Enhancing Police Legitimacy

American Academy of Political and Social Science

Enhancing Police Legitimacy Author(s): Tom R. Tyler Source: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 593, To Better Serve and Protect: Improving Police Practices (May, 2004), pp. 84-99 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and Social Science 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. and American Academy of Political and Social Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annals 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 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Enhancing

Police Legitimacy

By TOM R. TYLER

This article makes three points. First, the police need public support and cooperation to be effective in their order-maintenance role, and they particularlybenefit when they have the voluntarysupport and cooperation of most members of the public, most of the time. Second, such voluntarysupportand cooperationis linked to judgments about the legitimacy of the police. A central reasonpeople cooperatewith the police is that they view them as legitimate legal authorities, entitled to be obeyed. Third, a key antecedent of public judgments about the legitimacy of the police and of policing activities involves public assessments of the manner in which the police exercise their authority.Such procedural-justice judgments are central to public evaluations of the police and influence such evaluations separately from assessments of police effectiveness in fighting crime. These findings suggest the importance of enhancing public views about the legitimacy of the police and suggest process-based strategies for achieving that objective. Keywords: police; legitimacy; compliance; trust and confidence

Public Cooperation with the Police One way to approach the relationship between the police andthe publicis to consider how the public impactson the effectivenessof the police in their efforts to combat crime and maintainsocialorder.Traditionaldiscussionsof the effective exercise of legal authorityhave focused on the ability of legal authoritiesto shape the behavior of the people within the communities they police. The ability of the police to securecompliancewiththeirdirectives and with the law more generally-the abilityto be authoritative-is widelyidentifiedas one key Tom R. Tyler is a professor of psychology at New York University.His work is concerned with the dynamics of authority in groups and organizations. His books include Why People Obey the Law(1990), SocialJustice

in Groups in a DiverseSociety(1997),andCooperation

(2000).

DOI: 10.1177/0002716203262627

84

ANNALS, AAPSS, 593, May 2004

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:37:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENHANCINGPOLICELEGITIMACY

85

indicatorof theirviabilityas authorities(Easton1975;Fuller1971).Tobe effective as maintainersof social order,in other words,the police must be widely obeyed (Tyler 1990). This obedience must occur both during personal encounters between police officersand membersof the public (Tylerand Huo 2002) and in people'severydaylaw-relatedbehavior(Tyler1990). While complianceis widespread,it can never be takenfor granted.Studiesof policingsuggestthat"althoughdeferenceto legalauthoritiesis the norm,disobedience occurswith sufficientfrequencythatskillin handlingthe rebellious,the disgruntled, and the hard to manage-or those potentiallyso-have become the streetofficer'sperformancelitmustest"(Mastrofski,Snipes,andSupina1996,272; also see Sherman1993). Studiesof police encounterswith membersof the public suggestoverallnoncomplianceratesof around20 percent(Mastrofski,Snipes,and Supina1996; McCluskey,Mastrofski,and Parks1999). Furthermore,it is difficultto gaincompliancesolelyviathe threatof use or force (Tyler1990, 1997b, 1997c).The police need for people to both accept their decisionsandfollowthe lawat leastin partbecausethey choose to do so (Easton1975; Parsons1967; Sarat1977;Tyler1990). Whyis such voluntarycomplianceimportant?Althoughthe police representthe threatof force and carryguns and clubs with them, it is impracticalfor the police to be everywhereall of the time. The police mustrelyuponwidespread,voluntarylaw-abidingbehaviorto allowthem to concentratetheirresourceson those people and situationsin whichcomplianceis difficultto obtain.Thisis firsttruein personalencounters.Whenpeople complyin the immediatepresenceof the police butlaterreturnto noncompliance(since"citizens who acquiesce at the scene can renege";Mastrofski,Snipes, and Supina 1996, 283), the police have difficultymaintainingorderin the long term. In addition,the people in the communityneed to deferto the lawin theireverydaybehavior.Whenpeoplewidelyignorethe law,the resourcesof the police quicklybecome inadequateto the maintenanceof order.In both situations,the policebenefitfrom widespread,voluntarydeference. In additionto the importanceof gainingcompliancewith the law,more recent discussionsof crime and social disorderemphasizethe importantrole of public cooperationto the successof police effortsto fightcrimeby preventingcrime and disorder and bringing offenders to account for wrongdoing (Sampson, Raudenbush,and Earls 1997).The publicsupportsthe police by helpingto identifycriminalsandby reportingcrimes.In addition,membersof the publichelp the police byjoiningtogetherin informaleffortsto combatcrimeandaddresscommunityproblems,whetherit is by workingin "neighborhoodwatch"organizationsor by attendingcommunity-policemeetings.As was the case with compliance,these cooperativeeffortsarelargelyvoluntaryin character,andthe police arenot generallyin a positionto rewardmembersof the publicfor theiraid. Instead,the police rely on willing public cooperation with police efforts to control crime and communitydisorder.

