Enhancing Police Legitimacy

8/22/2019 Enhancing Police Legitimacy

1/17

American Academy of Political and Social Science

Enhancing Police LegitimacyAuthor(s): Tom R. TylerSource: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 593, To BetterServe and Protect: Improving Police Practices (May, 2004), pp. 84-99Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and SocialScience

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4127668 .

Accessed: 09/04/2013 02:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. andAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science are collaborating with JSTOR

to digitize, preserve and extend access toAnnals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:37:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4127668?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4127668?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapsshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/17

EnhancingPolice

LegitimacyBy

TOM R. TYLER

This article makes three points. First, the police needpublic supportand cooperationto be effective in theirorder-maintenancerole, and they particularlybenefitwhen they have the voluntarysupportand cooperationof most members of the public, most of the time. Sec-ond, suchvoluntary upportandcooperation s linkedtojudgments about the legitimacyof the police. A centralreasonpeople cooperatewith the police is thattheyviewthem as legitimate legal authorities, entitled to beobeyed. Third, a key antecedent of public judgmentsabout the legitimacyof the police andof policingactivi-ties involvespublicassessmentsof the mannerin whichthe police exercise theirauthority.Suchprocedural-jus-tice judgments are central to public evaluationsof thepolice and influence such evaluationsseparatelyfromassessments of police effectiveness in fighting crime.These findings suggest the importance of enhancingpublic views about the legitimacy of the police andsuggest process-based strategies for achieving thatobjective.Keywords: police; legitimacy; compliance; trust andconfidence

Public Cooperationwith the PoliceOne way to approach the relationshipbetween thepoliceandthepublic s to considerhow the public impactson the effectivenessofthe police in theireffortsto combatcrime andmaintain ocialorder.Traditional iscussionsof

the effective exercise of legal authorityhavefocused on the abilityof legal authorities toshape the behavior of the people within thecommunities they police. The ability of thepolicetosecurecompliancewiththeirdirectivesand with the law moregenerally-the ability obe authoritative-iswidely dentifiedasonekeyTomR. Tyleris a professorof psychology at New YorkUniversity.His work is concernedwith the dynamicsofauthority in groups and organizations. His booksincludeWhy People Obeythe Law(1990), SocialJusticeina DiverseSociety1997),andCooperationnGroups(2000).DOI: 10.1177/0002716203262627

84 ANNALS, AAPSS, 593, May2004

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

ENHANCING OLICELEGITIMACY 85

indicator f theirviability sauthoritiesEaston1975;Fuller1971).To be effectiveas maintainers f socialorder, n otherwords,the police mustbe widelyobeyed(Tyler 1990). This obedience must occur both during personal encountersbetweenpoliceofficersandmembersof the public(TylerandHuo 2002) andinpeople'severydayaw-relatedbehavior(Tyler1990).Whilecompliance s widespread,t can neverbe takenforgranted.Studiesofpolicing uggest hat"although eference olegalauthoritiess thenorm,disobedi-ence occurswithsufficientfrequency hat skill n handling he rebellious, he dis-gruntled,and the hardto manage-or those potentiallyso-have become thestreetofficer'sperformanceitmus est" Mastrofski, nipes,andSupina1996,272;alsosee Sherman1993).Studiesof policeencounterswithmembersof the publicsuggestoverallnoncompliance atesofaround20percent(Mastrofski, nipes,andSupina1996;McCluskey,Mastrofski, nd Parks1999).Furthermore,tisdifficult ogaincompliance olelyviathe threatof use orforce(Tyler1990, 1997b,1997c).Thepoliceneed forpeopleto bothaccepttheirdeci-sions andfollowthe lawat least npartbecausetheychooseto doso (Easton1975;Parsons1967;Sarat1977;Tyler1990).Whyis suchvoluntary ompliance mpor-tant?Although he police represent he threatof force andcarrygunsandclubswith them, it is impracticalor the police to be everywhereallof the time. Thepolicemustrelyuponwidespread, oluntaryaw-abiding ehavioroallow hem toconcentrate heir resourcesonthosepeopleandsituationsn whichcompliancesdifficult oobtain.This s first rueinpersonal ncounters.Whenpeoplecomply ntheimmediatepresenceof thepolicebut laterreturn ononcompliancesince"cit-izens who acquiesceat the scene can renege";Mastrofski,Snipes,and Supina1996, 283), the policehavedifficultymaintaining rder n the longterm.In addi-tion,thepeoplein thecommunityneed to deferto the law n theireverydaybehav-ior.Whenpeoplewidely gnore helaw, he resourcesof thepolicequicklybecomeinadequateo themaintenance forder. nbothsituations,hepolicebenefitfromwidespread,voluntarydeference.In addition o the importanceof gainingcompliancewiththe law,morerecentdiscussionsof crime and socialdisorderemphasizethe importantrole of publiccooperation o the success ofpoliceefforts o fightcrimeby preventing rimeanddisorder and bringing offenders to account for wrongdoing (Sampson,Raudenbush, nd Earls1997).Thepublicsupports he policebyhelpingto iden-tifycriminals ndbyreporting rimes.Inaddition,membersof thepublichelpthepolice byjoining ogether ninformal fforts o combatcrimeand address ommu-nityproblems,whether t is byworkingn"neighborhood atch"organizationsrbyattendingcommunity-policemeetings.Aswasthe casewithcompliance, hesecooperative ffortsarelargelyvoluntaryncharacter, ndthepolicearenotgener-ally n aposition o rewardmembersof thepublicfor theiraid.Instead,

hepolicerely on willing public cooperationwith police efforts to control crime andcommunitydisorder.



