linking confidence in police with the performance of the police: community policing can make a difference. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Robinson, A. L., & Chandek, M. S. (2000). Philosophy into practice? Community policing units and domestic violence victim participation. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 23(3), 280–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Chapman, B., Dignan, J., Howes, M., et al. (2007). Restorative justice: The views of victims and offenders. Ministry of Justice Research Series (3). United Kingdom: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Barnes, G. C., Braithwaite, J., Inkpen, N., & Teh, M. M. (1998). Experiments in restorative policing: A progress report on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra: Australian Federal Police and Australian National University.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Singer, L. (2004). Reassurance policing: An evaluation of the local management of community safety. Home Office Research Studies (Vol. 228). London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Skogan, W.G., & Steiner, L. (2004). CAPS at Ten: Community policing in Chicago - An evaluation of Chicago's alternative policing strategy. Chicago, IL: The Chicago Community Policing Evaluation Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publications/policing_papers/Yr10-CAPSeval.pdf

  • Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice for legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37(3), 513–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, A. J., Duval, S. J., Tweedie, R. L., Abrams, K. R., & Jones, D. R. (2000). Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 320, 1574–1577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tankebe, J. (2009). Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: does procedural fairness matter? Criminology, 47, 1265–1293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Tuffin, R., Morris, J., & Poole, A. (2006). An evaluation of the impact of the National Reassurance Policing programme. Home Office Research Study 296. London: Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: what do majority and minority group members want from legal authorities? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 215–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2005). Policing in black and white: ethnic group differences in trust and confidence in the police. Police Quarterly, 8(3), 322–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R. (2008). Psychology and institutional design. Review of Law & Economics, 4(3), 801–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T.R. & Murphy, K. (2011). Procedural justice, police legitimacy and cooperation with police: A new paradigm for policing. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security Briefing Paper. May 2011.

  • Tyler, T. R., Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Barnes, G. C., & Woods, D. J. (2007). Reintegrative shaming, procedural justice, and recidivism: the engagement of offenders' psychological mechanisms in the Canberra RISE drinking-and-driving experiment. Law and Society Review, 41(3), 553–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., Schulhofer, S., & Huq, A. Z. (2010). Legitimacy and deterrence rffects in conterterrorism policing: a study of Muslim Americans. Law & Society Review, 44(2), 365–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42(2), 253–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Weisburd, D., Morris, N. A., & Ready, J. (2008). Risk-focused policing at places: an experimental evaluation. Justice Quarterly, 25(1), 163–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, L. E. (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(6), 612–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Young, R., Hoyle, C., Cooper, K., & Hill, R. (2005). Informal resolution of complaints against the police: a quasi-experimental test of restorative justice. Criminal Justice, 5(3), 279–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Zevitz, R.G., Palazzari, T., Frinzi, J.N., & Mallinger, A. (1997). Milwaukee Weed and Seed program evaluation final report. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University. Retrieved from http://www.weedandseed.info/docs/studies_local/milwaukee.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Social Science Research and ARC Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security (CEPS), The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Lorraine Mazerolle, Sarah Bennett, Jacqueline Davis & Elise Sargeant

  2. School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Queensland, 4111, Australia

    Matthew Manning

  3. Institute for Social Science Research, The University of Queensland, Room 409, Level 4, GPN3 Building, Campbell Road, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia

    Lorraine Mazerolle

Authors
  1. Lorraine Mazerolle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jacqueline Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elise Sargeant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Matthew Manning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lorraine Mazerolle.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Databases used in the systematic review

  1. 1.

    CSA: Criminal Justice Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts (Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC); CSA Social Services Abstracts); SAGE Criminology; SAGE Sociology; SAGE Political Science

  2. 2.

    Informit: Australian Federal Police Digest; Australian Criminological Database (CINCH) Criminology

  3. 3.

    Ingenta Connect: Informaworld (Taylor and Francis journals); Academic Press; Elsevier; Wiley Interscience (Blackwell Publishing)

  4. 4.

    Proquest: ProQuest – Dissertations and Theses; ProQuest – Psychological Journals; ProQuest – Social Science Journals; ProQuest – Legal Module

  5. 5.

    Ovid: PsycEXTRA (National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS); National Institute of Justice (NIJ); Home Office Publications); PsycINFO

  6. 6.

    Web of Knowledge: Web of Science – Arts and Humanities Citation List (Science Citation Index); Web of Science – Social Sciences Citation List

  7. 7.

    National Police Library via the National Policing Improvement Agency

  8. 8.

    Cambridge University Library and Dependent Libraries Catalogue

Appendix 2

Table 4 Summary of characteristics of individual studies included in the meta-analysis
Full size table

Appendix 3: Forest Plots

Fig. 1
figure 1

Forest plot of effect sizes: legitimacy

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot of effect sizes: procedural justice

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of effect sizes: compliance and cooperation

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot of effect sizes: satisfaction and confidence

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J. et al. Procedural justice and police legitimacy: a systematic review of the research evidence. J Exp Criminol 9, 245–274 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-013-9175-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-013-9175-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation