Crimehttp://cad.sagepub.com/
& Delinquency
Trust in the Police: The Influence of Procedural Justice and
Perceived Collective Efficacy
Justin Nix, Scott E. Wolfe, Jeff Rojek and Robert J. Kaminski
Crime & Delinquency published online 17 April 2014
DOI: 10.1177/0011128714530548
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://cad.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/16/0011128714530548
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Crime & Delinquency can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://cad.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://cad.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/16/0011128714530548.refs.html
>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Apr 17, 2014
What is This?
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
530548
CADXXX10.1177/0011128714530548Crime & DelinquencyNix et al.
research-article2014
Article
Trust in the Police: The
Influence of Procedural
Justice and Perceived
Collective Efficacy
Crime & Delinquency
1–31
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0011128714530548
cad.sagepub.com
Justin Nix,1 Scott E. Wolfe,1 Jeff Rojek,1 and
Robert J. Kaminski1
Abstract
Tyler’s process-based model of policing suggests that the police can enhance
their perceived legitimacy and trustworthiness in the eyes of the public
when they exercise their authority in a procedurally fair manner. To date,
most process-based research has focused on the sources of legitimacy while
largely overlooking trust in the police. The present study extends this line
of literature by examining the sources of trust in the police. In particular,
emerging research has revealed that neighborhood context influences
attitudes toward the police but much less attention has been given to
exploring the role individuals’ perceptions of their neighborhood play in
shaping such evaluations. Therefore, the present study considers whether
individuals’ perceptions of collective efficacy serve as a social-psychological
cognitive orientation that influences levels of trust in the police. Using data
from a recently conducted mail survey of a random sample of 1,681 residents
from a metropolitan city, we find that procedural justice evaluations are a
primary source of trust in the police. At the same time, however, level of
perceived collective efficacy is positively associated with trust even after
accounting for procedural justice. The findings suggest that police procedural
fairness is vitally important to establishing trust from the public but peoples’
1University
of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Justin Nix, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina,
1305 Greene Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA.
Email: nix2@mailbox.sc.edu
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
2
Crime & Delinquency
cognitive orientation toward their neighborhood context partially shapes
the level of trustworthiness they afford to the police.
Keywords
policing, procedural justice, collective efficacy, trust, legitimacy
Tyler’s (1990, 2004; Tyler & Huo, 2002) theory of procedural justice—often
referred to as the process-based model of policing—suggests that the police
can enhance their perceived legitimacy and trustworthiness in the eyes of the
public by exercising authority in a procedurally fair manner. Establishing
legitimacy or trust represents a desirable alternative to using coercive force to
obtain compliance from citizens. Moreover, when citizens trust the police,
they are more likely to cooperate with them by reporting crimes as well as
informally enforcing societal norms. Empirical research offers support for
the process-based model: Individuals who believe police actions are procedurally fair are more likely to perceive them as a legitimate and trustworthy
institution (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Tyler (2005; Tyler
& Huo, 2002) also suggests that procedural justice influences normative
evaluations of the police (e.g., trust and legitimacy) net of other individual or
situational factors (see also, Gau, Corsaro, Stewart, & Brunson, 2012).
The process-based model of policing has received considerable research
attention over the past decade but two important areas remain open to empirical scrutiny. First, as Bottoms and Tankebe (2012) point out, there is no universally recognized definition of legitimacy. Researchers have typically
measured legitimacy as trust in the police and perceived obligation to obey
(Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002); however, more
recent studies suggest that these constructs are theoretically and empirically
distinct and should therefore be treated as separate concepts (Gau, 2011,
2013; Reisig, Bratton, & Gertz, 2007). Despite such findings, the majority of
research has focused on legitimacy—much less attention has been given to
the sources of trust in the police. Given the evidence that evaluations of trust
and legitimacy are separate concepts yet part of the same process-based normative evaluation, examining the antecedents of trust in law enforcement is
important on both theoretical and policy-oriented grounds. Second, and most
important for our study, evidence exists demonstrating that neighborhood
context influences individuals’ attitudes toward the police (Reisig & Parks,
2000, 2003; Sampson & Bartusch, 1998). While important, the majority of
this literature focuses on compositional effects and neglects the potentially
important role that individuals’ perceptions of neighborhood conditions have
on their evaluations of legal actors. Recently Gau and her colleagues (2012)
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
3
Nix et al.
presented results showing that neighborhood context does not affect evaluations of police legitimacy but individual perceptions of neighborhood cohesion influence such evaluations. Thus, preliminary evidence suggests that the
cognitive orientation individuals have toward law enforcement may be partially shaped by their perceptions of the environment in which they are situated. It is particularly important to examine such an influence on perceptions
of police trustworthiness considering the social-psychological underpinnings
of Tyler’s theory. If perceptions of neighborhood conditions are associated
with trust in the police, the question that remains is what role evaluations of
procedural justice play in the relationship. Tyler’s arguments would suggest
that individuals’ evaluations of police officer fairness should override the
effects of such extraneous variables, yet no research to date has been able to
examine this question.
The current study examines these issues using data from a recently collected mail survey of a random sample of citizens from a mid-sized metropolis in the southeastern United States (N = 1,681). Our analyses move the
current procedural justice literature forward in several ways. First, going
beyond prior process-based model research that typically examines evaluations of legitimacy, we focus our analysis on the predictors of trust in the
police. Second, we determine whether perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy affect individuals’ levels of trust in the police after accounting
for evaluations of procedural justice. Specifically, we consider whether perceptions of procedural justice, as Tyler postulates, diminishes the effect of
other variables—including perceived collective efficacy—on trust. We conclude by discussing theoretical and policy implications as well as avenues for
future research.
The Process-Based Model of Policing
Being viewed as a legitimate and trustworthy authority is important to the
police because such normative evaluations lead to compliance, cooperation,
and empowerment from the public (Tyler, 1990). The police cannot be everywhere at once and, therefore, must rely heavily on voluntary compliance with
the law to maintain social order. In addition, cooperation from the public is
essential to the crime suppression function of the police. Citizens cooperate
with the police by reporting crimes, working together as a community to
enforce social norms, and supporting the allocation of public resources to
their local police department. Cooperation is especially important because it
increases the likelihood that citizens will comply with police decisions in the
long term (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Empowerment
involves the willingness of the public to accept police discretionary
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
4
Crime & Delinquency
judgments (e.g., about when to make an arrest rather than issue a citation).
The police are able to exercise discretion—especially regarding whether or
not to use physical force (Bittner, 1972)—only because the public has
empowered them to do so.
Tyler and Huo (2002) seem to suggest that the concept of trust is distinct
from legitimacy. In their influential study of trust of legal authorities, however, they go on to measure trust as one of two components of legitimacy (the
other being perceived obligation to obey). Scholars have recently questioned
the validity of this conceptualization of legitimacy and demonstrated that
trust and perceived obligation to obey do not load together onto a single factor (Gau, 2011, 2013; Reisig et al., 2007). Similarly, Tyler (2006) has noted
that the correlation between trust and obligation to obey tends to be small
(e.g., r = .26). Recently proposed conceptualizations of legitimacy have in
fact defended the exclusion of trust as a component of the concept. For example, Jackson et al. (2012) define legitimacy as a sense of moral alignment
with the police in addition to a perceived obligation to obey. The police as an
institution are empowered by the public to maintain order and enforce laws.
Legitimacy, as Jackson and his colleagues suggest, partially hinges on the
degree to which the police and the public share common beliefs about the
maintenance of this social order (see also Tankebe, 2013).
Conversely, trust in the police involves a feeling that officers will exercise
their authority with the community’s best interest in mind. Tyler and Huo
(2002) state that, “[t]rust in a person’s motives or character refers to his or her
internal, unobservable characteristics that are inferred from his or her observable actions” (p. 58). Trust is a particularly important concept with respect to
orientations toward law enforcement because citizens normally have limited
knowledge about the actions taken by police and lack expertise in judging
said actions (Tyler & Huo, 2002). The level of trust one has in the police is
based on “cues that communicate information about the intentions and character” of the police (Jackson et al., 2012, p. 4). Thus, trust evaluations serve
as a normative attitude regarding how benevolent law enforcement actions
are and can be held regardless of the amount of personal contact one has with
the police (Tyler & Huo, 2002). Paralleling arguments regarding legitimacy,
people are believed to comply and cooperate with the police because they
trust that officers will behave in predictable and acceptable ways. It is important to note that one could view the police as a legitimate authority without
necessarily trusting certain officers (Hawdon, 2008). In the end, treating trust
as a distinct concept is supported on both theoretical and empirical grounds
(Gau, 2011, 2013; Reisig et al., 2007; Tyler, 2006). Accordingly, exploring
the correlates of trust evaluations is worthy of empirical inquiry (Hawdon,
2008; Jackson et al., 2012; Sargeant, Murphy, & Cherney, 2013; Tyler, 2005).
