Content uploaded by Jonathan Jackson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jonathan Jackson on Sep 05, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
Popular Legitimacy and the Exercise of Legal Authority:
Motivating Compliance, Cooperation, and Engagement
Tom R. Tyler and Jonathan Jackson
Online First Publication, November 25, 2013. doi: 10.1037/a0034514
CITATION
Tyler, T. R., & Jackson, J. (2013, November 25). Popular Legitimacy and the Exercise of Legal
Authority: Motivating Compliance, Cooperation, and Engagement. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0034514
Popular Legitimacy and the Exercise of Legal Authority:
Motivating Compliance, Cooperation, and Engagement
Tom R. Tyler
Yale Law School
Jonathan Jackson
London School of Economics & Political Science
The traditional goal of legal authorities has been to obtain widespread public compliance with the law.
Empirical research findings have shown that legitimacy—typically operationalized as the perceived
obligation to obey and trust and confidence in the relevant institutions—plays an important role in
achieving such compliance. But over time the goals of legal authorities have broadened in 2 ways. First,
they increasingly include the desire to motivate willing cooperation, with legal authorities and members
of the public working together to produce social order. Second, conceptions of the goals of the legal
system have broadened to include the importance of promoting public engagement in communities in
efforts to build social, political and economic vitality. Drawing on these broader goals—and building
upon recent conceptual advances in the meaning of legitimacy—we report findings from a major new
national survey of U.S. citizens. We examine the role that legitimacy plays in achieving each of these
goals of law and in defining the policies and practices of the police and courts which influence
legitimacy. Importantly, we also consider whether a focus on achieving this broader set of goals leads to
a need to reexamine the traditional theoretical conception of legitimacy. Our findings support the utility
of a multidimensional conception of legitimacy that differentiates between consent to authority and
normative justifiability of power.
Keywords: legitimacy, compliance, cooperation, community engagement
The empirical study of legitimacy (e.g., Sunshine & Tyler,
2003; Tyler, 2006b) has demonstrated that when authorities are
viewed as legitimate they are better able to motivate people to
comply with the law. In such research legitimacy is typically
operationalized as (1) people’s authorization of legal authority to
dictate appropriate behavior and (2) people’s trust and confidence
that legal authorities are honest and act in ways that have citizens’
best interests at heart (Tyler & Jackson, 2013). Thus defined,
legitimacy has been linked to a number of different law-related
behaviors, including compliance with the law and cooperation with
legal authorities (e.g., Murphy, Tyler, & Curtis, 2009; Papachris-
tos, Meares, & Fagan, 2012; Huq, Tom, & Schulhofer, 2011; Huq,
Tyler, & Schulhofer, 2011; Jackson, Bradford, Hough, et al., 2012;
Jackson, Bradford, Stanko, & Hohl, 2012; Tyler, Schulhofer, &
Huq, 2010).
An empirical connection between legitimacy and compliance
with the law makes theoretical sense. Discussions of values em-
phasize the ability of social values to motivate people to deviate
from the pursuit of their short term self-interest—to take actions
consistent with their conceptions of what is appropriate and right
both in terms of perceived responsibility to authorities and through
trust and confidence in those authorities (Tyler, 2006a, 2006b,
2011). In particular, conceptualizing legitimacy in part as the
perceived obligation to obey fits a traditional model of social
regulation in which legal authority is centralized in legal elites who
determine rules and make decisions. Legal elites expect the public
to accept their authority and comply with the law; legitimacy as
authorization and perceived obligation means that people allow
legal authorities to prescribe their behavior when enforcing rules.
People obey the law because they believe that legal authorities
have the right to dictate appropriate behavior. Obligation and
responsibility to obey authorities is distinct from another important
value: morality. Psychologists have also demonstrated that peo-
ple’s behavior is influenced by their own personal sense of right
and wrong (see, e.g., Kohlberg, 1969).
