Public cooperation with police in Detroit: a testing of three perspectives

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Policing-An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management Pub Date : 2022-10-05 DOI:10.1108/pijpsm-05-2022-0073
Hailey Khatchatourian, Grace MacFarland, Mindy Thai, Danika Hickling, Brad W. Smith, Yuning Wu
{"title":"Public cooperation with police in Detroit: a testing of three perspectives","authors":"Hailey Khatchatourian, Grace MacFarland, Mindy Thai, Danika Hickling, Brad W. Smith, Yuning Wu","doi":"10.1108/pijpsm-05-2022-0073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeWhile public support for and cooperation with the police has been deemed vital for police effectiveness, what shapes such support and cooperation has not been fully examined. The purpose of this study is to explore three perspectives on public cooperation with police simultaneously: (1) police legitimacy, (2) legal cynicism, and (3) neighborhood norms.Design/methodology/approachThe data used in this study came from a survey conducted with 408 residents across three neighborhoods in Detroit, Michigan, in 2009. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was used to assess the relationship between the three groups of theory-based predictors, representing police legitimacy, legal cynicism, and neighborhood norms, and the dependent variable of cooperation.FindingsThe findings partially support the legitimacy model, as trust in police, but not perceived obligation to obey, predicts cooperation with police. This study provides strong support for the legal cynicism and neighborhood norms perspectives. Specifically, residents who have higher levels of legal cynicism and who report a stronger anti-snitch neighborhood subculture report being less inclined to cooperate with the police.Originality/valueThis study is the first to compare the relative influences of three major perspectives on public cooperation. Future studies should continue to analyze competing theories in explaining public cooperation with the police and determine if findings from this study are applicable to locations outside Detroit.","PeriodicalId":47881,"journal":{"name":"Policing-An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policing-An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm-05-2022-0073","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

PurposeWhile public support for and cooperation with the police has been deemed vital for police effectiveness, what shapes such support and cooperation has not been fully examined. The purpose of this study is to explore three perspectives on public cooperation with police simultaneously: (1) police legitimacy, (2) legal cynicism, and (3) neighborhood norms.Design/methodology/approachThe data used in this study came from a survey conducted with 408 residents across three neighborhoods in Detroit, Michigan, in 2009. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was used to assess the relationship between the three groups of theory-based predictors, representing police legitimacy, legal cynicism, and neighborhood norms, and the dependent variable of cooperation.FindingsThe findings partially support the legitimacy model, as trust in police, but not perceived obligation to obey, predicts cooperation with police. This study provides strong support for the legal cynicism and neighborhood norms perspectives. Specifically, residents who have higher levels of legal cynicism and who report a stronger anti-snitch neighborhood subculture report being less inclined to cooperate with the police.Originality/valueThis study is the first to compare the relative influences of three major perspectives on public cooperation. Future studies should continue to analyze competing theories in explaining public cooperation with the police and determine if findings from this study are applicable to locations outside Detroit.
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
底特律公众与警方的合作:对三种观点的检验
虽然公众对警察的支持和与警察的合作被认为对警察的效率至关重要,但这种支持和合作的形式尚未得到充分审查。本研究旨在探讨公众与警察合作的三个视角:(1)警察合法性;(2)法律犬儒主义;(3)邻里规范。设计/方法/方法本研究中使用的数据来自2009年对密歇根州底特律三个社区的408名居民进行的调查。使用普通最小二乘(OLS)回归来评估三组基于理论的预测因子(代表警察合法性,法律玩世不恭和邻里规范)与合作的因变量之间的关系。研究结果部分支持合法性模型,因为对警察的信任,但不认为有义务服从,可以预测与警察的合作。本研究为法律犬儒主义和邻里规范的观点提供了强有力的支持。具体来说,那些对法律持怀疑态度的居民,以及那些反告密的社区亚文化更强的居民,报告称他们不太愿意与警方合作。原创性/价值本研究首次比较了三种主要视角对公共合作的相对影响。未来的研究应该继续分析解释公众与警察合作的竞争理论,并确定本研究的结果是否适用于底特律以外的地区。
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
3.20
自引率
15.00%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: ■Community policing ■Managerial styles and leadership ■Performance measurement and accountability ■Pursuit guidelines ■Crime trends and analysis ■Crisis negotiation ■Civil disorder ■Organized crime ■Victimology ■Crime prevention ■Career development ■High risk police activities ■Routine policing ■Traffic enforcement ■Civil litigation.
期刊最新文献
How can we help law enforcement agencies learn? A look at CALEA police accreditation Crime on the mass transit system in Hong Kong: a hotspots and harmspots trajectory approach Does Weisburd's law of crime concentration apply to traffic crashes? Implications for policing and traffic law enforcement How the police conceptualise and view the relevance of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) for policing: a qualitative investigation Compliments or complaints: an evaluation of a community oriented policing practice
×
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