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
5
Nix et al.
Procedural justice theory recognizes that individuals place value on the
fairness of the procedures used to reach an outcome—oftentimes more so
than the fairness of the actual outcome (Thibaut & Walker, 1975).
Overwhelming evidence suggests that procedural justice is the main antecedent of evaluations of police legitimacy (Gau, 2011, 2013; Gau et al., 2012;
Reisig et al., 2007; Tankebe, 2013; Tyler, 1990; Wolfe, 2011). Prior research
has focused primarily on legitimacy with less attention given to the sources
of trust. Existing theoretical arguments and empirical evidence stemming
mainly from Tyler’s work indicates that the same process-based model
applies to normative evaluations of trust in the police (Gau, 2011, 2013;
Reisig et al., 2007; Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Tyler (2005) found that
perceived police fairness exerts the strongest influence on the public’s level
of trust. This begs the question, “What do individuals regard as fair?” In part,
the answer varies depending on the particular situation. Tyler (2003) specifies two key elements of fairness: quality of decision making and quality of
interpersonal treatment. When officers remain neutral and use objective reasoning to make decisions—as opposed to personal biases—citizens are more
likely to believe their decisions are fair. Likewise, being treated with dignity
and respect will lead citizens to feel an officer is being fair. A third element
emerges pertaining specifically to resolving disputes: participation in the
decision-making process (Tyler, 2005). Citizens who are involved in a dispute value the opportunity to express their side of the story prior to any solution being reached. Officers who provide each of the involved parties with
this opportunity are more likely to be perceived as exercising their discretion
fairly. Regardless of the scenario, “authorities become more highly trusted
when they are seen to exercise their authority in fair ways” (Tyler, 2003, p.
299). In other words, officers who remain objective, respectful, and polite,
and provide citizens with an opportunity to express their views prior to making a decision are more likely to be viewed as trustworthy in the eyes of the
public. Beyond Tyler’s own tests, relatively little empirical evidence exists
pertaining to the connection between procedural justice and trust in the
police—a gap addressed by the present study.
Another antecedent of trust is distributive justice, which focuses on perceived fairness of the outcome rather than the process. According to distributive justice theories, individuals are more accepting of outcomes if they are
equal to those received by similarly situated others. As the name suggests,
individuals place importance on the equal distribution of justice across different societal groups (Sarat, 1977). For instance, Tyler and Wakslak (2004)
found that perceived racial profiling by police officers is associated with
lower levels of public support for the police. Moreover, individuals in their
study who believed the police engage in profiling expressed less willingness
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
6
Crime & Delinquency
to comply with authorities. Tyler (2005) has also demonstrated that trust is
influenced by perceptions of distributive justice but procedural justice exerts
the strongest influence.
Finally, individual differences may influence levels of trust in the police.
For decades, scholars have pointed to the importance of demographic characteristics such as race, gender, and age when examining attitudes toward the
police. Numerous studies have found that minorities have less favorable
opinions of the police than Whites (Engel, 2005; Wu, Sun, & Triplett, 2009).
Likewise, research has demonstrated that minorities tend to be more distrustful of the police (Hindelang, 1974; Lasley, 1994; Tyler, 2005). Regarding
age, most studies suggest that as individuals get older, they generally express
more favorable opinions about the police (Frank, Brandl, Cullen, & Stichman,
1996; Ren, Cao, Lovrich, & Gaffney, 2005; Wu & Sun, 2009). Research
regarding the relationship between gender and attitudes toward police is less
conclusive: Some studies have found that females express more favorable
attitudes (Cao, Frank, & Cullen, 1996), while others suggest gender is insignificant (Frank et al., 1996; Lai & Zhao, 2010; Ren et al., 2005). In their
study, which focused specifically on trust in police, Wu and Sun (2009) found
that gender did not significantly influence levels of trust. Other than demographics, recent research has shown that individual differences in self-control
and emotion influence the relationship between procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance (Murphy & Tyler, 2008; Reisig, Wolfe, & Holtfreter,
2011; Wolfe, 2011).
Despite the various sources of trust in the police, the key argument of
Tyler’s (1990) process-based theory is that procedural justice judgments are
the primary antecedent. That is, people’s trust in the police is most importantly shaped by how fair they perceive officer actions to be and to a much
lesser extent by the fairness of outcome distribution or individual differences.
An emerging body of research calls into question this proposition and suggests that individuals’ contextual environments exert important effects on
their evaluations of legal actors such as the police.
Perceived Collective Efficacy and Trust in the
Police
Sociological inquiry appreciates that neighborhood context plays an important role in shaping resident attitudes and perceptions. Ross and Jang (2000),
for instance, demonstrated that individuals situated in communities with
greater amounts of disorder reported significantly higher levels of fear and
mistrust of fellow neighborhood residents. Similarly, Ross, Mirowsky, and
Pribesh (2001) showed that people who live in communities where the threat
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
7
Nix et al.
of victimization is common are more likely to feel powerless in the fight
against becoming a victim. This sense of powerlessness serves to intensify
mistrust of one’s neighbors. Ecological conditions have also been shown to
influence perceptions of neighborhood disorder (Sampson & Raudenbush,
2004), safety (Austin, Furr, & Spine, 2002), and victimization risk (Pickett,
Chiricos, Golden, & Gertz, 2012). In short, negative attitudes are partly the
result of objective and subjective indicators of structural disadvantages.
Variation in neighborhood characteristics also matters with respect to attitudes toward the police (see, for example, Brunson & Gau, 2011; Decker,
1981; Weitzer, 1999; Weitzer & Tuch, 2004) and the law more generally (see,
for example, Kirk & Matsuda, 2011). In their now seminal study, Sampson
and Bartusch (1998) found that respondents from neighborhoods with greater
concentrated disadvantage tended to have higher levels of dissatisfaction
with the police and an overall cynical perception of the law and legal actors.
In their words, “there is an ecological structuring to normative orientations—
‘cognitive landscapes’ where crime and deviance are more or less expected
and institutions of criminal justice are mistrusted” (Sampson & Bartusch,
1998, p. 800). Sun, Hu, Wong, He, and Li (2013) recently used a unique
sample of Chinese respondents to show that disadvantaged context diminishes trust in neighbors, which hinders trust in the police (see also Reisig &
Parks, 2000, 2003; Wu et al., 2009).
Explanations for the relationship between context and attitudes toward the
police and the legal system are largely grounded in subcultural theory. Indeed,
in the social disorganization tradition, structural disadvantages such as poverty, racial and ethnic heterogeneity, and residential mobility produce mutual
distrust and reduced social cohesion among community residents (Anderson,
1999; Kornhauser, 1978; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942).
The obstruction of common values, beliefs, and norms governing appropriate
behavior fosters the emergence of subcultural value systems whereby crime
is expected and the law is looked upon with a cynical eye. Sampson and
Bartusch (1998) suggest that those subjected to such anomic conditions
should be expected to harbor cynical views about the justice system regardless of whether they personally condemn violence or deviance. After all, the
police may be less inclined to work diligently in communities where residents rarely self-regulate social norms (Carr, Napolitano, & Keating, 2007;
Gau et al., 2012; Klinger, 1997; Sampson & Bartusch, 1998; Smith, 1986)—a
situation that may impede feelings that the police can be trusted to make good
decisions for the community.
Although largely a framework of “places,” subcultural theory does not
dismiss the important role of individual perceptions of neighborhood conditions (Fischer, 1995). Indeed, much contextually focused research relies on
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
8
Crime & Delinquency
individual perceptions to create aggregate neighborhood measures (see, for
example, Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). In addition, research evidence compiled to date clearly shows that compositional differences, while
important, fail to fully explain a significant portion of the variation in perceptions and attitudes (see, for example, Sampson & Bartusch, 1998).