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:37:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

86

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Legitimacy The valueof voluntarycooperationandsupportfromthe publicraisesthe question of how such cooperationand supportcan be created and maintained(Tyler and Blader2000). Traditionally,the focus in policing has been on instrumental modelsof policing.Forexample,compliancewiththe lawhasbeen viewedasbeing motivatedthroughthe creationof a credible riskthat people will be caught and punishedforwrongdoing,thatis, "bymanipulatingan individual'scalculusregarding whethercrime paysin the particularinstance"(Meares2000, 396). Similarly, public cooperationin fightingcrime is motivatedby evidence that the police are performingeffectivelyin their effortsto controlcrime and urbandisorder. Evidencesuggeststhatthese instrumentalperspectivesare inadequatemodels withwhichto explainpubliccooperation.In the case of sanctionthreatandcompliance, the findingsof researchsupportthe argumentthat sanctionrisksdo shape compliancebehavior(Nagin 1998), but the magnitudeof their influenceis typicallysmall.For example,based on a reviewof researchon the influenceof deterrence on druguse, MacCoun(1993) estimatesthatvariationsin the certaintyand 5 percentin the variancein severityof punishmentaccountforonlyapproximately with the a consistent drug-relatedbehavior, finding suggestion of Paternoster that (1987) "perceivedcertainty[of punishment]playsvirtuallyno role in explaindeviant/criminal conduct(191)"(alsosee Paternosteret al. 1983).The lowlevel ing of this relationshipmaybe due to the difficultiesthatthe police havebringingthe riskof being caughtand punishedfor wrongdoingto high-enoughlevels to effectively influence public behavior(Ross 1982; Robinsonand Darley 1995, 1997). Thisevidencesuggeststhatdeterrenceis an inadequatebasisfor securingcompliance with the law. In the case of police effectiveness in fightingcrime, evidence suggests that police innovationsin the managementof police servicesmayhave contributedto the widespreaddeclinesin crime reportedin majorAmericancities duringrecent decades (KellingandColes 1996;Silverman1999). Furthermore,indicatorsshow increasingprofessionalismin policing, including declining rates of complaints againstthe police and lowerlevels of excessivepolice use of force againstcommunityresidents.However,studiesof the publicandpublicviewsaboutandcooperation with the police suggestthat the public'sreactionsto the police are againonly looselylinkedto police effectivenessin fightingcrime, suggestingthatpolice performanceis an insufficientbasisfor gainingthe cooperationof the public. How can the police encouragepublic cooperationand support?To have an effectivestrategyforencouragingcooperation,people need to haveadditionalreasonsforcooperatingbeyondinstrumentalassessmentsof policeperformance.One alternativeperspectiveis linked to the recognitionthat people have internalized valuesuponwhichthe police mightdrawto securecomplianceandto gaincooperation(Sherman1993;Tyler1990).A keyvaluethatpeople hold is theirwidespread supportfor the legitimacyof the police-the belief that the police are entitled to call upon the publicto followthe lawandhelp combatcrimeandthat membersof

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:37:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENHANCING POLICE LEGITIMACY

87

the publichaveanobligationto engagein cooperativebehaviors.Whenpeople feel that an authorityis legitimate,they authorizethat authorityto determinewhat their behaviorwill be withina given set of situations.Such an authorizationof an authority"seem[s]to carryautomaticjustification.... Behaviorally,authorization obviatesthe necessityof makingjudgmentsor choices. Not only do normalmoral principlesbecome inoperative,but-particularly when the actionsare explicitly ordered-a differenttype of morality,linkedto dutyto obey superiororders,tends to takeover"(KelmanandHamilton1989, 16). People,in otherwords,feel responsibleforfollowingthe directivesof legitimateauthorities(Frenchand Raven1959; Merelman1966).

When peoplefeel that an authority is legitimate, they authorize that authority to determine what their behavior will be within a given set of situations.

The roots of the modem use of legitimacyare usuallytracedto the writingsof Weber(1968).Weberarguedthatthe abilityto issuecommandsthatwillbe obeyed did not rest solely on the possessionor abilityto deploypower.In addition,there were rules and authoritiesthat people would voluntarilyobey. These rules and authoritiespossessedthe qualityof legitimacy,the belief by othersthatthey ought to be obeyed. Weber'sframingof the issue of legitimacyis importantbecause his articulationof the question of why people obey authoritiesdefines the modern focusof socialscienceperspectiveson legitimacy.In addition,he distinguishedthis issuefromthe philosophicalquestionof whypeople oughtto obey,whichis central to discussionswithinlaw and politicalphilosophy(Beetham 1991). The argumentthat people's feelings about their internal obligationto obey socialnormsandrulesalsoshapetheirbehavioris equallycentralto the writingsof Freud (Hoffman 1977) and Durkheim (1947, 1986), although these authors focusedon people'smoralvalues.Thislegitimacyargumentis not particularto the police. On the contrary,legitimacyis suggestedto be centralto the exerciseof all forms of authority.For example, Selznick'sclassic examinationof authorityin industrialsettingsarguesthat"thereis a demandthat rulesbe legitimate,not only in emanatingfromestablishedauthority,but also in the mannerof their formulation, in the waythey are applied,and in their fidelityto agreed-uponinstitutional purposes .... [The]obligationto obey has some relationto the qualityof the rules and the integrityof their administration" (Selznick1969, 29).