4/17

86 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICANACADEMY

LegitimacyThevalueofvoluntary ooperation ndsupport rom hepublicraises heques-tion of how suchcooperationandsupportcan be createdandmaintained(Tylerand Blader2000). Traditionally,he focus in policinghas been on instrumentalmodelsofpolicing.Forexample, ompliancewiththe lawhasbeenviewedasbeingmotivatedthrough he creationof a credibleriskthatpeople willbe caughtandpunished orwrongdoing,hat s,"bymanipulatingn individual'salculusregard-ingwhethercrimepaysin the particularnstance" Meares2000, 396). Similarly,publiccooperation n fightingcrimeis motivatedby evidencethatthe policeareperforming ffectively n their effortsto controlcrimeandurbandisorder.Evidencesuggests hatthese instrumentalperspectivesareinadequatemodelswithwhichtoexplainpubliccooperation. nthecaseofsanction hreatandcompli-ance, the findingsof researchsupport he argument hat sanctionrisksdo shapecompliancebehavior(Nagin1998),but the magnitudeof theirinfluenceis typi-callysmall.Forexample,basedon a reviewof researchon the influenceof deter-renceon druguse, MacCoun 1993)estimatesthatvariationsn the certaintyandseverityofpunishmentaccount oronly approximatelypercent nthevariancendrug-relatedbehavior,a findingconsistentwith the suggestionof Paternoster(1987)that"perceived ertainty ofpunishment]playsvirtually o roleinexplain-ingdeviant/criminalonduct 191)" alsosee Paternostert al.1983).Thelowlevelof thisrelationshipmaybe due to the difficulties hatthe policehavebringing heriskof being caughtandpunishedforwrongdoingo high-enoughevelsto effec-tivelyinfluencepublicbehavior(Ross 1982;Robinsonand Darley 1995, 1997).Thisevidencesuggests hatdeterrence saninadequatebasisforsecuringcompli-ance withthe law.In the case of police effectivenessin fightingcrime, evidence suggeststhatpolice innovationsn the managementof policeservicesmayhave contributed othewidespreaddeclinesin crimereported n majorAmerican itiesduringrecentdecades(KellingandColes1996;Silverman 999).Furthermore,ndicators how

increasingprofessionalismn policing, includingdecliningrates of complaintsagainst hepoliceandlower evels of excessivepoliceuseof forceagainstcommu-nityresidents.However, tudiesof thepublicandpublicviews aboutandcoopera-tionwiththepolicesuggestthatthe public's eactions o the policeareagainonlylooselylinked o policeeffectiveness n fightingcrime,suggesting hatpoliceper-formance s aninsufficientbasis forgaining he cooperationof the public.How can the police encouragepublic cooperationand support?To have aneffectivestrategyorencouraging ooperation,peopleneedtohaveadditional ea-sons forcooperatingbeyond nstrumental ssessments fpoliceperformance.Onealternativeperspective s linkedto the recognition hatpeople have internalizedvaluesuponwhichthepolice mightdraw o securecomplianceandtogaincooper-ation(Sherman1993;Tyler1990).Akeyvaluethatpeopleholdistheirwidespreadsupport orthe legitimacyof the police-the beliefthatthe policeare entitled tocalluponthepublicto followthe law andhelpcombatcrimeandthat membersof



5/17

ENHANCING POLICE LEGITIMACY 87

thepublichaveanobligationoengage ncooperativebehaviors.Whenpeoplefeelthat an authoritys legitimate,they authorize hat authority o determinewhattheirbehaviorwillbe withina givenset of situations.Suchan authorizationf anauthority"seem[s] o carryautomaticjustification... Behaviorally,uthorizationobviates he necessityof making udgmentsor choices.Not onlydo normalmoralprinciplesbecome inoperative,but-particularlywhen the actionsare explicitlyordered-a differenttypeofmorality,inked odutytoobey superiororders, endstotakeover" KelmanandHamilton1989,16).People, n otherwords, eel respon-sible forfollowing hedirectivesof legitimateauthoritiesFrenchandRaven1959;Merelman1966).

Whenpeoplefeel that an authorityislegitimate,they authorizethat authoritytodeterminewhat their behaviorwill be

within a given set of situations.

The rootsof the modem use of legitimacyareusually racedto thewritingsofWeber(1968).Weberargued hattheability oissue commandshatwillbeobeyeddid not restsolelyon the possessionorability o deploypower.In addition, herewere rules and authorities hatpeople wouldvoluntarily bey.These rulesandauthoritiespossessedthe qualityof legitimacy,he beliefbyothers hatthey oughtto be obeyed.Weber'sframingof the issue of legitimacys importantbecausehisarticulation f the questionof whypeople obey authoritiesdefines the modernfocusofsocialscienceperspectivesonlegitimacy.naddition,hedistinguishedhisissue fromthephilosophical uestionofwhypeople oughttoobey,which scentralto discussionswithin awandpoliticalphilosophy Beetham1991).The argumentthat people'sfeelings about their internalobligationto obeysocialnormsandrulesalsoshapetheirbehaviorsequallycentral o thewritingsofFreud (Hoffman 1977) and Durkheim (1947, 1986), althoughthese authorsfocusedonpeople'smoralvalues.Thislegitimacyarguments notparticularothepolice.Onthe contrary,egitimacys suggestedto be central o the exerciseof allforms of authority.For example,Selznick'sclassic examinationof authority nindustrialsettingsargues hat "there s a demand hatrulesbe legitimate,notonlyin emanating romestablishedauthority, ut also in the mannerof theirformula-tion,in thewaytheyareapplied,andin theirfidelity o agreed-uponnstitutionalpurposes.... [The]obligation o obeyhas somerelation o the qualityof the rulesand the integrityof theiradministration"Selznick1969,29).