We maintain that part of the answer lies in individual perceptions of neighborhood conditions in which people are situated, particularly for concepts
such as trust in the police. In other words, an individual’s cognitive orientation toward legal authorities may be largely shaped by how he or she perceives community informal social control efforts and mutual
cohesion—creating a social-psychological cognitive landscape. Research
findings support this view. Gau and associates (2012), for example, recently
found that concentrated disadvantage (i.e., a contextual factor) failed to significantly predict evaluations of police legitimacy but individual perceptions
of neighborhood social cohesion played a key role in explaining such normative attitudes. In fact, social cohesion remained associated with legitimacy
evaluations even when accounting for central theoretical precursors of legitimacy such as procedural and distributive justice. While studies reveal that
compositional factors influence the development of cognitive landscapes
primed for legal authority mistrust, research of this type suggests that the
social-psychological cognitive orientation toward one’s neighborhood plight
may be as important (see Kochel, 2012, for a related discussion).
Durkheim’s classic view of anomie offers insight into the theoretical connection between individual perceptions of neighborhood conditions and attitudes toward legal authorities. In its traditional sense, anomie is a condition
of normlessness where the standards governing society are no longer held by
a majority of citizens. Take for example Sampson and colleagues’ (1997) idea
of collective efficacy. Normally viewed as a contextual factor but easily
viewed as a social-psychological orientation, perceived collective efficacy in
one’s neighborhood would encompass a feeling of common goals and social
cohesion among neighbors. A breakdown in perceived collective efficacy is
appropriately conceptualized as an anomic cognitive orientation about one’s
ecological environment. Recall from earlier discussions that trust in the
police is a normative orientation toward a legal actor. Thus, it would be
expected that those who view less collective efficacy in their neighborhoods
would harbor greater mistrust in the police because normative standards are
broken, which allow the spread of cynical views of the police. In short, anomie in the form of diminished perceived collective efficacy may structure
mistrust in formal social control agents. Research has yet to explore the individual social-psychological orientation of perceived collective efficacy on
normative evaluations of trust in the police—a gap this study aims to address.
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
9
Nix et al.
To this point, our discussion implies that one’s orientation toward neighborhood conditions may be an important source of trust in the police. A strict
interpretation of Tyler’s (1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002) process-based model of
policing would suggest otherwise. The framework proposes that normative
standards of police officer conduct are more important in forming trust from
the public. That is, individuals’ perceptions of law enforcement procedural
justice should be responsible for establishing trust in the police regardless of
the degree of anomie created by perceived lack of informal social controls or
mutual trust in a neighborhood. Treating people fairly sends the message to
community residents that the government cares about their neighborhood
despite the inability of fellow citizens to share similar views (Sampson &
Bartusch, 1998). In statistical vernacular, procedural justice should at least
partially mediate the effect of perceived collective efficacy on trust in the
police. Extant empirical evidence lends preliminary support to this claim
because procedural justice has been shown to influence evaluations of legitimacy even after accounting for respondents’ perceptions of social cohesion
and disorder (Gau et al., 2012; Tyler & Wakslak, 2004). Research to date,
however, has been unable to explore the extent to which procedural justice
accounts for the relationship between perceptions of neighborhood context
and evaluations of the police. In particular, left as an open empirical question
is whether procedural justice as an antecedent of trust in the police supersedes the influence of perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy.
If such a relationship exists it also suggests that perceptions of neighborhood context may partially set the stage for evaluations of police procedural
justice. The theoretical discussions and research reviewed above would suggest that such a relationship is possible. That is, perceptions of neighborhood
context may partially explain perceptions of procedural justice (Tyler &
Wakslak, 2004). Individuals who perceive a breakdown of informal social
controls and mutual cohesion in their own neighborhoods may be more likely
to maintain cynical views of the law and less likely to perceive police efforts
as procedurally fair (Sampson & Bartusch, 1998). However, the extent to
which perceptions of neighborhood context influence evaluations of procedural justice which ultimately impact feelings of trust in the police remains
an unexplored research question.
The Current Study
The purpose of the current study is to move the literatures on attitudes toward
the police and procedural justice forward in several ways. First, we address a
gap in existing literature by exploring the extent to which procedural justice
evaluations are associated with trust in the police. This is important considering that most prior process-based model research examines the antecedents
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
10
Crime & Delinquency
of police legitimacy and compelling evidence demonstrating that trust and
legitimacy are distinct normative attitudes. Second, we examine whether perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy influence trust in the police.
Contextual focused research suggests there may be a relationship but little
attention has been given to individual perceptions of neighborhood conditions on evaluations of the police—particularly for trust in the police. Third,
analyses test a strict interpretation of Tyler’s process-based model by examining whether individuals’ evaluations of procedural justice override the
effects of perceived collective efficacy on level of trust in the police. In summary, we expect procedural justice and perceived collective efficacy to have
independent effects on trust evaluations (i.e., when examined in separate
analyses). Once both concepts are simultaneously examined, however, we
expect perceptions of procedural fairness to mediate most of the association
between perceived collective efficacy and trust. We conclude the study by
discussing the theoretical implications of our findings and suggesting policyrelevant take away messages and productive avenues for future research.
Method
Data
Data for the present study were drawn from a random sample mail survey of
residents from a mid-sized, urban city in the southeastern United States. The
survey served as one component in the evaluation of a larger directed-intervention law enforcement initiative funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Four neighborhoods situated in the largest patrol regions of the city were
selected as part of the project and corresponding survey. One of the neighborhoods was selected for a targeted enforcement to occur in the future. Two
control neighborhoods were selected to closely match the target site in terms
of economic disadvantage (e.g., median household income) and crime rate.
On average, these three neighborhoods experienced 82.8 Part I crimes per
1,000 residents and had a median household income of US$27,700 in the
year prior to the survey. A fourth control neighborhood was selected by the
law enforcement agency to serve as a contrast to the three economically disadvantaged and crime-ridden communities. This more affluent neighborhood
(median household income ~US$51,000) experienced 45.5 Part I crimes per
1,000 residents in the year prior to the survey.
One thousand households from each neighborhood were randomly
selected to take part in the survey. Questionnaires were administered prior to
any changes in police strategic or tactical operations and explored issues such
as perceptions of the local law enforcement agency, neighborhood
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
11
Nix et al.
conditions, and local problems. A modified Dillman method was used to
elicit participation in the survey. Specifically, an initial round of surveys was
mailed to all households with a cover letter detailing the purpose of the questionnaire and importance of participation. Two weeks later, a reminder post
card was mailed to potential respondents to help encourage those who had
not responded to do so. Finally, 2 weeks after the post card reminder another
full survey and cover letter was mailed to potential respondents. In addition
to the mail survey, respondents were also given the option to complete the
survey on a secure website (Dillman et al., 2009). As expected, not all
addresses in the sampling frame were useable: 323 surveys were returned
because they were vacant or otherwise inaccessible addresses. A total of
1,681 residents returned completed surveys representing a 45.72% response
rate (over 95% of respondents completed the mail version). This is comparable with average response rates generated from other random sample mail
surveys (Baruch, 1999). Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data
due to item nonresponse, which is available in the Stata 13 mi impute suite
(m = 30 imputations). Multiple imputation is a commonly accepted method
for dealing with missing data, particularly when only a small handful of cells
are missing for items used in the construction of theoretical scales (Acock,
2005; Carlin, Galati, & Royston, 2008; Royston, 2004; Turanovic & Pratt,
2012).
The sample was 66% female and ranged in age from 19 to 96 years with a
mean of 57 years. The sample consisted of 52% White, 41% African
American, and 7% other racial group respondents. Of these participants, 96%
indicated they had lived at their current residence for at least 6 months. In
terms of education, about half of the sample had a college degree. Compared
with official data on each of the neighborhoods, the sample is comprised of a
slightly larger proportion of females and older people but closely approximates the racial composition of the communities. Therefore, the sample reasonably represents the population from which it was drawn on these factors.
In addition, it is important to note that most respondents were sampled from
neighborhoods that have relatively high levels of disadvantage and crime
and, therefore, exposure to law enforcement.
Dependent Variable
Consistent with Tyler and Huo’s (2002) conceptualization of motive-based
trust, respondents were asked the following question to capture level of trust
in the police: “The police can be trusted to make decisions that are right for
my community.” The item is similar to that used in prior research on trust in
the police and measures the degree to which respondents feel that local police
officers’ motives and future behavior will be guided by benevolent concerns
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
12
Crime & Delinquency
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.