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:37:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

88

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

A legitimacy-basedstrategyof policingincreasescooperationwith the law by drawingon people's feelings of responsibilityand obligation.The advantageof such a strategylies in its abilityto facilitatevoluntarycooperation.To the degree that cooperationis motivatedby personalvalues,it is self-regulatoryand does not depend upon the abilityof the authoritiesto effectivelydeployincentivesor sanctions to secure desired public behavior.In such a society,only minimallevels of societalresourcesare needed to maintainsocialorder,andthose resourcescan be redirectedtowardmeetingotherneeds (Tyler2001a;TylerandDarley2000). Furthermore, such voluntarydeference is more reliablethan instrumentallymotivatedcompliancebecauseit does not varyas a functionof the circumstancesor situation involved. Drivingup to a stop sign on a deserted road at night, internal valuesmotivatea personto stop, even when the possibilityof punishmentfor lawbreakingbehavioris minimal. The key empiricalissue underlyinga legitimacy-basedstrategyof policing is whether people'sviews about the legitimacyof the law and the police actually shapetheircooperativebehavior.The importanceof legitimacyhasbeen examined on two distinctlevels:first,in studiesof everydayinteractionswithpolice officers; and second, on the communitylevel, with people evaluatingthe characteristicsof their communitypolice force-irrespective of whether they have had personal experiencewith police officers. Studiesof the influenceof legitimacytypicallyassesspeople'sviews about the legitimacyof the police in threeways.First,people are askedabouttheir sense of obligationto obey the police andthe law,forexample,whetherthey feel that"people shouldobeythe laweven if it goes againstwhattheythinkis right"andthat"disobeyingthe lawis seldomjustified."When askedquestionsof thistype,Americans are generallyfound to expressa strongsense of obligationto defer to law and to legal authorities.Second, legitimacyhas been assessed by askingabout institutionaltrustandconfidence.People are asked,for example,which statementsthey agree with: "Thepolice are generallyhonest";"I respect the police";and "I feel proud of the police." Finally,legitimacy is sometimes measured by assessing feelings aboutthe police. When they have personalexperienceswith the police, people sometimeshave to decide whetherto acceptoutcomesthatthey do not regardas desirable,or even as fair.The keyquestionis whethertheirviewsaboutthe legitimacyof the policein general,and/orof the particularofficerswith whom they are dealing,shape this willingness.TylerandHuo (2002)studiedthisquestionusinga sampleof 1,656residentsof LosAngelesandOakland.Theyfoundthattwo factorsshapedthe willingness to acceptdecisions:the degreeto whichthe decisionswere regardedas favorable and fair and the degree to which the police were generally regardedas equalimportance. legitimateauthorities.These two factorswereof approximately in found that the further Huo and volume) and this reviewed (2002, Tyler which as to viewed the degree police legitimateinfluencedthe people generally basisupon which they decided whetherto accept decisions.People could potentiallyaccept decisionsbecause those decisionswere favorableor fair.They could also accept them because they believed that the police had acted appropriately

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:37:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENHANCING POLICE LEGITIMACY

89

when dealingwiththem-that is, due to proceduraljustice.Proceduraljusticewill be discussedin moredetailin the nextsection.Process-basedreactionsbenefitthe police, however,becausethey cannotalwaysprovidedesirableoutcomes,but it is almostalwayspossibleto behavein waysthatpeople experienceas being fair.The key findingof this studyof personalexperienceswas that when people generally viewed the police as legitimateauthorities,people's decisions about whether to accept police decisionswere more stronglybased upon evaluationsof the proceduraljusticeof police actions.Hence, havingpriorlegitimacyfacilitatedthe taskof the police by leadingpeople to assess police actionsin more heavilyprocedural terms. These studiesdo not examinethe impactof legitimacyon whetherpeople help the police. We mightanticipate,forexample,thatpeople who viewedthe police as more legitimatewould be more willingto help them duringpersonalencounters by,forexample,volunteeringinformationaboutconditionsin the neighborhoodor the identityor locationof wrongdoers.Similarly,they mightbe morewillingto volunteer to attendpolice-communitymeetings. Legitimacymight also have an importantinfluence on everydaycompliance with the law.Muchof peoples'law-relatedbehavioroccursoutsidethe immediate presence of legal authorities,althoughsome possibilityof sanctionsalwaysexists. Theoriesof legitimacypredictthat in such settings,people'sfeelingsof obligation will shape their behavior,leadingto deference to the law.Tyler(1990) tested this argumentin a studyof the attitudesandbehaviorsof the residentsof Chicago.He found that legitimacyhas a significantinfluence on the degree to which people obeyedthe law.Furthermore,thatinfluencewasdistinctfromandgreaterin magnitude than the influenceof estimatesof the likelihoodof being caughtand punished forwrongdoing.These findingssuggestthataspredictedbytheoriesof legitimacy,people'sviews about the legitimacyof authoritiesinfluence the degree to which people obey the law in their everydaylives. Morerecently,SunshineandTyler(2003) replicatedthis test of the influenceof legitimacyon compliancewithintwo samplesof the residentsof New YorkCity.In both studies, they also found that the legitimacyof the police significantlyinfluenced compliancewith the law. Their study also extended considerationof the influence of legitimacyto a second areaof concern:cooperationwith the police. They found that those residentswho viewed the police as more legitimatewere morewillingto cooperatewiththem bothby reportingcrimesor identifyingcriminals and by engagingin communityactivitiesto combatthe problemsof crime. These findings supportthe basic premise of legitimacytheories. People are more willing to cooperate with legal authoritieswhen they believe that those authoritiesare legitimate.This includesboth deferringto their decisionsduring personalencountersandgenerallyobeyinglegal rulesin theireverydaylives. Furthermore,people are morecooperativein helpingthe police to dealwith crimein theircommunitieswhen they view the police as legitimate.Hence, as anticipated in the workof Weber,legitimacydoes representa basisuponwhichauthoritiescan act that is distinctfromthe possessionor use of power and resources.