6/17


A legitimacy-basedtrategyof policing ncreasescooperationwith the lawbydrawingon people'sfeelingsof responsibility nd obligation.The advantageofsuch a strategy ies in its ability o facilitatevoluntary ooperation.Tothe degreethatcooperations motivatedbypersonalvalues, t is self-regulatorynd does notdependuponthe abilityof the authoritieso effectivelydeploy ncentivesor sanc-tions to securedesiredpublicbehavior. n such a society,onlyminimal evelsofsocietalresourcesareneeded to maintain ocialorder,and thoseresourcescanberedirected owardmeetingotherneeds(Tyler 001a;TylerandDarley2000).Fur-thermore,such voluntarydeference is more reliablethan instrumentallymoti-vatedcompliancebecause tdoes notvaryasa functionof thecircumstances rsit-uationinvolved.Driving up to a stop sign on a deserted roadat night,internalvaluesmotivateapersonto stop,even when thepossibility fpunishment orlaw-breakingbehaviors minimal.The key empirical ssue underlyinga legitimacy-basedtrategyof policingiswhetherpeople'sviews aboutthe legitimacyof the law and the police actuallyshape heircooperativebehavior.Theimportance flegitimacyhasbeenexaminedon two distinct evels:first, n studiesof everydaynteractionswithpoliceofficers;andsecond,on the communityevel,withpeopleevaluatinghecharacteristicsftheir communitypolice force-irrespective of whetherthey have had personalexperiencewithpoliceofficers.Studiesof the influence of legitimacy ypicallyassesspeople'sviews about thelegitimacyof thepolicein threeways.First,peopleare askedabouttheir senseofobligation oobeythepoliceandthelaw, orexample,whethertheyfeel that"peo-pleshouldobeythelawevenifitgoesagainstwhattheythink sright" ndthat"dis-obeying he law sseldomjustified."Whenaskedquestionsof thistype,Americansaregenerally oundto expressa strongsense of obligation o deferto lawand tolegal authorities.Second,legitimacyhas been assessedby askingaboutinstitu-tionaltrustandconfidence.Peopleareasked, orexample,whichstatementstheyagreewith:"Thepolice aregenerallyhonest";"Irespectthe police";and"Ifeelproud of the police."Finally,legitimacyis sometimes measuredby assessingfeelingsaboutthe police.Whentheyhavepersonalexperienceswith the police,people sometimeshaveto decidewhether oacceptoutcomesthattheydonotregardasdesirable,orevenasfair.Thekey question swhether heirviewsabout helegitimacy f thepoliceingeneral,and/orof the particular fficerswithwhomtheyaredealing, shapethiswillingness.TylerandHuo(2002)studied hisquestionusingasampleof 1,656res-identsofLosAngelesandOakland.Theyfound hattwofactorsshaped hewilling-ness to acceptdecisions: hedegreetowhichthe decisionswereregardedas favor-able and fair and the degree to which the police were generallyregardedaslegitimateauthorities.Thesetwofactorswere ofapproximatelyqual mportance.Tylerand Huo (2002, and reviewedin this volume) furtherfound that thedegree to whichpeople generallyviewed the police as legitimate nfluencedthebasisuponwhichtheydecidedwhetherto acceptdecisions.Peoplecouldpoten-tiallyacceptdecisionsbecause those decisionswere favorableor fair.Theycouldalso acceptthem becausethey believed thatthe police had acted appropriately



7/17


whendealingwiththem-that is,duetoproceduralustice.Proceduraljusticewillbediscussed nmoredetail nthenextsection.Process-based eactionsbenefitthepolice,however,becausetheycannotalwaysprovidedesirableoutcomes,butit isalmostalwayspossibleto behave nwaysthatpeopleexperienceasbeingfair.Thekeyfindingof thisstudyof personalexperienceswas thatwhenpeople generallyviewed the police as legitimateauthorities,people'sdecisionsaboutwhethertoacceptpolicedecisionswere morestronglybaseduponevaluations f the proce-duraljusticeofpoliceactions.Hence,havingprior egitimacyacilitatedhe taskofthe police by leadingpeople to assesspolice actions n moreheavilyproceduralterms.Thesestudiesdo notexamine he impactof legitimacyonwhetherpeople helpthepolice.Wemightanticipate,orexample, hatpeoplewhoviewedthepoliceasmorelegitimatewouldbe morewillingto help themduringpersonalencountersby,forexample,volunteeringnformation boutconditionsntheneighborhood rtheidentityor locationofwrongdoers.Similarly,hey mightbe morewilling ovol-unteer to attendpolice-communitymeetings.Legitimacymightalso have an important nfluence on everydaycompliancewith the law.Muchofpeoples' aw-related ehavioroccursoutsidethe immediatepresenceof legalauthorities, lthough omepossibilityof sanctionsalwaysexists.Theoriesof legitimacypredictthatin suchsettings,people's eelingsof obligationwillshapetheirbehavior,eadingto deference to the law.Tyler 1990)testedthisargumentnastudyof theattitudesandbehaviors f theresidentsof Chicago.Hefoundthat legitimacyhas a significant nfluenceon the degree to whichpeopleobeyedthelaw.Furthermore,hat nfluencewas distinct romandgreater nmag-nitudethanthe influenceof estimatesof the likelihoodof beingcaughtandpun-ished forwrongdoing.Thesefindings uggest hataspredictedbytheoriesof legiti-macy,people'sviewsaboutthe legitimacyof authoritiesnfluencethe degree towhichpeople obeythe law in theireverydayives.Morerecently,SunshineandTyler 2003)replicatedhis testof theinfluenceoflegitimacy ncompliancewithin wosamplesof theresidentsof NewYorkCity.Inboth studies,theyalsofoundthat the legitimacyof the police significantlynflu-enced compliancewith the law. Theirstudyalso extendedconsiderationof theinfluenceof legitimacy o a second area of concern:cooperationwiththe police.Theyfound that those residentswho viewed the police as morelegitimateweremorewilling ocooperatewiththem bothby reporting rimesoridentifying rimi-nals andby engaging n communityactivities o combatthe problemsof crime.These findingssupportthe basicpremiseof legitimacy heories.People aremore willingto cooperatewith legal authoritieswhen they believe that thoseauthoritiesarelegitimate.Thisincludes bothdeferring o theirdecisionsduringpersonalencountersandgenerallyobeying egalrules ntheireverydayives.Fur-thermore,peoplearemorecooperativenhelpingthepoliceto dealwithcrimeintheircommunitieswhentheyview the policeas legitimate.Hence, asanticipatedintheworkofWeber,egitimacydoesrepresentabasisuponwhichauthorities anact that is distinctfromthe possessionor use of powerandresources.