M
Trust in the police
Procedural justice
Perceived collective efficacy
Distributive injustice
Perceived disorder
Prior victimizationa
No police contact
Citizen-initiated police contact
Lower crime neighborhood
Police-initiated contact
Education
Racial minority
Female
Age years
aNatural
2.853
12.506
28.356
3.904
3.656
0.228
0.682
0.205
0.305
0.113
3.242
0.411
0.661
57.838
SD
Min.
Max.
0.648
2.361
5.620
1.473
3.886
0.474
0.466
0.404
0.460
0.317
0.907
0.492
0.474
16.363
1
4
10
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
19
4
16
40
8
18
3.367
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
96
log transformation.
about the larger community and its citizens (Tyler, 2001, 2005; Tyler & Huo,
2002; Wu & Sun, 2009). Responses were measured on a 4-point Likert-type
scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). Therefore, higher scores
on the trust item suggest that a respondent believes police actions are generally made in good faith and with the community in mind. The distribution of
the item indicates the sample has moderate trust in their police force (M =
2.853, SD = 0.648). However, more than one fifth of respondents either
strongly disagreed or disagreed with the question, demonstrating that a large
portion of the sample is distrustful of local police officers. Table 1 provides
descriptive statistics for all variables used in the analyses.
Independent Variables
Procedural justice. The items used to operationalize procedural justice were
adopted from recent examinations of the process-based model of policing
(see, for example, Gau et al., 2012; Reisig et al., 2007; Sunshine & Tyler,
2003; Tankebe, 2013). Participants were asked to indicate how strongly they
agree that the police in their neighborhood “treat citizens with respect,” “take
the time to listen to people,” “treat people fairly,” and “explain their decisions to the people they deal with” (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly
agree). The individual items capture key aspects of Tyler’s (1990)
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
13
Nix et al.
conceptualization of procedural fairness—quality of decision making (e.g.,
neutrality) and quality of treatment (e.g., status recognition). Principal-axis
factor (PAF) analysis demonstrated that the four items loaded onto a single
factor (λ = 3.07, factor loadings > .81). The items also demonstrated strong
internal consistency (α = .94; see, for example, Cortina, 1993) and, therefore,
were summed to form an additive procedural justice scale with higher scores
indicating more favorable evaluations of police fairness.
Perceived collective efficacy. Consistent with the above theoretical discussion,
perceived collective efficacy is measured at the individual level and conceptualized as the social-psychological cognitive orientation respondents have
toward their neighborhood. We adopted our measures from Sampson and colleagues (1997), who demonstrated that shared expectations of informal social
control and social cohesion/trust form the constituent parts of collective efficacy. We measured “informal social control” with five items asking respondents to indicate how likely it would be (1 = very unlikely to 4 = very likely)
that their neighbors could be counted on to intervene if (a) teenagers were
skipping school and hanging out on a street corner, (b) teenagers were spraypainting graffiti on a local building, (c) teenagers were showing disrespect to
an adult, (d) a fight broke out near your home, and (e) the fire station close to
your home was threatened by budget cuts. “Social cohesion/trust” was captured by asking respondents how strongly they agreed (1 = strongly disagree
to 4 = strongly agree) that “people around here are willing to help their neighbors,” “this is a close-knit neighborhood,” “people in this neighborhood can
be trusted,” “people in this neighborhood generally do not get along with
each other” (reverse coded), and “people in this neighborhood do not share
the same values” (reverse coded). PAF revealed that the items loaded on their
respective informal social control (λ = 4.52, factor loadings > .66) and social
cohesion/trust (λ = 2.14, factor loadings > .61) factors. Consistent with Sampson and associates (1997), and a host of prior research (see, for example,
Kochel, 2012; Wells, Schafer, Varano, & Bynum, 2006), we combined all
items into a single additive scale to represent individual perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy (α = .86).1
Control Variables
To provide unbiased estimates of the effects of procedural justice and perceived collective efficacy on level of trust in the police, several demographic
control variables were included in the analyses. Respondent age is measured
continuously, and gender (1 = female) and race (1 = racial minority) are
dummy coded. Education is measured with four ordered categories (1 = less
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
14
Crime & Delinquency
than a high school diploma, 2 = high school diploma or General Education
Development, 3 = some college, and 4 = bachelor’s degree or higher). We
also used a dummy variable—lower crime neighborhood—to control for
whether respondents lived in the more affluent, lower crime rate neighborhood included in the sample (1 = yes). Respondents who lived in one of the
more homogeneous, high crime rate neighborhoods were coded as 0.2
Additional variables pertaining to individual experiences and perceptions
were also included as statistical controls. First, scholars have suggested that
the type of contact one has with law enforcement may set the tone for how a
citizen evaluates the trustworthiness of police with police-initiated contact
leading to more contentious interactions and attitudes (Engel, 2003; Fyfe,
1986; Piquero & Bouffard, 2003; Tyler, 1990). Accordingly, we asked respondents to indicate whether they had contact with local police during the 6
months leading up to the survey. Those who answered affirmatively were
questioned about the nature of the contact (“Was this contact ever initiated by
the officer?”). Using this information, the dummy variables citizen-initiated
contact (1 = yes) and no police contact (1 = yes) were constructed and
included in the analyses (police-initiated contact served as the reference
category).
Second, research reveals that crime victims tend to have less favorable
perceptions of police compared with their counterparts with no victimization
exposure (Brown & Benedict, 2002). The survey inquired about how many
times (0 to 4 or more times) in the previous 6 months respondents had been
the victim of each of the following offenses: vehicle stolen, vehicle broken
into, property vandalized, home burglarized, physically assaulted (i.e., by
someone using hands or feet), assaulted or threatened with a weapon (e.g.,
knife, club, or gun), and robbed. PAF of the items revealed a single-factor
(λ = 2.34, factor loadings > .42) and Cronbach’s alpha demonstrated adequate
internal consistency (α = .71). Individuals’ responses were summed to form
an additive prior victimization scale. A natural log transformation was used to
induce normality in the scale (a constant was added to remove zero responses).
Third, research demonstrates that individuals’ perceptions of disorder
within their neighborhoods partially explain attitudes toward the police
(Reisig & Parks, 2000; Schafer, Huebner, & Bynum, 2003; Schuck,
Rosenbaum, & Hawkins, 2008). Adopting items used in prior disorder
research, we asked participants to indicate how much of a problem a series of
disorder related activities were in their neighborhood (i.e., garbage, excessive
noise, vandalism, drunk drivers, traffic problems, public drunkenness, drug
use and sales, loitering, and youth gangs; see, for example, Gau & Pratt,
2008). PAF provided evidence of a unidimensional construct (λ = 3.78, factor
loadings > .54) and Cronbach’s alpha demonstrated strong internal
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
15
Nix et al.
consistency (α = .86). Thus, the items were summated into a perceived disorder scale.
Finally, perceptions of the fairness of outcomes distributed by the police
were taken into consideration. Specifically, respondents were asked how
strongly they agree (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree) that the
police in their neighborhood “give minorities less help because of their race”
and “provide better services to wealthy citizens” (r = .73). The items are
consistent with those used in previous literature and were combined into a
summated distributive injustice scale (Tyler, 2005; Tyler & Wakslak, 2004).
Analytic Strategy
Our analysis proceeds in a series of steps, each of which builds upon the
other. First, we use an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model to
estimate the effect of perceived collective efficacy on perceptions of police
procedural fairness. This step serves two purposes: (a) It establishes whether
perceptions of neighborhood context shape evaluations of police fairness—a
topic largely unexplored to date, and (b) it sets up a necessary condition for
detecting the mediation effect examined in later stages of the analysis (i.e.,
the proposed mediated variable [perceived collective efficacy] is associated
with the supposed mediator [procedural justice]; see MacKinnon, Krull, &
Lockwood, 2000). The second step of the analysis involves three multivariate models examining the predictors of trust in the police. We use ordered
logistic regression to estimate these models because the dependent variable—trust in the police—is ordinal in nature (Long & Freese, 2006). The
first ordered logit equation serves as a baseline model to establish whether
procedural justice is associated with trust in the police, net of statistical controls. The second ordered logit model examines the degree to which perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy, net of relevant statistical controls,
are associated with level of trust in the police. Finally, in the third model,
procedural justice is added back into the equation to determine whether perceptions of police fairness mediate the influence of perceived collective efficacy on trust.