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:37:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

90

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Legitimacy-basedpolicinghas clearadvantagesfor the police andthe community.When people act based upon their feelings of obligationand responsibility, they areengagingin self-regulatorybehavior.Societyandsocialauthoritiesbenefit fromthe occurrenceof suchbehaviorbecauseit does not dependuponthe maintenance of a credible system of deterrence or upon the qualityof police performance. Studiessuggestthatthe maintenanceof such a systemis alwayscostlyand inefficient,andin times of financialdifficultyor crisis,when publiccooperationis most clearlyneeded, it poses specialdifficultiesfor authorities. One reasonfor focusingon issues of legitimacyat this time is that recent evidence showspublicmistrustandlackof confidencein the lawandthe legalauthorities (Tyler1997a, 1998). For example,in 2002, the NationalInstitute of Justice (NIJ) found that only 27 percent of Americansexpressed"agreatdeal"of confidence in the criminaljustice system.Withinthis broadcategory,the police have traditionallyreceived high ratings.For example,in this same study,59 percent expressed"agreatdeal"of confidencein the police.Thisis consistentwiththe suggestionthatit is the courtsthatarethe particulartargetof publicdissatisfaction.In 1998, the General Social Survey found that only 22 percent of Americans expressed"agreatdeal"of confidencein the courts. While the higherlevels of confidenceexpressedin the police are encouraging from the perspectiveof a legitimacy-basedapproachto policing, a second troublingaspectof publicviewsis the findingthatthere is a strikingracialgapin views aboutlegalauthorities.Forexample,in a 2001 studyconductedbythe NIJ,63 percent of whitesexpresseda greatdealof confidencein the police, as comparedwith 31 percentof AfricanAmericans.In the case of the overallcriminaljusticesystem, 27 percent of whites expresseda great deal of confidence, as comparedwith 22 percent of AfricanAmericans. The argumentthatlegitimacyis a keyantecedentto publiccooperationwiththe police highlightsthe importanceof being able to createand maintaina climateof public opinionin which communityresidentsgenerallyview the police as legitimate authorities.Given that perspectiveon policing,it is importantto take seriouslythe evidenceof publicdissatisfactionand mistrustandto askhow legitimacy can be enhanced.

Enhancing Police Legitimacy: The Influence of ProceduralJustice Given the importantrole that legitimacycan play in determiningthe level of public cooperationwith the police, it is importantto try to understandhow the police shapepublicviewsabouttheirlegitimacy.Publicviewsaboutthe legitimacy of the police might,for example,be the resultof publicassessmentsof police performance,in terms of either the abilityof the police to create a crediblesanction riskfor wrongdoersor the effectivenessof the police in fightingcrime and urban disorder.To the extent that this is true, the already-outlinedimportanceof legiti-

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:37:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENHANCING POLICE LEGITIMACY

91

macywouldnot havenew or novelimplicationsforpolicing.Toenhancetheirlegitimacy, the police would need to effectively combat crime and apprehend wrongdoers. An alternativeperspectiveon legitimacyis providedby the literatureon proceduraljustice. That literaturearguesthat the legitimacyof authoritiesand institutions is rooted in publicviews about the appropriatenessof the mannerin which the police exercisetheirauthority.In otherwords,people areviewedas evaluating authoritiesby assessingwhetherthey use fairprocedureswhen engagingin policing activities.These proceduraljudgmentsare distinctfromjudgmentsaboutthe effectiveness,valence, or fairnessof the outcomesof those activities.

When people act based upon theirfeelings of obligation and responsibility,they are engaging in self-regulatorybehavior

As in the case of legitimacy,the key empiricalissue is whetherpeople consider procedural-justiceissues when makinginferences about the legitimacyof the police. Studiesof people'sevaluationsof all types of authorities-police officers, judges, politicalleaders, managers,and teachers-have all providedstrongsupport for the basic procedural-justiceargument.When people are dealing with authoritiesor institutions,their evaluationsof legitimacyare primarilylinked to assessmentsof the fairnessof the authority'sor the institution'sprocedures.Such procedural-justiceassessmentsare consistentlyfound to be more stronglylinked to legitimacyjudgments than are the evaluationsof their effectiveness or the valenceor fairnessof the outcomesthey deliver(LindandTyler1988;Tyler1990, 2000a;Tyleret al. 1997;Tylerand Smith 1997). In the case of personalexperiences,studies find that when authoritiesact in ways that people experienceas being fair,people are more willingto voluntarily accept the authorities'decisions (Kitzmanand Emery 1993; Lind et al. 1993; MacCounet al. 1988;Wissler1995).These field studiesconfirmthe findingsof the earlierexperimentalfindingsof socialpsychologicalresearch(ThibautandWalker 1975).Procedural-justice judgmentsarefoundto haveanespeciallyimportantrole in shapingadherenceto agreementsovertime. Pruittet al. (1993) studiedthe factors leading those involvedin disputes to adhere to mediationagreementsover time and found that the proceduralfairnessof the initialmediationsettingwas a centraldeterminantof adherencesix monthslater.A second studysuggestedthat proceduraljustice encourageslong-termobedience to the law.Paternosteret al.

