Adam D. Fine, Jordan Beardslee, Ryan D. Mays, P. Frick, L. Steinberg, E. Cauffman
{"title":"衡量青少年对警察的看法:来自十字路口研究的证据。","authors":"Adam D. Fine, Jordan Beardslee, Ryan D. Mays, P. Frick, L. Steinberg, E. Cauffman","doi":"10.1037/law0000328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The literature on perceptions of police is growing, yet the enthusiasm is outpacing methodological rigor. This study (a) examined the factor structure of items assessing procedural justice and legitimacy, (b) tested whether the factors were uniquely associated with youth self-reported offending (SRO), and (c) identi fi ed whether effects on subsequent SRO operated through legitimacy. Using data derived from the 1,216 youth in the Crossroads Study, as well as supplemental models with Pathways to Desistance data, factor analyses established a factor structure, negative binomial regressions examined associations with SRO, and indirect effects analysis within a structural equation model framework identi fi ed whether associations on SRO operated through legitimacy. A fi ve-factor solution emerged: Voice, Neutrality/ Impartiality, Distributive Justice/Bias, Respect, and Legitimacy. In the adjusted model, only Distributive Justice/Bias and Legitimacy were directly associated with concurrent SRO. However, all procedural justice scales had indirect effects on subsequent offending through legitimacy. Implications for methodology and procedural justice theory are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51463,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Public Policy and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring youths’ perceptions of police: Evidence from the crossroads study.\",\"authors\":\"Adam D. Fine, Jordan Beardslee, Ryan D. Mays, P. Frick, L. Steinberg, E. Cauffman\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/law0000328\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The literature on perceptions of police is growing, yet the enthusiasm is outpacing methodological rigor. This study (a) examined the factor structure of items assessing procedural justice and legitimacy, (b) tested whether the factors were uniquely associated with youth self-reported offending (SRO), and (c) identi fi ed whether effects on subsequent SRO operated through legitimacy. Using data derived from the 1,216 youth in the Crossroads Study, as well as supplemental models with Pathways to Desistance data, factor analyses established a factor structure, negative binomial regressions examined associations with SRO, and indirect effects analysis within a structural equation model framework identi fi ed whether associations on SRO operated through legitimacy. A fi ve-factor solution emerged: Voice, Neutrality/ Impartiality, Distributive Justice/Bias, Respect, and Legitimacy. In the adjusted model, only Distributive Justice/Bias and Legitimacy were directly associated with concurrent SRO. However, all procedural justice scales had indirect effects on subsequent offending through legitimacy. Implications for methodology and procedural justice theory are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology Public Policy and Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology Public Policy and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000328\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Public Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000328","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Measuring youths’ perceptions of police: Evidence from the crossroads study.
The literature on perceptions of police is growing, yet the enthusiasm is outpacing methodological rigor. This study (a) examined the factor structure of items assessing procedural justice and legitimacy, (b) tested whether the factors were uniquely associated with youth self-reported offending (SRO), and (c) identi fi ed whether effects on subsequent SRO operated through legitimacy. Using data derived from the 1,216 youth in the Crossroads Study, as well as supplemental models with Pathways to Desistance data, factor analyses established a factor structure, negative binomial regressions examined associations with SRO, and indirect effects analysis within a structural equation model framework identi fi ed whether associations on SRO operated through legitimacy. A fi ve-factor solution emerged: Voice, Neutrality/ Impartiality, Distributive Justice/Bias, Respect, and Legitimacy. In the adjusted model, only Distributive Justice/Bias and Legitimacy were directly associated with concurrent SRO. However, all procedural justice scales had indirect effects on subsequent offending through legitimacy. Implications for methodology and procedural justice theory are discussed.
期刊介绍:
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law ® provides a forum in which to critically evaluate the contributions of psychology and related disciplines (hereinafter psychology) to public policy and legal issues, and vice versa. It is read by legal scholars and professionals and public policy analysts as well as psychology researchers and practitioners working at the interface of the three fields. The journal publishes theoretical and empirical articles that critically evaluate the contributions and potential contributions of psychology to public policy and legal issues;assess the desirability of different public policy and legal alternatives in light of the scientific knowledge base in psychology;articulate research needs that address public policy and legal issues for which there is currently insufficient theoretical and empirical knowledge;present empirical work that makes a significant contribution to the application of psychological knowledge to public policy or the law; andexamine public policy and legal issues relating to the conduct of psychology and related disciplines (e.g., human subjects, protection policies; informed consent procedures).