Several diagnostic tests revealed that harmful levels of collinearity are not
present in the multivariate models discussed below. First, all bivariate correlations fell below an absolute value of .70, which is typically used as a threshold indicative of harmful collinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Second,
all variance inflation factors from the multivariate models fell below the 4.0
threshold (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) and all condition indices below the
threshold of 30 (Belsley, Kuh, & Welsch, 1980; Mason & Perreault, 1991).
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
16
Crime & Delinquency
Table 2. The Effect of Perceived Collective Efficacy on Procedural Justice.
Procedural justicea
Variable
Perceived collective efficacy
Distributive injustice
Perceived disorder
Prior victimizationb
No police contactc
Citizen-initiated police contactc
Lower crime neighborhood
Education
Racial minority
Female
Age years
Intercept
F test
R2
b
SE
β
t test
.084
−.344
−.038
−.276
.088
.070
−.320
.099
−.196
.186
.009
10.818
.014
.053
.020
.151
.200
.230
.154
.077
.154
.125
.004
.663
.230
−.243
5.83**
−6.52**
−1.87
−1.83
0.44
0.30
−2.08*
1.27
−1.27
1.50
2.20*
16.32**
−.097
.066
15.02**
.189
Note. Entries are unstandardized partial regression coefficients (b), robust standard errors,
and standardized partial regression coefficients (β).
aOrdinary least squares regression equation.
bNatural log transformation.
c“Police-initiated contact” is the reference category.
*p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailed test).
Results
In Table 2, the procedural justice scale is regressed onto the perceived collective efficacy scale and statistical control variables. To begin, the equation
demonstrates that the variables account for nearly 19% of the variation in
perceptions of procedural justice (F-test = 15.02, p < .01). Additional analyses (not shown) reveal that individuals’ perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy alone are responsible for 30% of the explained variation. The
size of the standardized partial regression coefficient (β) suggests that perceived collective efficacy has a moderate, statistically significant effect on
procedural justice (β = .230, p < .01). In short, individuals who believe more
informal social controls and social cohesion exist (i.e., collective efficacy)
within their neighborhood are more likely to perceive the police as exercising
their authority in procedurally fair manners. Conversely, this suggests that the
anomic conditions created by lack of collective efficacy in a neighborhood
makes it more likely for individuals to perceive police officers as
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
17
Nix et al.
procedurally unjust, regardless of individual demographic differences, prior
police contact, prior victimization, and perceptions of disorder or distributive
injustice. The distributive injustice scale also reached statistical significance
in the model (β = −.243, p < .01). People who believe police officers unfairly
distribute outcomes to the public (i.e., based on race or wealth) are less likely
to view their actions as procedurally fair. This finding is consistent with a
lengthy roster of process-based model studies (see, for example, Sunshine &
Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002) and, therefore, lends confidence
in the validity of our data. It is also worth mentioning that, on average,
respondents who lived in the lower crime neighborhood viewed police officers as less procedurally fair (β = −.097, p < .05) and older folks tended to
evaluate the police as more fair (β = .066, p < .05).
The findings from Table 2 are important for several reasons. For one, individual perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy “matter” in the explanation of evaluations of police procedural justice. Thus, the theoretical
arguments made above appear to hold a grain of truth. Second, the effect of
perceived collective efficacy on procedural justice is almost as strong as the
influence of distributive injustice. This is telling because tests of Tyler’s
(1990) theory routinely reveal that distributive justice is a key predictor of
procedural justice. Clearly, perceptions of one’s neighborhood conditions set
the stage for evaluations of the police. Finally, the results establish a basic
requirement for detecting possible mediation in the analyses to follow
(MacKinnon et al., 2000).
The analyses in Table 3 explore the independent and additive effects of
procedural justice and perceived collective efficacy on evaluations of trust in
the police. Model 1 provides a baseline ordered logistic regression equation
that examines the effect of procedural justice on trust. As expected, the equation provides more explanatory power than would be expected by chance
alone (Likelihood Ratio χ2 = 372.46, p < .01; McFadden’s R2 = .183). The
ordered log-odds coefficient (b) indicates that individuals’ evaluations of
police procedural fairness are positively associated with their trust in local
law enforcement officers (b = .488, p < .01). When examining these estimates, it is important to remember that they correspond with the ordinal
nature of the dependent variable. Therefore, the coefficients reveal that unit
increases in a particular independent variable correspond with the respective
ordered log-odds increase/decrease of being in a higher response category
(compared with all lower response categories) on the dependent variable (i.e.,
strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree)—a somewhat complicated interpretation indeed. A simplified interpretation involves examining
the percent change in the odds for a one standard deviation increase in the
independent variable (%StdX). Specifically, a one standard deviation increase
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
18
Table 3. Ordered Logistic Regression Estimates for the Effects of Procedural Justice and Perceived Collective Efficacy on Trust in
the Police.
Model 1a
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
Procedural justice
Perceived collective
efficacy
Distributive injustice
Perceived disorder
Prior victimizationb
No police contactc
Citizen-initiated police
contactc
Lower crime
neighborhood
Education
Racial minority
Female
Age years
LR χ2
McFadden’s R2
Model 2a
b (SE)
(%StdX)
t test
.488 (.036)
—
(286.5%)
—
13.56**
—
−.024 (.051)
−.047 (.016)
−.026 (.125)
.219 (.171)
.104 (.201)
b (SE)
—
.059 (.012)
Model 3a
(%StdX)
t test
—
(53.7%)
—
4.73**
b (SE)
.477 (.037)
.028 (.013)
−.48
−.182 (.052)
−2.93** −.047 (.017)
−.21
−.110 (.128)
1.28
.247 (.176)
.51
.143 (.198)
(−23.2%) −3.47** −.019 (.051)
(−22.2%) −2.85** −.038 (.016)
−0.85
−.011 (.125)
1.40
.247 (.171)
0.72
.110 (.201)
−.172 (.148)
−1.17
−.356 (.149)
(−14.8%) −2.39*
−.242 (.154)
–.139 (.075)
−.221 (.146)
.149 (.118)
−.006 (.004)
–1.86
−1.52
1.26
−1.71
–.093 (.069)
−.278 (.141)
.198 (.116)
−.001 (.004)
−1.35
−1.97*
1.70
−0.42
−.159 (.075)
−.222 (.146)
.136 (.118)
−.007 (.004)
(−15.7%)
372.46**
.183
[−17.2%]
120.73**
.063
(%StdX)
t test
(273.0%)
(24.6%)
13.03**
2.16*
(−14.6%)
−0.38
−2.30*
−0.09
1.45
.55
−1.58
(−14.8%)
354.48**
.191
Note. Entries are unstandardized ordered log-odds coefficient (b), percent change in the odds for a one standard deviation increase in the
independent variable (%StdX), and robust standard errors in parentheses.
aOrdered logistic regression equation.
bNatural log transformation.
c“Police-initiated contact” is the reference category.
*p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailed test).
−2.12*
−1.53
1.15
−1.79
19
Nix et al.
in procedural justice increases the predicted odds of being more trusting of
the police by over 286%, holding all other variables constant. The strong
influence of procedural justice on trust in the police is consistent with the
previous literature discussed earlier. In fact, the only other variable in Model
1 that reached statistical significance was perceived disorder (b = .488, p <
.01). Regardless of perceptions of procedural justice, individuals who perceive more incivilities in their neighborhoods tend to have less trust in the
police. Visible signs of disorder may be cognitive cues that the police are not
doing a good job and, therefore, cannot be fully trusted.
Model 2 presents parameter estimates from an ordered logistic regression
equation that examines the influence of perceived collective efficacy on trust
in the police, net of statistical controls. To establish whether perceived collective efficacy has an independent effect on trust, Model 2 excludes procedural
justice from the equation. Overall, the equation provides more explanatory
power than would be expected by chance (LR χ2 = 120.73, p < .01; McFadden’s
R2 = .063). Consistent with our theoretical argument presented earlier, the
ordered log-odds coefficient (b) indicates that individuals’ perceptions
regarding the amount of collective efficacy in their neighborhood are related
to their trust in local police (b = .059, p < .01). Specifically, a one standard
deviation increase in perceived collective efficacy is associated with a 53.7%
increase in the predicted odds of being more trusting of the police. Therefore,
lack of informal social controls and social cohesion in a neighborhood are
associated with lack of trust in the police.