Yet, while the traditional literature on legitimacy has linked it to
compliance with professional directives, in recent years legal au-
thorities have broadened their views about the appropriate rela-
tionship between legal authorities and the public in several ways.
A second model of legal authority focuses on motivating not
compliance but cooperation with legal authorities, with people in
the community viewed as working together voluntarily to copro-
duce social order. In such a model the central issue is whether
people willingly embrace cooperation with the police and the
courts. Here conceptualizing legitimacy in part as trust and confi-
dence makes sense. If people feel that the authorities are sincere,
benevolent and concerned about their welfare, then they will trust
them to act in ways that benefit the people over whom they
exercise authority. Citizens will trust that power-holders exercise
Tom R. Tyler, Yale Law School; Jonathan Jackson, Department of
Methodology and Mannheim Centre for Criminology, London School of
Economics & Political Science, London, UK.
This research was supported by grants from Yale Law School and New
York University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tom R.
Tyler, Yale Law School, 127 Wall Street, New Haven, CT 06511. E-mail:
tom.tyler@yale.edu
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law © 2013 American Psychological Association
2013, Vol. 19, No. 4, 000 1076-8971/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0034514
1
their power in ways that encapsulate subordinate interests, and
they will cooperate with authorities that they trust.
The third model has the goal of using law and the legal system
to facilitate community engagement, and through this enhance
social, political, and economic development in those communities.
The argument underlying this view of law and legal authority is
that law needs to fill a broader role than maintaining social order.
It needs to facilitate development of the type of attitudes and
values that will lead communities to address their underlying
problems, problems recognized as being the root causes of crime
and disorder.
Despite the importance of motivating engagement, prior empir-
ical research has thus far only explored the links between legiti-
macy and compliance (e.g., Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2006a;
Murphy et al., 2009; Jackson, Bradford, Hough et al., 2012),
legitimacy and cooperation (e.g., Tyler & Fagan, 2008; Tyler et al.,
2010; Jackson, Bradford, Stanko, & Hohl, 2012), and legitimacy
and normative beliefs about the acceptability of violence (Jackson
et al., 2013). Studies have rarely linked legitimacy to people’s
political and economic engagement and activity. A central aim of
the present study is to address this gap in the literature.
In this study we report the findings from a recent national
probability study of United States citizens. This study is the first
national level survey to systematically examine the legitimacy of
the police, the courts, and the law. In it we explore a wider range
of goals, focusing not just on compliance with the law and coop-
eration with legal authorities in maintaining order but also engage-
ment with the community. We further examine the utility of a new
approach to defining and measuring legitimacy. Although the
broader set of goals outlined increases the potential importance of
legitimacy, it also raises questions about the adequacy of tradi-
tional conceptualizations of legitimacy (Tyler & Jackson, 2013).
Perceived obligations and trust and confidence are values linked to
acceptance of the directives of authorities, for example, they are
reactive. Yet, cooperation and engagement also involve self-
initiated proactive behaviors.
An important recent extension of the conceptualization of legit-
imacy, which is more clearly linked to motivating proactive be-
havior is identification with the police based upon shared purposes,
values, and goals. Jackson, Bradford, Hough et al. (2012) and
Jackson, Bradford, Stanko, & Hohl (2012) refer to this idea as
moral alignment, that is, the publics’ belief that the police’s sense
of goals and purposes and values align with their own. Jackson and
colleagues have argued that this sense of normative alignment
leads people in that community not only to believe that the power
of authorities is normatively justified, but also to identify with
legal authorities and thus cooperate. The goals of the authorities
become the goals of the individual through the mechanism of
community identification. The key point about moral alignment is
that it is normative in nature and does not reflect an instrumental
desire such as the desire to lower the crime rate.