8/17


Legitimacy-basedolicinghasclearadvantagesorthe policeand the commu-nity.Whenpeople act basedupontheirfeelingsof obligationandresponsibility,theyareengagingnself-regulatoryehavior.Societyandsocialauthorities enefitfrom heoccurrenceofsuchbehaviorbecause t doesnotdependuponthemainte-nance of a crediblesystemof deterrenceor upon the qualityof police perfor-mance.Studiessuggestthatthe maintenance f sucha system s always ostlyandinefficient,andintimes of financialdifficultyorcrisis,whenpubliccooperationsmostclearlyneeded, it poses specialdifficulties orauthorities.One reason for focusingon issues of legitimacyat this time is thatrecent evi-denceshowspublicmistrust nd ackofconfidence n the lawandthelegalauthori-ties (Tyler1997a, 1998). For example, n 2002, the NationalInstitute of Justice(NIJ)found thatonly27 percentof Americansexpressed"agreatdeal"of confi-dence in the criminaljusticesystem.Withinthis broadcategory, he policehavetraditionally eceivedhigh ratings.For example, n this same study,59 percentexpressed"agreatdeal"ofconfidence nthepolice.This sconsistentwith thesug-gestionthat t is thecourts hatare theparticularargetofpublicdissatisfaction.n1998, the General Social Survey found that only 22 percent of Americansexpressed"agreatdeal"of confidencein the courts.While the higher evels of confidenceexpressed n the policeareencouragingfromthe perspectiveof a legitimacy-based pproach o policing,a secondtrou-blingaspectofpublicviews s the finding hat thereis astriking acialgap nviewsaboutlegalauthorities.Forexample, na2001studyconductedbythe NIJ,63 per-cent ofwhitesexpressedagreatdealof confidence nthepolice,ascomparedwith31 percentofAfricanAmericans. nthecase of the overallcriminaljusticesystem,27 percentof whitesexpresseda greatdeal of confidence,as comparedwith 22percentof AfricanAmericans.Theargumenthatlegitimacys akeyantecedent opubliccooperationwith thepolicehighlights he importanceof beingable to createandmaintaina climateofpublicopinionin whichcommunityresidentsgenerallyview the police as legiti-mateauthorities.Giventhatperspectiveon policing, t is important o take seri-ouslythe evidenceof publicdissatisfaction ndmistrustand to askhowlegitimacycan be enhanced.

EnhancingPolice Legitimacy:The Influence of ProceduralJusticeGiventhe importantrole thatlegitimacycan playin determining he level ofpubliccooperationwith the police, it is important o tryto understandhow the

policeshapepublicviewsabout heirlegitimacy.Publicviewsabout helegitimacyof thepolicemight,forexample,be the resultof publicassessmentsof police per-formance, n termsof either the abilityof the policeto createa crediblesanctionriskforwrongdoersor the effectivenessof the policein fightingcrime and urbandisorder.To the extent that thisis true,the already-outlinedmportanceof legiti-



9/17


macywouldnothavenewornovelimplicationsorpolicing.Toenhance heirlegit-imacy, the police would need to effectively combat crime and apprehendwrongdoers.Analternativeperspectiveon legitimacysprovidedbythe literatureonproce-duraljustice.Thatliteraturearguesthat the legitimacyof authoritiesandinstitu-tions is rooted in publicviewsabout the appropriatenessf the manner n whichthepoliceexercise heirauthority.notherwords,peopleareviewedasevaluatingauthoritiesbyassessingwhethertheyuse fairprocedureswhenengaging npolic-ingactivities.Theseproceduraludgmentsare distinct romjudgmentsabouttheeffectiveness,valence,or fairnessof the outcomesof thoseactivities.

Whenpeople act basedupon theirfeelingsof obligationand responsibility,they are

engaging in self-regulatorybehavior

Asin the case of legitimacy,he key empiricalssueiswhetherpeopleconsiderprocedural-justicessues when makinginferences about the legitimacyof thepolice. Studiesof people'sevaluationsof alltypesof authorities-police officers,judges,political eaders,managers,and teachers-have allprovidedstrong sup-port for the basicprocedural-justicergument.When people are dealingwithauthoritiesor institutions, heir evaluationsof legitimacyareprimarilyinkedtoassessmentsof the fairnessof the authority'sr the institution'sprocedures.Suchprocedural-justicessessmentsareconsistently oundto be morestrongly inkedto legitimacy udgmentsthan are the evaluationsof their effectivenessor thevalenceorfairnessof theoutcomestheydeliver(LindandTyler1988;Tyler1990,2000a;Tyleret al. 1997;Tylerand Smith1997).In the case of personalexperiences,studiesfind thatwhen authoritiesact inwaysthatpeople experienceas beingfair,people aremorewillingto voluntarilyaccept the authorities'decisions (Kitzmanand Emery 1993; Lind et al. 1993;MacCoun t al.1988;Wissler1995).Thesefield studiesconfirm hefindingsoftheearlierexperimentalindingsof socialpsychological esearch Thibaut ndWalker1975).Procedural-justiceudgmentsarefound o haveanespeciallymportant oleinshapingadherence o agreementsover time.Pruittet al.(1993)studiedthe fac-tors leadingthose involved n disputesto adhere to mediationagreementsovertime andfound thatthe procedural airnessof the initialmediationsettingwasacentraldeterminant f adherencesix months ater.Asecondstudysuggested hatproceduralusticeencourages ong-termobedienceto the law.Paternoster t al.