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:37:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

92

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

(1997) found that spouse abuserswere less likelyto commit futureabuseswhen they experiencedproceduraljustice with the police duringan initialencounter. These findingsalsoreceivesupportin the contextof encountersbetween police and membersof the public. Tylerand Huo (2002) found that procedural-justice judgmentsshapedpeople'swillingnessto acceptthe decisionsmadeby police officers and are moreimportantthanarejudgmentsaboutthe favorabilityor fairness of the outcomesof the encounter.Similarly,Mastrofski,Snipes,and Supina(1996) and McCluskey,Mastrofski,and Parks(1999) foundthat the experienceof disrespect from the police reducescompliance.This is consistentwith the findingby Casper,Tyler,and Fisher (1988) that the satisfactionof felony defendantswith their experienceswith the police and courtswas stronglylinked to their assessments of the fairnessof the processby which their cases were handled. In a recentstudyof police encounterswith communityresidentsin two American cities that involved both interviewsand observationalanalysis,McCluskey (2003) used a wide varietyof indicatorsof proceduraljustice and found that five aspects of proceduraljustice influenced the willingnessto comply with police requestsfor self-control.In particular,he found that holding all else constant, citizens who receive respectful treatment from authorities are almost twice as likely to comply, and those receiving disrespectful treatment are nearly twice as likelyto rebel. If the citizen'svoice is terminatedby the police they are more than twice as likelyto rebel againstthe police request for self-control.If the police demonstrate their commitment to makingan informed decision by seeking informationabout the presenting situation,citizens are more than twice as likelyto comply with the phase I request for self-control (p. 91).

The impactof proceduraljusticeis greatestearlyin the encounter,andat thattime, "thelikelihoodof citizen complianceis stronglyaffectedby procedurallyjust tactics"(p. 114). These findingssuggestthatproceduraljusticehas a broadimpactuponpeople's reactionsto theirexperienceswith the police. In particular,people'swillingnessto buy into and voluntarilyaccept decisions that may require them to accept outcomes that they do not want, or to engage in self-controlover their actions, is enhancedby the judgmentthatone hasbeen treatedfairlyby the police. Furthermore, evidenceshowsthatthis deferencecontinuesovertime and shapespeople's law-relatedbehaviorin the future.These findingssuggestthatthe proceduraljustice thatmembersof the publicexperienceduringtheirpersonalencounterswith the police hasboth immediateand long-termbehavioreffects. It is alsoimportant to note, however,thatproceduraljustice is not alwaysfound to be important.For example, McClusky(2003) did not find that proceduraljustice matteredwhen people were stopped by the police on the street and askedfor identification,and Hickmanand Simpson (2003) found that receivingprocedurallyfair treatment fromthe police did not encouragethe victimsof domesticviolenceto reportfuture violent incidentsto the police. Hence, proceduraljustice often, but not always, facilitatesfavorablereactionsto policingactivities.

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:37:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENHANCING POLICE LEGITIMACY

93

Researchfurthersuggeststhat proceduraljustice duringa personalencounter with the police influencesviews about the legitimacyof the police. Tyler(1990) demonstratedthatthe proceduraljustice of a personalexperiencewith the police shapedgeneralviews aboutthe legitimacyof the law,a findingreplicatedby Tyler and Huo (2002). Similarly,Tyler,Casper,and Fisher (1989) foundthatthe proceduraljusticeof theircase dispositionprocessshapedthe viewsof felonydefendants aboutthe legitimacyof the criminaljustice systemand of the law. Morerecently,Barnes(1999) has examinedthe influenceof proceduraljustice in a ReintegrativeShamingExperiments(RISE)-based studyof 900 Australians arrestedforintoxicateddriving.In a field experiment,these drivershadtheircases referred to traditionalcourts or diversionaryconferences. These conferences, ideals,were viewedby participantsas procedurdesignedusingrestorative-justice ally fairer.As procedural-justicemodels would predict,those who attendedsuch conferencesexpressedmorepositiveviewsaboutthe legitimacyof the legalsystem thandid those who went to court.They alsoexpressedstrongerintentionsto obey the law in the future. Whether these differences lead to differences in actual behaviorover time is unclear(Sherman2003). Of course, not all membersof the communityhave personalcontactwith the police. It is alsoimportantto considerpeople'sgeneralviews aboutthe police and policingactivitiesin their communities.Basedupon a secondaryanalysisof prior surveys,Tyler(2001b)arguedthatprocedural-justice judgmentsplaya centralrole in shapingpeople'sviews about the legitimacyof the police and the courts.The findingsof the foursurveysreviewedbyTyler(2001b)suggestthatpeople consider both performancein controllingcrime and proceduralfairnesswhen evaluating the police andthe courts.The majorfactor,however,is consistentlyfoundto be the fairnessof the mannerin which the police andthe courtsarebelievedto treatcitizens. Forexample,in a studyof Oaklandresidentslivingin high-crimeareas,it was foundthatthe primaryfactorshapingoverallevaluationsof the policewasthe quality of their treatmentof communityresidents(whichexplained26 percent of the unique variance in evaluations),with a secondary influence of performance evaluations(whichexplained5 percent of the uniquevariance). SunshineandTyler(2003) find supportfor this argumentin two surveysof the residentsof New YorkCity.In both studies,the key antecedentof legitimacywas proceduraljustice.Those communityresidentswho thoughtthatthe police exercised theirauthorityin fairwayswere also morewillingto complywith the lawand to cooperatewiththe police. Even in morecoercivesettings,likeprisons,cooperationis foundto be linkedto proceduraljustice(Sparks,Bottoms,andHay1996).