In this study we replicate prior work on compliance and coop-
eration using a national probability sample of U.S. citizens. Im-
portantly, we also generate new insights into why people engage
socially and politically in their community. We find that the
authorization of authority is most important for compliance; that
trust and confidence are most important for cooperation; and that
normative alignment is most important for social and political
engagement. We thus demonstrate the utility of a tri-partite defi-
nition of legitimacy that differentiates between (a) the perceived
obligation to obey, (b) trust and confidence, and (c) normative
alignment. We argue that these are three constituent aspects of
legitimacy in the eyes of citizens.
The study proceeds as follows. In the next section we outline
three different goals of legal authority. We then consider the
meaning and measurement of legitimacy, before considering the
factors that shape legitimacy. After a summary of the research
objectives, method, and results, we conclude with some of the
implications of our study for public policy and future research.
Goals of Legal Authority
Compliance With the Law
Traditional examinations of the relationship between communi-
ties and legal authorities have emphasized the importance of public
compliance with laws and the decisions of duly constituted legal
authorities. This view is based upon a model of centralized au-
thorities determining legal policies and practices using their train-
ing and expertise, that is, a professionalized model for the admin-
istration of the police and the courts. Emphasis is on
professionalism in legal authority that is “insular, homogenous,
and largely autonomous” and “purposely distanced” from commu-
nities (Sklansky, 2011).
The goal in a professionalized model of legal authority is to
motivate the type of public behavior most closely associated with
a command and control model: namely, compliance. In the case of
the law, Fuller argues that legal authorities “must be able to
anticipate that the citizenry as a whole will. . .generally observe the
body of rules” created by judicial authorities (1969, p. 201). In the
case of the police, Kelling and Moore (1988) note the following:
“The proper role of citizens in crime control [is as] relatively
passive recipients of professional crime control services,” with
which they are expected to comply.
Early efforts to motivate compliance focused on the threat or use
of punishment through strategies of deterrence, but more recent
studies have suggested that the public is also more willing to
comply with the law when they view law and legal authorities as
legitimate and hence feel an obligation to obey (Tyler, 2006a,
2006b). Legal authorities value legitimacy because it motivates
compliance with command and control generated decisions.
Whatever the merits of professional decision making by legal
authorities their popular legitimacy has remained moderately fa-
vorable at best and constant across recent decades, and a long-
standing racial gap in the legitimacy of the police and courts has
not disappeared (Peffley & Hurwitz, 2010). As the goals of the
legal system have broadened to include cooperation with commu-
nities in fighting crime (Institute on Race and Justice, Northeastern
University, 2008; Kelling & Moore, 1988; Sklansky, 2011), these
intermediate levels of legitimacy—50% to 60% of Americans
express confidence in the police (Gallup poll)— have been of
increasing concern because studies consistently find that legiti-
macy is especially relevant to more voluntary actions (Tyler,
2006a, 2006b; 2011).
Cooperation With Legal Authorities
Legal authorities recognize the value of active voluntary public
cooperation with the police and the courts. Cooperation includes
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2TYLER AND JACKSON
willing acceptance of legal authority, deference to the decisions
made by judges and police officers, everyday rule adherence, and
willingness to aid the police in identifying crime and criminals and
the judicial system in prosecuting it by serving as a witness or a
juror. Studies have demonstrated that legitimacy is an important
antecedent of all of these forms of cooperation, shaping the will-
ingness to accept legal authority (Jackson et al., in press), defer-
ence (Tyler & Huo, 2002), everyday rule adherence, and aiding the
police and criminal courts (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler &
Fagan, 2008). Hence the importance of legitimacy becomes even
more central to the degree that cooperation is the goal of the legal
system.
Studies of legitimacy support the argument that traditional con-
ceptions of legitimacy defined in terms of the obligation to obey
and trust and confidence captures an important element of its
influence upon cooperation (Tyler & Fagan, 2008). But they also
point to the potential value of expanding the framework of legit-
imacy. Normative alignment—the belief that police officers seem
to share the purposes, goals, and values of the community— has
been found to be distinctly related to cooperation (Bradford, 2012;
Jackson, Bradford, Hough, Myhill, Quinton & Tyler, 2012).