10/17


(1997)foundthatspouseabuserswere less likelyto commitfutureabuseswhenthey experiencedproceduralusticewiththe policeduringaninitialencounter.Thesefindingsalsoreceivesupportn thecontextofencountersbetweenpoliceandmembersof the public. Tylerand Huo (2002) foundthatprocedural-justicejudgments hapedpeople'swillingnessoacceptthedecisionsmadebypoliceoffi-cers andaremoreimportanthanarejudgmentsaboutthe favorabilityr fairnessof theoutcomesof theencounter.Similarly,Mastrofski, nipes,andSupina 1996)andMcCluskey,Mastrofski, ndParks 1999)foundthat the experienceof disre-spect fromthe police reducescompliance.This is consistentwiththe findingbyCasper,Tyler,and Fisher(1988) that the satisfactionof felonydefendantswiththeirexperienceswith the police and courts was strongly inked to theirassess-ments of the fairnessof the processbywhich their caseswere handled.In a recentstudyof policeencounterswithcommunity esidentsntwoAmeri-can cities that involvedboth interviewsand observational nalysis,McCluskey(2003)used awidevarietyof indicatorsof proceduralusticeandfound thatfiveaspects of procedural ustice influenced the willingnessto complywith policerequestsforself-control. n particular, e foundthatholding all else constant,citizens who receive respectful treatmentfrom authoritiesarealmost twice as likely to comply,and those receiving disrespectfultreatmentare nearlytwice aslikelyto rebel. If the citizen'svoice is terminatedbythe police theyaremorethantwice aslikelyto rebelagainst he police requestforself-control.If the police demonstratetheircommitmentto makinganinformeddecisionbyseekinginformationaboutthe pre-sentingsituation,citizensare morethan twice aslikelyto complywiththe phase I requestfor self-control(p. 91).

Theimpactofproceduralustice sgreatestearly ntheencounter,andat thattime,"the ikelihoodof citizencompliance s stronglyaffectedby procedurallyusttac-tics"(p. 114).Thesefindings uggest hatproceduralusticehasabroadimpactuponpeople'sreactions o theirexperienceswith thepolice.Inparticular,eople'swillingnessobuy into andvoluntarilyacceptdecisions that may requirethem to accept out-comes that they do not want, or to engage in self-controlover their actions,isenhancedbythejudgment hatone hasbeentreatedfairlybythepolice.Further-more,evidenceshowsthatthisdeferencecontinuesovertimeandshapespeople'slaw-relatedbehaviornthe future.Thesefindings uggestthattheproceduralus-tice thatmembersof the publicexperienceduring heirpersonalencounterswiththepolicehasbothimmediateandlong-termbehavior ffects.It isalsoimportantto note,however, hatproceduralusticeis notalways oundto be important.Forexample, McClusky 2003) did not find that procedural ustice matteredwhenpeoplewere stopped bythe policeon the streetand askedforidentification, ndHickmanand Simpson(2003) foundthat receivingprocedurallyair treatmentfrom hepolicedidnotencourage he victimsof domesticviolencetoreport utureviolentincidents to the police. Hence, proceduralusticeoften, but not always,facilitates avorable eactions o policingactivities.



11/17


Research urthersuggests hatprocedural usticeduringa personalencounterwiththe police influencesviewsabout the legitimacyof the police.Tyler(1990)demonstratedhatthe proceduralusticeof apersonalexperiencewith the policeshapedgeneralviewsaboutthe legitimacyof the law,afindingreplicatedbyTylerandHuo (2002).Similarly, yler,Casper,and Fisher(1989)foundthat theproce-duraljusticeoftheircasedispositionprocessshaped he viewsoffelonydefendantsaboutthe legitimacyof the criminaljustice systemandof the law.Morerecently,Barnes 1999)has examined he influenceof proceduralusticein a ReintegrativeShamingExperiments RISE)-basedstudyof 900 Australiansarrested or ntoxicateddriving. nafieldexperiment,hesedrivershad theircasesreferredto traditionalcourts or diversionary onferences.These conferences,designedusingrestorative-justicedeals,were viewedby participants sprocedur-allyfairer.Asprocedural-justicemodels wouldpredict,thosewho attendedsuchconferencesexpressedmorepositiveviewsabout helegitimacy fthelegalsystemthandidthose whowent to court.Theyalsoexpressed trongerntentions o obeythe law in the future.Whetherthese differenceslead to differencesin actualbehaviorovertime is unclear(Sherman2003).Of course,not all members of the communityhavepersonalcontactwith thepolice.It is alsoimportanto considerpeople'sgeneralviews about he policeandpolicingactivities n theircommunities.Basedupona secondaryanalysisof priorsurveys,Tyler 2001b)argued hatprocedural-justiceudgmentsplaya centralrolein shapingpeople'sviewsabout the legitimacyof the police and the courts.Thefindingsof thefoursurveys eviewedby Tyler 2001b)suggest hatpeopleconsiderboth performancen controllingcrime andprocedural airnesswhen evaluatingthepoliceandthecourts.Themajor actor,however,sconsistentlyoundtobe thefairnessof the manner nwhich thepoliceand the courtsarebelievedto treatciti-zens.Forexample, nastudyofOakland esidentsliving nhigh-crime reas, t wasfound hat heprimaryactorshapingoverall valuations fthepolicewasthequal-ityof theirtreatmentof communityresidents(whichexplained26 percentof theunique variancein evaluations),with a secondaryinfluence of performanceevaluationswhichexplained5 percentof the uniquevariance).SunshineandTyler 2003)findsupport or thisargumentn twosurveysof theresidentsof NewYorkCity.In bothstudies,the keyantecedentof legitimacywasproceduralustice.Thosecommunityresidentswhothought hatthe policeexer-cised theirauthoritynfairwayswere also morewilling ocomplywith the law andtocooperatewiththepolice.Eveninmorecoercivesettings, ikeprisons,coopera-tion sfound o be linked oproceduralustice(Sparks,Bottoms,andHay1996).

