The Influence of Police Treatment and Decision-making on Perceptions of Procedural Justice: A Field Study

IF 2.2 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency Pub Date : 2021-07-12 DOI:10.1177/00224278211030968
B. Terpstra, Peter van Wijck
{"title":"The Influence of Police Treatment and Decision-making on Perceptions of Procedural Justice: A Field Study","authors":"B. Terpstra, Peter van Wijck","doi":"10.1177/00224278211030968","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: This study examines whether police behavior that signals higher quality of treatment or decision-making leads to higher perceived procedural justice. Methods: Analyses are based on data collected during police traffic controls of moped drivers in two Dutch cities over a period of six months. Police behavior was measured through systematic social observation (SSO), and data on perceived procedural justice were collected through face-to-face interviews immediately after the encounters. Linear regression analysis with bootstrap estimates was used (n = 218), with an overall perceived procedural justice scale as the dependent variable in all regressions. Independent variables included an overall observed procedural justice index and four separate scales of police treatment and decision-making. Results: We find no evidence that police behavior that signals fairer treatment or decision-making leads to higher perceived procedural justice. Conclusions: Our findings add to the currently very limited empirical evidence on an important question, and raise questions about a central idea, that more procedurally just treatment and decision making by authorities leads to an increase in perceived procedural justice and enhanced compliance. The first of these requires more research.","PeriodicalId":51395,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency","volume":"60 1","pages":"344 - 377"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/00224278211030968","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00224278211030968","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Objectives: This study examines whether police behavior that signals higher quality of treatment or decision-making leads to higher perceived procedural justice. Methods: Analyses are based on data collected during police traffic controls of moped drivers in two Dutch cities over a period of six months. Police behavior was measured through systematic social observation (SSO), and data on perceived procedural justice were collected through face-to-face interviews immediately after the encounters. Linear regression analysis with bootstrap estimates was used (n = 218), with an overall perceived procedural justice scale as the dependent variable in all regressions. Independent variables included an overall observed procedural justice index and four separate scales of police treatment and decision-making. Results: We find no evidence that police behavior that signals fairer treatment or decision-making leads to higher perceived procedural justice. Conclusions: Our findings add to the currently very limited empirical evidence on an important question, and raise questions about a central idea, that more procedurally just treatment and decision making by authorities leads to an increase in perceived procedural justice and enhanced compliance. The first of these requires more research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
警察待遇和决策对程序正义感的影响:一项实地研究
目的:本研究考察了警察行为是否预示着更高的治疗或决策质量,从而导致更高的程序正义感。方法:分析基于荷兰两个城市警方在六个月内对轻便摩托车驾驶员进行交通管制期间收集的数据。通过系统社会观察(SSO)来衡量警察行为,并在遭遇后立即通过面对面访谈收集有关感知程序正义的数据。使用了具有bootstrap估计的线性回归分析(n=218),总体感知程序公正量表作为所有回归的因变量。自变量包括观察到的总体程序公正指数和四个独立的警察待遇和决策量表。结果:我们没有发现任何证据表明,警察的行为标志着更公平的待遇或决策,会导致更高的程序正义感。结论:我们的研究结果增加了目前关于一个重要问题的非常有限的经验证据,并对一个核心思想提出了质疑,即当局在程序上更公正的处理和决策会增加人们对程序公正的认识,并提高合规性。第一个需要更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: For over 45 years, this international forum has advanced research in criminology and criminal justice. Through articles, research notes, and special issues, the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency continues to keep you up to date on contemporary issues and controversies within the criminal justice field. Research and Analysis: The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency presents a wide range of research and analysis in the field of criminology. You’ll find research on the social, political and economic contexts of criminal justice, examining victims, offenders, police, courts and sanctions. Comprehensive Coverage: The science of criminal justice combines a wide range of academic disciplines and fields of practice. To advance the field of criminal justice the journal provides a forum that is informed by a variety of fields. Among the perspectives that you’ll find represented in the journal are: -biology/genetics- criminology- criminal justice/administration- courts- corrections- crime prevention- crime science- economics- geography- police studies- political science- psychology- sociology.
期刊最新文献
Contextualizing Lives and Historical Time: Examining Changes in the Transition to Adulthood and Age-Arrest Trajectories from the 1960s to 2018 What Adolescents Do or Say to Actively Influence Peers: Compliance-Gaining Tactics and Adolescent Deviance An Examination of Racial and Ethnic Disparity in Prison Misconduct Punishment Collective Self-Control as a Feature of Social Contexts: Theoretical Arguments and a Multilevel Empirical Test Revisiting the Structural (In)Variances of Homicide: Examining the Differential Effects of Context Across Homicide Types
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1