The exclusion of procedural justice from the ordered logistic equation
seemed to allow several other significant relationships to be observed. As
would be expected based on prior literature, distributive injustice is negatively associated with trust in the police (b = −.182, p < .01; Tyler & Huo,
2002). A one standard deviation increase in the distributive injustice scale
corresponds with 23.2% reduction in trust. In addition, individuals who perceived more incivilities in their neighborhood (b = −.047, p < .01), individuals residing in the lower crime neighborhood (b = −.356, p < .05), and racial
minorities (b = −.278, p < .05) tended to have less trust in the police. The
“lower crime neighborhood” effect suggests that low levels of criminal activity in a neighborhood do not necessarily translate into a trusting relationship
with the police. Perhaps those from higher socioeconomic and educational
backgrounds are less inclined to believe that government agents such as the
police always have the community’s best interest in mind when making decisions. Finally, the finding that racial minorities tended to be less trusting of
the police is consistent with prior research (see, for example, Tyler, 2005).
Model 3 presents results from our full ordered logistic regression equation
that examines the additive effects of procedural justice and perceived
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
20
Crime & Delinquency
collective efficacy on trust, net of controls. Several findings from the analysis
merit attention. For starters, when compared with Model 2, the explanatory
power of Model 3 is increased significantly with the inclusion of procedural
justice (LR χ2 = 354.48, p < .01; McFadden’s R2 = .191). Consistent with the
baseline equation (see Model 1), evaluations of procedural justice are associated with trust in the police in the expected direction (b = .477, p < .01).
Individuals who believe the police treat people more fairly and with justice
are significantly more likely to trust officer motives. In addition, as evidenced
by the magnitude of the standardized effect (%StdX = 273.0), procedural
justice dominates the prediction of trust in the model. A single standard deviation increase in the procedural justice scale is expected to increase trust in
the police by a factor of almost three. The other statistically significant effects
come nowhere near the magnitude of the procedural justice effect, which is a
finding that squares well with prior research demonstrating the explanatory
power of the construct (see, for example, Tyler & Huo, 2002). In fact, a comparison of Models 2 and 3 reveals that accounting for perceptions of procedural justice renders the effects of distributive injustice, lower crime
neighborhood, and racial minority to statistical insignificance (Tyler, 2005).
Finally, and most important for the present study, the ordered log-odds
coefficient (b) for perceived collective efficacy is reduced in magnitude by
52.5% (from .059 in Model 2 to .028 in Model 3). Although perceived collective efficacy still has a significant effect on trust (b = .028, p < .05), the data
clearly demonstrate that a large portion of the connection is explained by
evaluations of procedural justice. That is to say, folks who perceive less collective efficacy in their neighborhood are less likely to feel police behave
fairly (see Table 2) and, as a partial consequence of this procedural injustice,
are less trusting that law enforcement can make good decisions for their communities. At the same time, regardless of process-based evaluations, peoples’
social-psychological cognitive landscapes are partially responsible for shaping their level of trust in the police.3
Discussion
The process-based model of regulation holds that compliance, cooperation,
and empowerment from the public are more likely to occur when the public
perceives authority figures as trustworthy and legitimate (Tyler, 1990; Tyler
& Huo, 2002). While scholars have devoted a great deal of attention to the
sources and consequences of legitimacy, trust remains largely unexplored.
The present study demonstrated that perceived collective efficacy partially
shapes levels of trust among citizens. However, when perceptions of procedural justice are taken into consideration, the effect of perceived collective
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
21
Nix et al.
efficacy is largely mediated. Both of these findings fill important gaps in the
process-based literature. Strict adherence to Tyler’s process-based model
would suggest that procedural justice should completely override (i.e., mediate) the effect of perceived collective efficacy on levels of trust among citizens. Yet, our data reveal that perceived collective efficacy retains significance
even after accounting for procedural justice. This suggests that (a) procedural
justice is a primary antecedent of trust, and (b) perceived collective efficacy,
though not as strong as procedural justice, is important to the explanation of
trust in its own right. For that reason, future research should not overlook the
effect of citizen perceptions regarding collective efficacy when examining
trust in the police. With that said, several theoretical and practical implications require further discussion.
For starters, our findings advance the procedural justice literature in several important ways. First, our data reveal that perceptions of neighborhood
collective efficacy are associated with variation in evaluations of procedural
justice. Individuals situated in environments with anomic conditions (i.e.,
low collective efficacy) appear less inclined to view police actions as procedurally fair. The important task for future research is to explore this relationship in further detail. Specifically, it is necessary to uncover whether
breakdowns in neighborhood collective efficacy result in normlessness perceptions that lead to legal cynicism or if such neighborhoods are simply
policed differently. Klinger (1997), for instance, posits that police officers
will less vigorously respond to crime problems in communities with higher
levels of crime. Perhaps lack of police attention to community problems
causes people in neighborhoods with lower levels of collective efficacy to
provide lower evaluations of procedural justice. Exploring the causal process
between perceived collective efficacy and procedural justice is an essential
next step for future inquiry.
Second, the present study offered evidence that perceptions of procedural
fairness are associated with greater trust in local law enforcement. This finding expands on the rather limited, yet growing literature on the antecedents of
trust in the police (Jackson et al., 2012; Sargeant et al., 2013; Tyler, 2005;
Tyler & Huo, 2002). Procedural fairness—respect, neutrality, and status recognition—appears to play a central role in individuals’ normative evaluation
process regarding the level of trust given to law enforcement authorities.
While distinct concepts, our results indicate that the process-based model
explains citizen trust in the police much like it explains evaluations of police
legitimacy. That is, perceptions of procedural justice are more important than
other relevant factors such as distributive justice, contact with the police,
prior victimization, perceptions of neighborhood context, and demographic
characteristics in explaining normative beliefs about the trustworthiness of
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
22
Crime & Delinquency
police officers. Along these lines, thoughtful theorizing and rigorous research
are needed with respect to the distinction between trust and legitimacy.
Scholars such as Tankebe (2013; see also Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012) and
Jackson and colleagues (2012) have begun questioning Tyler’s (1990; see
also Tyler & Huo, 2002) conceptualization of legitimacy. Emerging empirical
research suggests that trust and legitimacy are distinct (Gau, 2011, 2013;
Reisig et al., 2007) but limitations in theoretical conceptualization currently
preclude a complete understanding of specific differences between the concepts. We encourage continued research in this area to improve our overall
understanding of the process-based model of policing and the extent to which
trust and legitimacy are separate normative attitudes regarding law enforcement. It will also be important to determine whether trust and legitimacy have
different effects on compliance, cooperation, or empowerment.
The current study’s second implication is related to Sampson and
Bartusch’s (1988) demonstration that macro-level conditions influence attitudes toward the police. In short, there is an ecological taxonomy whereby
cognitive landscapes emerge. Residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods are
more likely to be cynical of the law and the police. Our findings suggest that
a similar process may be operating at the individual level. That is, one’s perception of his or her surroundings functions as a social-psychological mechanism that shapes his or her cognitive orientation toward law enforcement.
This is important because it expands on existing macro-level research and
specifies a potential mechanism by which neighborhood conditions influence
normative evaluations of formal social control agents. In sum, perception of
neighborhood context is reality and it manifests itself in evaluations of police
trustworthiness.
Relatedly, one of the most important findings from this study was that
procedural justice mediated much of the link between perceived collective
efficacy and trust. A close reading of Tyler’s (1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002) process-based model of policing would seem to suggest that procedural justice is
the most important antecedent of trust in the police and that it should render
other demographic and contextual influences less meaningful (i.e., it should
mediate those effects). Accordingly, our findings partially support Tyler’s
framework—more than half of the relationship between perceived collective
efficacy and trust is explained by perceptions of procedural fairness.
Nonetheless, perceived neighborhood collective efficacy remained a statistically significant predictor of level of trust in the police after accounting for
variation in procedural justice perceptions. The take away message is that
failing to account for evaluations of procedural justice will artificially inflate
the observed influence of perceived collective efficacy on trust; however,
one’s social-psychological orientation toward neighborhood circumstances is
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
23
Nix et al.
still important in explaining trust even after accounting for the effect of procedural justice. The present study, therefore, demonstrates the potential utility of integrating individual perceptions of neighborhood context into the
overall process-based model of policing.
Consistent with previous process-based model research, our findings have
important policy implications. Chief among them is that procedural fairness
matters far more than anything else we accounted for in shaping levels of
trust in the police. Our results suggest that evaluations of procedural justice
partially override the influence that negative neighborhood and social environments may have on citizens’ trust in the police. This finding is important
with respect to policing efforts because officers spend much of their time in
neighborhoods characterized by concentrated disadvantage and low levels of
collective efficacy (Klinger, 1997; Sampson & Bartusch, 1998; Smith, 1986).