What Is ProceduralJustice?Studieshave identified a wide varietyof issues that influencethe degree towhichpeopleevaluateaprocedure'sairness.Furthermore,t hasbeen foundthatthe importanceof proceduralcriteriavariesdependingupon the setting (Tyler



12/17


1988).However,studiesconsistentlypointto severalelementsas keyto people'sprocedural-justiceudgments.Participationsonekeyelement.Peoplearemoresatisfiedwithprocedureshatallowthemto participateby explaining heir situationsandcommunicatingheirviewsaboutsituations o authorities.Thisparticipationffect explains, or exam-ple, why mediationproceduresare popular(Adler,Hensler,and Nelson 1983;McEwenandMaiman1981)andsettlementconferencesarenot(Lindet al.1990).Itsuggests opoliceofficers heimportance fallowingpeopletohaveinputbeforethey makedecisionsabouthow to handlea problem.Interestingly, eing abletocontrolthe outcomeis not centralto feelingthatone is participatingHeinzandKerstetter1979).Whatpeoplewant s tofeelthattheirinputhasbeensolicitedandconsideredby decision makers,who can then frame their concerns into anappropriateesolution(Conleyand O'Barr1990).

Peopleare moresatisfiedwith proceduresthatallow them to participateby explainingtheirsituationsand communicatingtheir viewabout situationsto authorities.

A secondkeyelement is neutrality.Peoplethinkthatdecisionsarebeingmorefairlymadewhenauthorities reunbiasedandmake heirdecisionsusingobjectiveindicators, otpersonalviews.As aconsequence,evidenceofevenhandedness ndobjectivity nhancesperceivedfairness.Basically, eopleareseekinga levelplay-ing field in whichno one is unfairlyadvantaged.Becausepeople are seldomin aposition oknowwhat hecorrector reasonable utcome s,theyfocuson evidencethat the decision-making roceduresbywhichoutcomesarearrivedat showevi-dence of fairness.Transparency rovidesanopportunityo makethatjudgment,whileevidenceoffactuality nd ackofbiassuggest hat hoseprocedures refair.Third,peoplevaluebeingtreatedwithdignityandrespectbylegalauthorities.The qualityof interpersonalreatment s consistently oundto be a distinctele-ment of fairness, eparate romthe qualityof thedecision-makingrocess.Aboveand beyond the resolutionof their problems,people value being treatedwithpolitenessandhaving heirrightsacknowledged.Theimportanceof interpersonaltreatment s emphasized n studiesof alternativedisputeresolutionprocedures,whichsuggestthatpeoplevalue evidencethatauthorities"took he litigantsandthedisputeseriously,"after ll,the trialwas n all ikelihoodoneofthe most metic-ulous,most ndividualizednteractionshatthelitiganthadeverexperiencedn the



13/17


courseof his or hercontactswithgovernmentagencies" Lindet al. 1990).Theirtreatmentduring hisexperiencecarries orthemimportantmessagesconcerningtheirsocialstatus, heirself-worth, ndtheirself-respect. notherwords,reaffirm-ing one'ssense of his orher standingn the community, specially n the wakeofevents thatdemeanstatus,suchas crimevictimization rbeingpubliclystoppedand questionedby the police, can be a key issue to people dealingwith legalauthorities.Finally,people feel thatproceduresare fairerwhen theytrustthe motivesofdecisionmakers. f, forexample,peoplebelievethat authorities areabouttheirwell-beingandareconsideringheir needs andconcerns, heyviewproceduresasfairer.Peopleare seldomable to judgethe actionsof authoritieswithspecializedexpertise doctors, udges,policeofficers,etc.) sincepeoplelackthe trainingandexperienceto know if the actions takenwere reasonableand sufficient.Hence,theydepend heavilyupontheir inferencesabout he intentionsof theauthority.ftheauthorities reviewedashavingacted outof a sincereandbenevolentconcernforthoseinvolved,people inferthatthe authorities' ctionswere fair.Authoritiescan encouragepeople to view them as trustworthy y explaining heirdecisionsandjustifyingand accountingfor their conduct in ways that make clear theirconcernaboutgivingattention o people'sneeds.Why strustsuch akey ssue?Tyler 1990)foundthatthepeoplehe interviewedacknowledgedhat unfair reatmentwaswidespreadwhenpeople dealtwith the

policeandcourts.Nonetheless,over 90 percentpredicted hatif theyhad contactwiththepoliceorcourts nthefuture, heywouldreceivefair reatment.People, notherwords,haveastrongdesireto view the authorities s benevolentandcaring.Thisviewisdirectly estedduringapersonalencounterwith thoseauthorities, ndpeople'sviews are powerfullyshaped by whetherthey do, in fact, receive thebehaviortheyexpectfromthe policeor courts.

Ethnic GroupDifferencesThesefindings uggest hatthe rootsofpublic rustandconfidence n thepolicelie inpublicviewsabouthowthepoliceexercise heirauthority.Given healready-notedethnicgroupdifferences n trustandconfidence, t is importanto considerwhether the argumentoutlined applies equally to the members of all ethnicgroups.Tylerand Huo(2002)address his issuedirectlyn theirstudyof theacceptanceofdecisionsmadebythepolice.Theirfindings uggest hatproceduralustice sanequallymportantssueto themembersof threemajor thnicgroups:whites,Afri-can Americans,and Hispanics.Tyler(1994, 2000b) suggeststhatthis findingisbroadernscope.Hisanalysis uggests hattheimportance fproceduralustice smaintained crossethnicity, ender, ncome,education,age,ideology,andpoliticalparty.As aresult,aprocess-based pproachopolicing sanidealway obridgeeth-nic and other socialdivisions n society.