What Is ProceduralJustice? Studies have identified a wide varietyof issues that influence the degree to whichpeople evaluatea procedure'sfairness.Furthermore,it hasbeen foundthat the importanceof proceduralcriteriavaries depending upon the setting (Tyler

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:37:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

94

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

1988). However,studies consistentlypoint to severalelements as key to people's procedural-justice judgments. Participationis one keyelement.People aremoresatisfiedwithproceduresthat allowthem to participateby explainingtheir situationsand communicatingtheir views about situationsto authorities.This participationeffect explains,for example, why mediationproceduresare popular (Adler,Hensler, and Nelson 1983; McEwenandMaiman1981)andsettlementconferencesarenot (Lindet al. 1990). It suggeststo policeofficersthe importanceof allowingpeople to haveinputbefore they makedecisionsabouthow to handle a problem.Interestingly,being able to controlthe outcome is not centralto feeling that one is participating(Heinz and Kerstetter1979).Whatpeoplewantis to feel thattheirinputhasbeen solicitedand considered by decision makers, who can then frame their concerns into an appropriateresolution(Conleyand O'Barr1990).

People are more satisfied with proceduresthat allow them to participate by explainingtheir situations and communicatingtheir view about situations to authorities.

A second key element is neutrality.People thinkthat decisionsare being more fairlymadewhen authoritiesareunbiasedandmaketheirdecisionsusingobjective indicators,not personalviews.Asa consequence,evidenceof evenhandednessand objectivityenhancesperceivedfairness.Basically,people are seekinga level playing field in which no one is unfairlyadvantaged.Because people are seldom in a positionto knowwhatthe corrector reasonableoutcomeis, theyfocuson evidence that the decision-makingproceduresby which outcomes are arrivedat show evidence of fairness.Transparencyprovidesan opportunityto makethatjudgment, whileevidenceof factualityandlackof biassuggestthatthose proceduresarefair. Third,people valuebeing treatedwith dignityand respectby legal authorities. The qualityof interpersonaltreatmentis consistentlyfound to be a distinctelement of fairness,separatefromthe qualityof the decision-makingprocess.Above and beyond the resolutionof their problems, people value being treated with politenessandhavingtheirrightsacknowledged.The importanceof interpersonal treatmentis emphasizedin studies of alternativedispute resolutionprocedures, which suggest that people value evidence that authorities"tookthe litigantsand the disputeseriously,""afterall,the trialwasin alllikelihoodone of the mostmeticulous,mostindividualizedinteractionsthatthe litiganthadeverexperiencedin the

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:37:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENHANCING POLICE LEGITIMACY

95

course of his or her contactswith governmentagencies"(Lindet al. 1990). Their treatmentduringthis experiencecarriesforthem importantmessagesconcerning theirsocialstatus,theirself-worth,andtheirself-respect.In otherwords,reaffirming one'ssense of his or her standingin the community,especiallyin the wakeof events that demean status,such as crime victimizationor being publiclystopped and questioned by the police, can be a key issue to people dealing with legal authorities. Finally,people feel that proceduresare fairerwhen they trustthe motivesof decision makers.If, for example,people believe that authoritiescare abouttheir well-beingand are consideringtheir needs andconcerns,they viewproceduresas fairer.People are seldom able to judge the actionsof authoritieswith specialized expertise(doctors,judges, police officers,etc.) since people lackthe trainingand experienceto know if the actions taken were reasonableand sufficient.Hence, they depend heavilyupon theirinferencesaboutthe intentionsof the authority.If the authoritiesareviewed as havingactedout of a sincereandbenevolentconcern for those involved,people infer that the authorities'actionswere fair.Authorities can encouragepeople to view them as trustworthyby explainingtheir decisions and justifyingand accountingfor their conduct in ways that make clear their concernaboutgivingattentionto people'sneeds. Whyis trustsucha keyissue?Tyler(1990)foundthatthe people he interviewed acknowledgedthat unfairtreatmentwas widespreadwhen people dealt with the police andcourts.Nonetheless,over90 percentpredictedthatif they had contact withthe police or courtsin the future,theywouldreceivefairtreatment.People,in otherwords,havea strongdesireto view the authoritiesas benevolentandcaring. Thisview is directlytested duringa personalencounterwiththose authorities,and people's views are powerfullyshaped by whether they do, in fact, receive the behaviorthey expect from the police or courts.

Ethnic Group Differences These findingssuggestthatthe rootsof publictrustandconfidencein the police lie in publicviewsabouthowthe police exercisetheirauthority.Giventhe alreadynoted ethnic groupdifferencesin trustandconfidence,it is importantto consider whether the argument outlined applies equally to the members of all ethnic groups. TylerandHuo (2002) addressthis issue directlyin theirstudyof the acceptance of decisionsmadeby the police.Theirfindingssuggestthatproceduraljusticeis an equallyimportantissueto the membersof three majorethnicgroups:whites,African Americans,and Hispanics.Tyler (1994, 2000b) suggests that this finding is broaderin scope. His analysissuggeststhatthe importanceof proceduraljusticeis maintainedacrossethnicity,gender,income,education,age,ideology,andpolitical party.As a result,a process-basedapproachto policingis anidealwayto bridgeethnic and other socialdivisionsin society.