In such areas, it is imperative that police officers exercise their authority in a
procedurally fair manner because residents of these neighborhoods appear to
have less favorable attitudes toward the police to begin with. While residents
of these neighborhoods are more likely to be distrusting of authorities, our
findings suggest that trust can be established between such individuals and
the police if officers maintain a high level of respect, politeness, and fairness
during their duties. Conversely, if officers fail to be polite or treat citizens in
these areas disrespectfully, levels of mistrust could be exacerbated. This has
real consequences for police officers because lack of trust breeds less compliance with the law and officer directives, less cooperative behavior (e.g.,
offering information relevant to criminal investigations), and less willingness
to empower local police with greater resources.
The results of this study are not without limitations. For one, we were
unable to account for compositional effects on trust in the police by measuring neighborhood-level characteristics. Unfortunately, we only had survey
data from respondents who lived in four neighborhoods, which is insufficient
to conduct multilevel analyses (Rabe-Hesketh & Skrondal, 2008).
The results of our study, however, suggest that it is important for future
research to explore the simultaneous (i.e., additive) effect of macro-level and
perceptual indicators of neighborhood context on evaluations of the police.
This will allow for a richer understanding of whether context or perceptions
of context matter more in explaining trust in local law enforcement. In addition, our measure of trust in the police captured only “motive-based” trust.
Future work could help move this line of inquiry forward by examining the
influence of perceived collective efficacy and procedural justice on different
conceptual forms of trust (e.g., institutional trust) or scales that capture various components of trust (see e.g., Tyler & Huo, 2002). Finally, our data were
unable to speak about potential differences in the effects of procedural justice
and perceived collective efficacy on trust in the police between Whites and
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
24
Crime & Delinquency
ethnic minorities. The city from which the current sample was drawn is almost
equally represented by Whites and African Americans and, therefore, offers
limited ability to examine trust in the police among Hispanics. Future research
could move the procedural justice literature forward by examining the applicability of the process-based model to Hispanics’ and other ethnic minorities’
evaluations of law enforcement (see, for example, Sargeant et al., 2013).
In conclusion, individuals’ social-psychological orientation toward their
neighborhoods is important. This finding suggests future researchers may
wish to explore the difference between macro- and individual-level (i.e., perceptional) neighborhood indicators on trust and legitimacy evaluations (as
well as other attitudes toward the police). For example, simply because one
resides in a disadvantaged neighborhood does not necessarily imply that he
or she will perceive it as disorganized or dangerous (and vice versa). If true,
the question for researchers is to explain why such differences in perception
of neighborhood conditions develop in the face of objective indicators. In
addition, how do differences in subjective perceptions of neighborhood context and objective measures of context explain individuals’ behaviors and
evaluations of the legal authorities? That is, do compositional effects matter
more or does perception of one’s neighborhood reflect reality? Furthermore,
because the present study was concerned only with sources of trust, future
researchers might wish to explore its potential consequences. That is, are
cooperation, compliance, and empowerment more likely to occur when residents are trusting of the police? And, does trust in law enforcement explain
more of these outcomes than subjective or objective neighborhood indicators? In the end, our results underscore the predictive accuracy and explanatory power of Tyler’s process-based theory. We add to the literature by
demonstrating its utility in explaining trust in the police—something relatively unexplored in detail to date. In addition, we advance the literature by
demonstrating that perceived neighborhood collective efficacy is also an
important antecedent of trust evaluations. Future research should continue to
test the limits of the process-based model of policing, especially in light of
the potential practical importance of the framework.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers and editor for their helpful comments
and suggestions on an earlier draft of this manuscript.
Authors’ Note
The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department
of Justice.
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
25
Nix et al.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by
Grant 2009-DG-BX-K021, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of
Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Notes
1.
2.
3.
We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting that we conduct supplemental
analyses that examine the independent effects of “informal social control” and
“social cohesion” on trust in the police. All models presented below were reestimated by separately analyzing the effects of “informal social control” and
“social cohesion” on procedural justice (Table 2) and trust in the police (Table
3, Models 2 and 3). The analyses produced identical results in terms of significance and direction as those presented below. Therefore, we are confident that
our results are not influenced by alternative operationalizations of collective efficacy (or components of the concept) and the combined scale does not produce
misleading results.
Additional analyses were also conducted given the characteristics of the neighborhoods selected as part of the larger targeted law enforcement initiative. We
estimated all models reported below separately for the three homogeneous
neighborhoods and the “lower crime neighborhood,” and all substantive results
remained unchanged. We also thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting supplemental analyses using dummy variables for the three higher crime neighborhoods and the lower crime neighborhood as the reference category (as opposed
to the single binary “lower crime neighborhood” indicator). All observed relationships in these supplemental analyses mirrored the results presented below
in terms of sign and significance. These robustness checks provide us with confidence that our results are not biased as a result of our coding strategy or any
idiosyncrasies of the neighborhoods from which the sample was drawn.
A problem often encountered when using ordered logistic regression is that the
parallel-lines (i.e., proportional-odds) assumption is violated (Williams, 2006).
That is, one or more coefficients in the model may differ across values of the
dependent variable. The Brant (1990; see also, Long & Freese, 2006) test was
used to determine whether each of the regression coefficients estimated in the
ordered logistic models were similar across categories of trust in the police. One
variable—procedural justice—in Model 3, Table 3 marginally violated the parallel-lines assumption. In such instances, Williams (2006) advocates estimating
a generalized ordered logit equation using Stata’s gologit2 command. Using the
partial proportional-odds model, generalized ordered logit allows some of the
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
26
Crime & Delinquency
regression coefficients to be the same across all values of the outcome variable
and others to differ. The relaxation allows different coefficients to be estimated
for procedural justice across categories of trust in the police. Allowing all parameter estimates to vary across values of the dependent variable would result in a
model equivalent to the multinomial logit but such a model lacks parsimony
and interpretability (see, for example, Breen, Luijkx, Müller, & Pollak, 2009;
Williams, 2006). To check the robustness of our results we re-estimated the trust
in police equations using generalized ordered logit models. The findings from
these analyses left our substantive conclusions unchanged. Given that the slight
violation of the proportional-odds model does not bias the results, and for ease
of interpretation, we report findings from the ordered logit models.
References
Acock, A. C. (2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family,
67, 1012-1028.
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the
Inner City. W.W. Norton.
Austin, D. M., Furr, L. A., & Spine, M. (2002). The effects of neighborhood conditions on perceptions of safety. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 417-427.
Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies: A comparative analysis.
Human Relations, 52, 421-438.
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics. New York,
NY: John Wiley.
Bittner, E. (1972). The functions of the police in modern society (2nd ed.). Washington,
DC: National Institute of Mental Health.
Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach
to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102,
119-170.
Brant, R. (1990). Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal
logistic regression. Biometrics, 46, 1171-1178.
Breen, R., Luijkx, R., Müller, W., & Pollak, R. (2009). Nonpersistent inequality
in educational attainment: Evidence from eight European countries. American
Journal of Sociology, 114, 1475-1521.
Brown, B., & Benedict, W. R. (2002). Perceptions of the police: Past findings,
methodological issues, conceptual issues and policy implications. Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25, 543-580.
Brunson, R. K., & Gau, J. M. (2011). Officer race versus macro-level context: A
test of competing hypotheses about black citizens’ experiences with and perceptions of black police officers. Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/0011128711398027
Cao, L., Frank, J., & Cullen, F. T. (1996). Race, community context and confidence
in the police. American Journal of Police, 15(1), 3-22.
Carlin, J. B., Galati, J. C., & Royston, P. (2008). A new framework for managing and
analyzing multiply imputed data in Stata. Stata Journal, 8, 49-67.
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
27
Nix et al.
Carr, P. J., Napolitano, L., & Keating, J. (2007). We never call the cops and here is
why: A qualitative examination of legal cynicism in three Philadelphia neighborhoods. Criminology, 45, 445-480.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.
Decker, S. H. (1981). Citizen attitudes toward the police: A review of past findings
and suggestions for future policy. Journal of Police Science and Administration,
9, 80-87.
Dillman, D. A., Phelps, G., Tortora, R., Swift, K., Kohrell, J., Berck, J., & Messer, B.
L. (2009). Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys
using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Social
Science Research, 38, 1-18.