14/17

96 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

The Idea of a Law-abidingSocietyThe distinctionbetween risk/gainestimates, performanceevaluations,andlegitimacyasantecedentsofbehaviorhighlightshepossibility ftwotypesof legalculture.The first s aculture hatbuildspubliccomplianceonthebasisofpeople'sjudgmentsaboutpoliceperformance.Such a societydependsuponthe abilityoflegal authorities o create andmaintaina crediblepresencebycombatingcrimeandpunishingwrongdoers.The studiesoutlined demonstrate hatwhile instru-mentalissues are important, t is difficultfor legalauthorities o sustaina viablelegal systemsimplybaseduponperformance.Theimportant oleplayedby legitimacynshapingpeople's aw-related ehav-iorindicates hepossibility f creatingalaw-abidingociety nwhichcitizenshavethe internalvaluesthatlead to voluntary eferenceto the lawand to the decisionsof legalauthorities uchas thepolice.Suchasociety s baseduponthewillingcon-sent and cooperationof citizens. Thatcooperationdevelopsfrompeople'sownfeelingsaboutappropriateocial behaviorandis not linkedto the risksof appre-hensionandpunishmentor to the estimatesof the natureandmagnitudeof thecrime problemthat people estimate to exist in their social environment.Tyler(2001a)refers o suchasocietyasalaw-abidingociety.Thestudiesoutlinedmakeclearthatsuch a society spossible n the sensethatifpeoplethinkauthorities relegitimate,they are morelikelyto obey andto cooperatewith authorities(Tyler2003;TylerandBlader2000).A law-abidingocietycannotbe createdovernight hroughchanges nthe allo-cation of resourceswithingovernmentagencies, changes that would alter theexpected gains and/orrisksassociatedwith cooperation.It depends upon thesocializationof appropriatesocial and moral values among children and theenhancementof thosevaluesamongadults.Evidencesuggests hatacoreelementto the creationandenhancementof such socialvaluesis thejudgment hatlegalauthorities xercise heirauthorityollowing airprocedures.This struebothdur-ingpersonalexperienceswiththepoliceandthecourts,wherepeoplearefoundto

be morewilling o acceptdecisions hatarefairlymade,and ngeneralevaluationsof the policeandcourts,wherepeopleare found to complywith the lawandsup-port the police and courts as institutionswhen they think that these sameinstitutionsgenerallyexerciseauthority airly.References

Adler,Patricia,DeborahHensler,andCharlesE. Nelson. 1983.Simplejustice:Howlitigantsfarein thePitts-burgh Courtarbitrationprogram.SantaMonica,CA:RAND.Barnes,GeoffreyC. 1999.Proceduraljusticen twocontexts:Testing hefairnessofdiversionaryconferencesfor intoxicateddrivers.Ph.D. diss., Universityof Maryland.Beetham, David. 1991. Thelegitimnationf power.AtlanticHighlands,NJ:Humanities Press.Casper, JonathanD., Tom R. Tyler,and Bonnie Fisher. 1988. Procedural ustice in felony cases. Law andSocietyReview 22:483-507.

Conley, JohnM., and WilliamM. O'Barr.1990.Rules versus relationships.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.



15/17


Durkheim, Emile. 1947. Thedivisionof labor.Translatedby George Simpson.New York:Free Press.- . 1986.Moraleducation.TranslatedbyPaul FauconnetandHermanSchnurer.New York:Free Press.Easton,David. 1975. Areassessmentof the concept of politicalsupport.BritishJournalof PoliticalScience5:435-57.French,JohnR.P.,andBertrandRaven. 1959.The bases of socialpower.In Studies n socialpower,editedbyDorwin Cartwright.AnnArbor:Universityof MichiganPress.Fuller,Lon. 1971. Humaninteractionandthe law. In Theruleof law, edited by RobertP.Wolff. New York:Simon and Schuster.

Heinz, Anne M., andWayneA. Kerstetter.1979. Pretrialsettlement conference:Evaluationof a reforminplea bargaining.Law and SocietyReview 13:349-66.Hickman,LauraJ.,andSallyS. Simpson.2003. Fair treatmentorpreferredoutcome?The impactof policebehavior on victimreportsof domestic violence incidents.Law and SocietyReview37:607-34.Hoffman, Martin. 1977. Moralinternalization:Current theory and research.Advances in ExperimentalSocialPsychology10:85-133.

Kelling,George L., and CatherineM. Coles. 1996.Fixingbrokenwindows. New York:Touchstone.Kelman,Herbert C., and V. Lee Hamilton. 1989. Crimes of obedience. New Haven, CT:Yale UniversityPress.Kitzman,KatherineM., and RobertE. Emery. 1993. Proceduraljustice and parents'satisfaction n a field

studyof child custodydispute resolution.Law and HumanBehavior17:553-67.Lind,E. Allan,CarolT. Kulik,MaureenAmbrose,and Mariade VeraPark. 1993.Individualandcorporatedispute resolution.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly38:224-51.Lind,E. Allan,RobertJ. MacCoun,PatriciaA. Ebener,WilliamL. F. Felstiner,DeborahR. Hensler,JudithResnik,and Tom R.Tyler.1990. Inthe eye of the beholder:Tortlitigants'evaluationsof theirexperiencesin the civiljustice system.Law and SocietyReview24:953-96.Lind,E. Allan,and Tom R.Tyler.1988.The socialpsychologyof proceduralustice. New York:Plenum.

MacCoun,RobertJ. 1993.Drugsand the law:Apsychologicalanalysisof drugprohibition.PsychologicalBul-letin 113:497-512.MacCoun,RobertJ.,E. AllanLind,Deborah R.Hensler,D. L. Bryant,and PatriciaA. Ebener.1988.Alterna-tive adjudication:An evaluationof the NewJerseyautomobilearbitrationprogram.SantaMonica,CA:RAND.Mastrofski,Stephen D., JeffreyB. Snipes,and Anne E. Supina.1996.Complianceon demand:The public's