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:37:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

96

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

The Idea of a Law-abidingSociety The distinction between risk/gainestimates, performanceevaluations,and legitimacyas antecedentsof behaviorhighlightsthe possibilityof two typesof legal culture.The firstis a culturethatbuildspubliccomplianceon the basisof people's judgmentsaboutpolice performance.Such a society depends upon the abilityof legal authoritiesto create and maintaina credible presence by combatingcrime and punishingwrongdoers.The studies outlined demonstratethat while instrumental issues are important,it is difficultfor legal authoritiesto sustaina viable legal systemsimplybased upon performance. The importantrole playedby legitimacyin shapingpeople'slaw-relatedbehavior indicatesthe possibilityof creatinga law-abidingsocietyin whichcitizenshave the internalvaluesthat leadto voluntarydeferenceto the law andto the decisions of legalauthoritiessuch as the police. Sucha societyis baseduponthe willingconsent and cooperationof citizens. That cooperationdevelops from people's own feelings aboutappropriatesocialbehaviorand is not linkedto the risksof apprehension and punishmentor to the estimatesof the natureand magnitudeof the crime problem that people estimate to exist in their social environment.Tyler (2001a)refersto such a societyas a law-abidingsociety.The studiesoutlinedmake clearthat such a societyis possiblein the sense thatif people thinkauthoritiesare legitimate,they are more likelyto obey and to cooperatewith authorities(Tyler 2003; Tylerand Blader2000). A law-abidingsocietycannotbe createdovernightthroughchangesin the allocation of resourceswithin governmentagencies, changes that would alter the expected gains and/or risks associatedwith cooperation.It depends upon the socializationof appropriatesocial and moral values among children and the enhancementof thosevaluesamongadults.Evidencesuggeststhata core element to the creationand enhancementof such socialvalues is the judgmentthat legal authoritiesexercisetheirauthorityfollowingfairprocedures.Thisis trueboth during personalexperienceswiththe police andthe courts,wherepeople arefoundto be morewillingto acceptdecisionsthatare fairlymade,andin generalevaluations of the police and courts,where people are foundto complywith the law and support the police and courts as institutions when they think that these same institutionsgenerallyexerciseauthorityfairly.

References Adler,Patricia,Deborah Hensler,and Charles E. Nelson. 1983. Simplejustice:How litigantsfare in the Pittsburgh Court arbitrationprogram. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Barnes, Geoffrey C. 1999. Proceduraljusticein two contexts:Testingthefairness ofdiversionary conferences for intoxicateddrivers. Ph.D. diss., Universityof Maryland. Beetham, David. 1991. The legitimnation of power. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. Casper,JonathanD., Tom R. Tyler,and Bonnie Fisher. 1988. Proceduraljustice in felony cases. Law and Society Review 22:483-507. Conley, John M., and William M. O'Barr.1990. Rules versus relationships.Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:37:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENHANCING POLICE LEGITIMACY

97

Durkheim, Emile. 1947. The division of labor.Translatedby George Simpson. New York:Free Press. . 1986. Moraleducation.Translatedby Paul Fauconnet and HermanSchnurer.New York:Free Press. Easton, David. 1975. A reassessmentof the concept of political support. BritishJournal of Political Science 5:435-57. French, John R. P.,and BertrandRaven. 1959. The bases of socialpower.In Studiesin social power, edited by Dorwin Cartwright.Ann Arbor:Universityof Michigan Press. Fuller, Lon. 1971. Human interactionand the law. In The rule of law, edited by Robert P.Wolff. New York: Simon and Schuster. Heinz, Anne M., and Wayne A. Kerstetter.1979. Pretrialsettlement conference: Evaluationof a reform in plea bargaining.Law and Society Review 13:349-66. Hickman, LauraJ., and Sally S. Simpson. 2003. Fair treatment or preferred outcome? The impact of police behavior on victim reports of domestic violence incidents.Law and Society Review 37:607-34. Hoffman, Martin. 1977. Moral internalization:Current theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 10:85-133. Kelling, George L., and Catherine M. Coles. 1996. Fixing broken windows. New York:Touchstone. Kelman, Herbert C., and V. Lee Hamilton. 1989. Crimes of obedience. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kitzman, Katherine M., and Robert E. Emery. 1993. Proceduraljustice and parents' satisfactionin a field study of child custody dispute resolution.Law and Human Behavior 17:553-67. Lind, E. Allan,Carol T. Kulik, Maureen Ambrose, and Mariade Vera Park. 1993. Individualand corporate dispute resolution.AdministrativeScience Quarterly38:224-51. Lind, E. Allan, RobertJ. MacCoun, PatriciaA. Ebener, William L. F. Felstiner, Deborah R. Hensler, Judith Resnik,and Tom R. Tyler.1990. In the eye of the beholder:Tortlitigants'evaluationsof their experiences in the civil justice system. Law and Society Review 24:953-96. Lind, E. Allan, and Tom R. Tyler. 1988. The social psychology of proceduraljustice. New York:Plenum. MacCoun, RobertJ. 1993. Drugs and the law:A psychologicalanalysisof drugprohibition.PsychologicalBulletin 113:497-512. MacCoun,RobertJ., E. AllanLind, Deborah R. Hensler, D. L. Bryant,and PatriciaA. Ebener. 1988.Alternative adjudication:An evaluation of the New Jersey automobilearbitrationprogram. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Mastrofski,Stephen D., Jeffrey B. Snipes, and Anne E. Supina. 1996. Compliance on demand:The public's responses to specific police requests.Journal of Crime and Delinquency 33:269-305. McCluskey,John D. 2003. Police requestsfor compliance:Coerciveand procedurallyjusttactics. New York: LFB ScholarlyPublishing. McCluskey,John D., Stephen D. Mastrofski,and Roger B. Parks.1999. To acquiesce or rebel: Predictingcitizen compliance with police requests. Police Quarterly 2:389-416. McEwen, Craig A., and RichardJ. Maiman. 1981. Small claims mediation in Maine. Maine Law Review 33:237-68. Meares, Tracey L. 2000. Norms, legitimacy,and law enforcement. Oregon Law Review 79:391-415. Merelman, RichardJ. 1966. Learningand legitimacy American Political Science Review 60:548-61. Nagin, Daniel S. 1998. Criminaldeterrence research at the outset of the twenty-firstcentury. In vol. 23 of Crime and justice: A review of research, edited by Michael Tonry, 1-42. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Parsons,Talcott. 1967. Some reflections on the place of force in social process. In Sociologicaltheory and modern society, edited by Talcott Parsons. New York:Free Press. Paternoster,Raymond.1987.The deterrent effect of the perceived certaintyand severityof punishment.Justice Quarterly 4:173-217. Paternoster,Raymond, Ronet Brame, Robert Bachman, and Lawrence W. Sherman. 1997. Do fair procedures matter?Law and Society Review 31:163-204. Paternoster,Raymond,LindaE. Saltzman,GordonP.Waldo,andTheodore G. Chiricos. 1983. Perceived risk and social control: Do sanctions really deter? Law and Society Review 17:457-79. Pruitt, Dean G., Robert S. Peirce, Neil B. McGillicuddy,Gary L. Welton, and Lynn M. Castrianno. 1993. Long-term success in mediation.Law and Human Behavior 17:313-30.