Engel, R. S. (2003). Explaining suspects’ resistance and disrespect toward police.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 475-492.
Engel, R. S. (2005). Citizens’ perceptions of injustice during traffic stops with police.
Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 42, 445-481.
Fischer, C. S. (1995). The subcultural theory of urbanism: A twentieth-year assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 543-577.
Frank, J., Brandl, S. T., Cullen, F. T., & Stichman, A. (1996). Reassessing the impact
of race on citizens’ attitudes toward the police: A research note. Justice Quarterly,
13, 321-334.
Fyfe, J. J. (1986). The split-second syndrome and other determinants of police violence. In A. Campbell & J. Gibbs (Eds.), Violent transactions (pp. 207-223).
Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Gau, J. M. (2011). The convergent and discriminant validity of procedural justice and
police legitimacy: An empirical test of core theoretical propositions. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 39, 489-498.
Gau, J. M. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A test of measurement
and structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 1-19.
Gau, J. M., Corsaro, N., Stewart, E. A., & Brunson, R. K. (2012). Examining macrolevel impacts on procedural justice and police legitimacy. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 40, 333-343.
Gau, J. M., & Pratt, T. C. (2008). Broken windows or window dressing? Citizens’ (in)
ability to tell the difference between disorder and crime. Criminology & Public
Policy, 7, 163-194.
Hawdon, J. (2008). Legitimacy, trust, social capital, and policing styles: A theoretical
statement. Police Quarterly, 11, 182-201.
Hindelang, M. J. (1974). Public opinion regarding crime, criminal justice, and related
topics. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 11, 101-116.
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T. R. (2012).
Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions’. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 1051-1071.
Kirk, D. S., & Matsuda, M. (2011). Legal cynicism, collective efficacy, and the ecology of arrest. Criminology, 49, 443-472.
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
28
Crime & Delinquency
Klinger, D. A. (1997). Negotiating order in patrol work: An ecological theory of
police response to deviance. Criminology, 35, 277-306.
Kochel, T. R. (2012). Can police legitimacy promote collective efficacy? Justice
Quarterly, 29, 384-419.
Kornhauser, R. R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency: An appraisal of analytic
models. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lai, Y., & Zhao, J. S. (2010). The impact of race/ethnicity, neighborhood context,
and police/citizen interaction on residents’ attitudes toward the police. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 38, 685-692.
Lasley, J. R. (1994). The impact of the Rodney King incident on citizen attitudes
toward police. Policing & Society, 3, 245-255.
Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of mediation, confounding, and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173-181.
Mason, C. H., & Perreault, W. D. (1991). Collinearity, power, and interpretation of
multiple regression analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 268-280.
Murphy, K., & Tyler, T. (2008). Procedural justice and compliance behaviour: The
mediating role of emotions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 652668.
Pickett, J. T., Chiricos, T., Golden, K. M., & Gertz, M. (2012). Reconsidering the
relationship between perceived neighborhood racial composition and Whites’
perceptions of victimization risk: Do racial stereotypes matter? Criminology, 50,
145-186.
Piquero, N. L., & Bouffard, L. A. (2003). A preliminary and partial test of specific
defiance. Journal of Crime & Justice, 26, 1-21.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using
Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Reisig, M. D., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. G. (2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34,
1005-1028.
Reisig, M. D., & Parks, R. (2000). Experience, quality of life, and neighborhood context: A hierarchical analysis of satisfaction with police. Justice Quarterly, 17,
607-630.
Reisig, M. D., & Parks, R. (2003). Neighborhood context, police behavior and satisfaction with police. Justice Research and Policy, 5, 37-66.
Reisig, M. D., Wolfe, S. E., & Holtfreter, K. (2011). Legal cynicism, legitimacy, and
criminal offending: The non-confounding effect of low self-control. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 38, 1265-1279.
Ren, L., Cao, L., Lovrich, N., & Gaffney, M. (2005). Linking confidence in the police
with the performance of the police: Community policing can make a difference.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 55-66.
Ross, C. E., & Jang, S. J. (2000). Neighborhood disorder, fear, and mistrust: The
buffering role of social ties with neighbors. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 28, 401-420.
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
29
Nix et al.
Ross, C. E., Mirowsky, J., & Pribesh, S. (2001). Powerlessness and the amplification of threat: Neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and mistrust. American
Sociological Review, 66, 568-591.
Royston, P. (2004). Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata Journal, 4, 227-241.
Sampson, R. J., & Bartusch, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: The neighborhood context of racial differences. Law & Society
Review, 32, 777-804.
Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing
social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774-802.
Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2004). Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma
and the social construction of “broken windows.” Social Psychology Quarterly,
67, 319-342.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent
crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.
Sarat, A. (1977). Studying American legal culture. Law & Society Review, 11, 427488.
Sargeant, E., Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2013). Ethnicity, trust and cooperation with
police: Testing the dominance of the process-based model. European Journal of
Criminology. Advance online publication. doi:1477370813511386
Schafer, J. A., Huebner, B. M., & Bynum, T. S. (2003). Citizen perceptions of
police services: Race, neighborhood context, and community policing. Police
Quarterly, 6, 440-468.
Schuck, A. M., Rosenbaum, D. P., & Hawkins, D. F. (2008). The influence of race/
ethnicity, social class, and neighborhood context on residents’ attitudes toward
the police. Police Quarterly, 11, 496-519.
Shaw, C., & McKay, H. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Smith, D. A. (1986). The neighborhood context of police behavior. Crime and Justice,
8, 313-341.
Sun, I. Y., Hu, R., Wong, D. F. K., He, X., & Li, J. C. M. (2013). One country, three
populations: Trust in police among migrants, villagers, and urbanites in China.
Social Science Research, 42, 1737-1749.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in
shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37, 513-548.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Tankebe, J. (2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions
of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51, 103-135.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Turanovic, J. J., & Pratt, T. C. (2012). “Can’t stop, won’t stop”: Self-control, risky
lifestyles, and repeat victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10940-012-9188-4
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
30
Crime & Delinquency
Tyler, T. R. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority
and minority group members want from the law and legal authorities? Behavioral
Science & the Law, 19, 215-235.
Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law.
Crime and Justice, 30, 283-357.
Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 593, 84-99.
Tyler, T. R. (2005). Policing in Black and White: Ethnic group differences in trust and
confidence in the police. Police Quarterly, 8, 322-342.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation
with the police and courts. New York, NY: Russell-Sage.
Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural
justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of authority. Criminology, 42, 253281.
Weitzer, R. (1999). Citizens’ perceptions of police misconduct: Race and neighborhood context. Justice Quarterly, 16, 819-846.
Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2004). Race and perceptions of police misconduct. Social
Problems, 51, 305-325.
Wells, W., Schafer, J. A., Varano, S. P., & Bynum, T. S. (2006). Neighborhood residents’ production of order: The effects of collective efficacy on responses to
neighborhood problems. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 523-550.
Williams, R. (2006). Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for
ordinal dependent variables. Stata Journal, 6, 58-82.
Wolfe, S. E. (2011). The effect of low self-control on perceived police legitimacy.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 67-74.
Wu, Y., & Sun, I. Y. (2009). Citizen trust in police: The case of China. Police
Quarterly, 12, 170-191.
Wu, Y., Sun, I. Y., & Triplett, R. A. (2009). Race, class or neighborhood context:
Which matters more in measuring satisfaction with police? Justice Quarterly,
26, 1, 125-156.
Author Biographies
Justin Nix is a PhD student in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice
at the University of South Carolina. His research interests include policing, theory,
and procedural justice.
Scott E. Wolfe is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology and
Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina. He received his PhD from
Arizona State University in 2012. His research has appeared in a variety of scholarly
journals, including British Journal of Criminology, Criminal Justice and Behavior,
Journal of Criminal Justice, and Social Science Research.
Jeff Rojek is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal
Justice at the University of South Carolina. He received his PhD from University of
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014
31
Nix et al.
Missouri–St. Louis in 2005. His research has appeared in a variety of scholarly journals, including Criminology, Justice Quarterly, and Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency.
Robert J. Kaminski is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology and
Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina. He received his PhD from The
University at Albany, State University of New York in 2002. His research has
appeared in a variety of scholarly journals, including Justice Quarterly, Criminology
and Public Policy, and Journal of Criminal Justice.
Downloaded from cad.sagepub.com by guest on April 18, 2014