responsesto specific police requests.Journalof Crime and Delinquency33:269-305.McCluskey,JohnD. 2003.Policerequestsfor compliance:Coerciveandprocedurallyjusttactics. New York:LFB ScholarlyPublishing.McCluskey,JohnD., StephenD. Mastrofski, ndRogerB. Parks.1999.Toacquiesceorrebel:Predictingciti-zen compliancewith police requests.PoliceQuarterly2:389-416.McEwen, CraigA., and RichardJ. Maiman. 1981. Small claimsmediationin Maine. MaineLaw Review33:237-68.Meares,TraceyL. 2000. Norms, legitimacy,and law enforcement.OregonLaw Review 79:391-415.Merelman,RichardJ. 1966. Learningand legitimacyAmericanPolitical ScienceReview60:548-61.Nagin,Daniel S. 1998.Criminaldeterrence researchat the outset of the twenty-firstcentury.In vol. 23 ofCrime andjustice: A reviewof research,edited by MichaelTonry,1-42. Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress.Parsons,Talcott.1967. Some reflections on the place of force in socialprocess. In Sociologicaltheoryandmodernsociety, edited byTalcott Parsons. New York:Free Press.Paternoster,Raymond.1987.The deterrent effect of theperceivedcertaintyandseverityofpunishment.Jus-tice Quarterly4:173-217.Paternoster,Raymond,Ronet Brame, RobertBachman,and LawrenceW. Sherman.1997. Do fairproce-dures matter?Law and SocietyReview 31:163-204.Paternoster,Raymond,LindaE. Saltzman,GordonP.Waldo,andTheodore G.Chiricos.1983. Perceivedriskand socialcontrol:Do sanctionsreallydeter?Law and SocietyReview 17:457-79.Pruitt,Dean G., Robert S. Peirce, Neil B. McGillicuddy,GaryL. Welton,and LynnM. Castrianno.1993.

Long-termsuccess in mediation. Law and HumanBehavior17:313-30.



16/17

98 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Robinson,PaulH., andJohnM. Darley.1995.Justice, iability,andblame:Communityviewsandthecrimi-nal law. Boulder,CO:Westview.. 1997. The utilityof desert.Northwestern UniversityLaw Review91:453-99.Ross, H. Lawrence. 1982. Deterringthe drinkingdriver:Legalpolicy and social control. Lexington,MA:Heath.Sampson,RobertJ., StephenRaudenbush,and Felton Earls.1997Neighborhoodsandviolentcrime. Science277:918-24.Sarat,Austin. 1977. StudyingAmericanlegalculture.Law and SocietyReview 11:427-88.Selznick,Philip. 1969.Law, society,and industrialustice. New York:Russell Sage.Sherman,LawrenceW 1993.Defiance,deterrence,irrelevance:Atheoryof the criminalsanction.JournalofResearch n Crimeand Delinquency30:445-73.-. 2003. Reason withemotion:Reinventing usticewith theories,innovations,and research. Criminol-ogy 41:1-37.Silverman,Eli B. (1999).NYPDbattles crime:Innovativestrategiesinpolicing.Evanston,IL:Northwestern

UniversityPress.Sparks,Richard,AnthonyBottoms, and Will Hay. 1996. Prisonsand the problem of order. Oxford,UK:Clarendon.Sunshine,Jason,andTom R.Tyler.2003.The roleof proceduralusticeandlegitimacy nshapingpublicsup-

port forpolicing.Law and SocietyReview 37:513-48.Thibaut,JohnW, and LaurensWalker.1975. Proceduraljustice: A psychologicalanalysis. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.Tyler,Tom R. 1988. What isprocedural ustice?Criteriaused bycitizens to assessthe fairnessof legalproce-dures. Law and SocietyReview 22:103-35.. 1990. Why people obey the law. New Haven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.1994. Governingamid diversity:Can fairdecision-makingprocedures bridge competing public

interestsandvalues? Lawand SocietyReview 28:701-22.---.997a. Citizendiscontentwith legal procedures.AmericanJournalofComparativeLaw45:869-902.. 1997b.Compliancewith intellectualproperty aws:Apsychologicalperspective.JournalofInterna-tionalLaw and Politics 28:101-15.. 1997c.Procedural airnessandcompliancewith the law.SwissJournalof Economicsand Statistics133:219-40.. 1998. Public mistrust of the law: A political perspective. University of Cincinnati Law Review66:847-76.. 2000a. Socialjustice:Outcome andprocedure.InternationalJournalof Psychology35:117-25..2000b. Multiculturalism ndthe willingnessof citizens to defer to lawandto legalauthorities.Lawand SocialInquiry25 (3): 983-1019.---.001a. Trust and lawabidingness:A proactivemodel of social regulation.Boston UniversityLawReview 81:361-406.

- . 2001b. Public trust andconfidence in legalauthorities:Whatdo majorityandminoritygroupmem-bers want from legal authorities?BehavioralSciences and the Law 19:215-35..2003. Proceduraljustice, legitimacy,and the effective ruleof law.Invol. 30 of Crimeandjustice-Areviewof research,edited by M.Tonry,431-505. Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.Tyler,TomR.,andSteve Blader.2000.Cooperation ngroups.Philadelphia:PsychologyPress.Tyler,TomR.,RobertJ.Boeckmann,HeatherJ.Smith,and YuenJ.Huo. 1997.Socialjustice in a diversesociety. Boul-der, CO: Westview.Tyler,TomR.,JonathanD. Casper,andBonnieFisher.1989.Maintaining llegiancetowardpoliticalauthori-ties. AmericanJournalof Political Science33:629-52.Tyler,TomR.,andJohnDarley.2000. Buildinga lawabidingsociety:Takingpublicviews aboutmoralityandthe legitimacyof legal authorities nto accountwhen formulatingsubstantive aw.HofstraLaw Review28:707-39.Tyler,Tom R., andYuenJ. Huo. 2002. Trust n the law. New York:Russell Sage.



17/17


Tyler,Tom R., and HeatherJ. Smith. 1997. Socialjustice and social movements.In vol. 2 of Handbookofsocialpsychology,4th ed., edited by Daniel Gilbert, SusanFiske, and GardinerLindzey,595-629. NewYork:Addison-WesleyWeber,Max.1968.Economyand society. Edited by G. Roth and C. Wittich. New York:Bedminster.Wissler, Roselle L. 1995. Mediation and adjudicationin small claims court. Law and Society Review29:323-58.

Documents

Enhancing Police Legitimacy