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:37:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

98

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Robinson, Paul H., and John M. Darley. 1995.Justice,liability, and blame:Communityviews and the criminal law. Boulder,CO: Westview. . 1997. The utility of desert. Northwestern UniversityLaw Review 91:453-99. Ross, H. Lawrence. 1982. Deterring the drinking driver: Legal policy and social control. Lexington, MA: Heath. Sampson,RobertJ., Stephen Raudenbush,and Felton Earls. 1997 Neighborhoodsandviolent crime. Science 277:918-24. Sarat,Austin. 1977. Studying Americanlegal culture. Law and Society Review 11:427-88. Selznick, Philip. 1969. Law, society, and industrialjustice. New York:Russell Sage. Sherman,LawrenceW 1993. Defiance, deterrence, irrelevance:A theoryof the criminalsanction.Journalof Research in Crime and Delinquency 30:445-73. 2003. Reasonwith emotion: Reinventingjustice with theories, innovations,and research.Criminol-. ogy 41:1-37. Silverman,Eli B. (1999). NYPDbattlescrime:Innovativestrategies in policing. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Sparks, Richard, Anthony Bottoms, and Will Hay. 1996. Prisons and the problem of order. Oxford, UK: Clarendon. Sunshine,Jason,and Tom R. Tyler.2003. The role of proceduraljustice and legitimacyin shapingpublic support for policing. Law and Society Review 37:513-48. Thibaut, John W, and Laurens Walker. 1975. Proceduraljustice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tyler,Tom R. 1988. What is proceduraljustice? Criteriaused by citizens to assess the fairnessof legal procedures. Law and Society Review 22:103-35. . 1990. Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT:Yale UniversityPress. 1994. Governing amid diversity:Can fair decision-making procedures bridge competing public interests and values? Law and Society Review 28:701-22. 1997a. Citizen discontentwith legal procedures.AmericanJournalofComparativeLaw 45:869-902. ---. . 1997b. Compliancewith intellectualpropertylaws:A psychologicalperspective.Journalof International Law and Politics 28:101-15. . 1997c. Proceduralfairnessand compliance with the law. SwissJournal of Economicsand Statistics 133:219-40. . 1998. Public mistrust of the law: A political perspective. University of Cincinnati Law Review 66:847-76. . 2000a. Socialjustice: Outcome and procedure. InternationalJournal of Psychology35:117-25. .2000b. Multiculturalismand the willingness of citizens to defer to law and to legal authorities.Law and Social Inquiry 25 (3): 983-1019. 2001a. Trust and law abidingness:A proactive model of social regulation.Boston University Law ---. Review 81:361-406. . 2001b. Public trust and confidence in legal authorities:What do majorityand minoritygroup members want from legal authorities?Behavioral Sciences and the Law 19:215-35. . 2003. Proceduraljustice, legitimacy,and the effective rule of law.In vol. 30 of Crimeandjustice-A review of research, edited by M. Tonry,431-505. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Tyler,Tom R., and Steve Blader.2000. Cooperationin groups. Philadelphia:PsychologyPress.Tyler,Tom R., Robert J. Boeckmann, Heather J. Smith, and YuenJ. Huo. 1997. Socialjustice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview. Tyler,Tom R., JonathanD. Casper,and Bonnie Fisher. 1989. Maintainingallegiance towardpoliticalauthorities. AmericanJournal of Political Science 33:629-52. Tyler,Tom R., and John Darley.2000. Buildinga law abidingsociety:Takingpublic views about moralityand the legitimacy of legal authoritiesinto account when formulatingsubstantivelaw. Hofstra Law Review 28:707-39. Tyler,Tom R., and YuenJ. Huo. 2002. Trustin the law. New York:Russell Sage.

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:37:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENHANCING POLICE LEGITIMACY

99

Tyler,Tom R., and Heather J. Smith. 1997. Social justice and social movements. In vol. 2 of Handbookof social psychology, 4th ed., edited by Daniel Gilbert, Susan Fiske, and Gardiner Lindzey,595-629. New York:Addison-Wesley Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and society. Edited by G. Roth and C. Wittich. New York:Bedminster. Wissler, Roselle L. 1995. Mediation and adjudication in small claims court. Law and Society Review 29:323-58.

This content downloaded from 189.220.27.251 on Tue, 9 Apr 2013 02:37:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions