Does Procedural Justice Reduce the Harmful Effects of Perceived Ineffectiveness on Police Legitimacy?

IF 2.2 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1177/00224278221121622
Yongjae Nam, Scott E. Wolfe, Justin Nix
{"title":"Does Procedural Justice Reduce the Harmful Effects of Perceived Ineffectiveness on Police Legitimacy?","authors":"Yongjae Nam, Scott E. Wolfe, Justin Nix","doi":"10.1177/00224278221121622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Judgments about police procedural fairness consistently have a stronger influence on how the public ascribes legitimacy to the police than evaluations of police effectiveness. What remains largely underexplored, however, is the potential moderating effect of procedural justice on the relationship between effectiveness and legitimacy and whether this moderation varies by citizen race. Method: We administered two separate surveys to determine whether procedural justice's moderating effect on the relationship between police ineffectiveness and legitimacy varies by citizen race. The first was a mail survey of a random sample of citizens in a southern US city (N = 1,681) conducted in 2013; the second, a national survey of adults (N = 972) administered via Qualtrics in 2022. Results: We found that procedural justice could help protect against the harmful influence of perceived ineffectiveness on police legitimacy in Study 2. However, contrary to expectations, this moderation effect held only for White Americans. Conclusions: The effect of perceived ineffectiveness on legitimacy evaluations does not vary depending on citizens’ perceptions of procedural justice. Yet, police still do have control over how they treat people with whom they interact, which is one mechanism that can improve citizens’ views on police legitimacy.","PeriodicalId":51395,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00224278221121622","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: 1

Abstract

Objectives: Judgments about police procedural fairness consistently have a stronger influence on how the public ascribes legitimacy to the police than evaluations of police effectiveness. What remains largely underexplored, however, is the potential moderating effect of procedural justice on the relationship between effectiveness and legitimacy and whether this moderation varies by citizen race. Method: We administered two separate surveys to determine whether procedural justice's moderating effect on the relationship between police ineffectiveness and legitimacy varies by citizen race. The first was a mail survey of a random sample of citizens in a southern US city (N = 1,681) conducted in 2013; the second, a national survey of adults (N = 972) administered via Qualtrics in 2022. Results: We found that procedural justice could help protect against the harmful influence of perceived ineffectiveness on police legitimacy in Study 2. However, contrary to expectations, this moderation effect held only for White Americans. Conclusions: The effect of perceived ineffectiveness on legitimacy evaluations does not vary depending on citizens’ perceptions of procedural justice. Yet, police still do have control over how they treat people with whom they interact, which is one mechanism that can improve citizens’ views on police legitimacy.
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
程序正义能减少感知无效对警察合法性的有害影响吗?
目的:对警察程序公平的判断始终比对警察有效性的评价对公众如何赋予警察合法性有更大的影响。然而,程序正义对有效性和合法性之间关系的潜在调节作用,以及这种调节作用是否因公民种族而异,在很大程度上仍未得到充分探讨。方法:我们通过两个独立的调查来确定程序正义对警察无效性和合法性关系的调节作用是否因公民种族而异。第一个是2013年对美国南部一个城市的公民随机抽样进行的邮件调查(N = 1681);第二项是在2022年通过Qualtrics进行的一项全国成年人调查(N = 972)。结果:在研究2中,我们发现程序正义有助于防止感知无效对警察合法性的有害影响。然而,与预期相反,这种缓和效应只适用于美国白人。结论:感知无效对合法性评价的影响不随公民对程序正义的感知而变化。然而,警察仍然可以控制他们如何对待与他们互动的人,这是一种可以提高公民对警察合法性看法的机制。
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