Engagement
Studies of long-term approaches to social order point to the
importance of creating viable communities. Recognizing that “you
cannot arrest your way out of crime,” the police and courts have
increasingly focused upon the objective of building economic,
political, and social development as a means of long-term order
maintenance (Geller & Belsky, 2009). This argument parallels the
scholarly literature on creating viable communities, which empha-
sizes the importance of developing the shared attitudes which
motivate engagement (Loader & Walker, 2006). Sampson,
Raudenbush, and Earls (1997), for example, argue that the collec-
tive willingness of neighbors to intervene for the common good
supports lower levels of crime and violence. Recent studies sug-
gest that such feelings of efficacy are encouraged by police legit-
imacy (Kochel, 2012; Sargeant, Wickes & Mazerolle, 2013).
The goal of engagement fits well with the recent literature
within work organizations which emphasizes the goal of engaging
employees in work through building their identification with their
organization (Blader & Tyler, 2009; Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003).
Research indicates that when employees identify with their orga-
nization and its leaders, they take on the values of the group,
develop favorable attitudes and feelings toward their work, and
engage in voluntary actions motivated by the desire to help their
group be viable and effective (Tyler & Blader, 2000). This is the
type of engagement that is also the goal of community authorities
seeking to motivate their members to be concerned about the
viability of their communities.
Shared feelings of obligation and responsibility to obey rules
and trust and confidence in authorities encourage compliance and
cooperation in fighting crime (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler &
Fagan, 2008), but whether or not they have a role in shaping
engagement has not been examined. Legitimacy defined as shared
goals, purposes, and values has been linked to identification with
a group and to a broader willingness to actively and willingly
engage in working with others in the group to address collective
issues (Tyler, 2011). It is this broader sense of legitimacy which is
central to legitimacy and engagement (Bradford, 2012; Hough et
al., 2010, 2013a, 2013b; Jackson, Bradford, Hough et al., 2012;
Jackson, Bradford, Stanko, & Hohl, 2012b); the increasing impor-
tance of this goal suggests the need to consider which elements of
legitimacy are important in promoting engagement.
It is clear that the actions of legal authorities have an impact on
people’s views about society and government (Tyler, Casper &
Fisher, 1989). Because the actions of legal authorities generalize to
views about society and government, it should be possible to
develop strategies of law enforcement that are socially beneficial
because they help to build identification with government and
society, as well as creating feelings of obligation. For example, the
police can help give government a broader legitimacy that would
lead people to engage in economic and social activities in their
own cities. They can build the type of psychological connections
that lead people to work willingly and enthusiastically in their
communities in many other ways ranging from shopping in stores
to going to local restaurants. In other words, rather than being
viewed as a (necessary) cost, the legal system can develop policies
and practices that generate supportive attitudes and values that
enhance communities.
Although many types of government authority could potentially
shape views about one’s self and one’s community (Kahn, Katz, &
Gutek, 1976; Lipsky, 1980), the assumption underlying the en-
gagement model is that people are more likely to live in and visit
communities in which they feel that they will be well treated by the
legal authorities they are most likely to encounter—the police.
This benefits communities economically because people more
willingly come to them to work, to shop, as tourists, and for
entertainment and sporting events. Hence, the police play a central
role in creating the reassurance that makes a community inviting
and desirable to the general public.
More generally the law provides a framework for building
vibrant, successful communities. If people feel reassured by the
presence of the police, and believe that they will be protected and,
if they need it, helped, then they will be encouraged to engage in
their communities socially and economically. When people engage
in such behaviors they build social capital and the sense of efficacy
that has broad social value. If people engage in their communities,
they will come to know others and know how to work with them
when problems arise in the community. They build trust in others
and develop the belief that others can and will join together to
address issues when they arise. By providing a framework of
reassurance the police can potentially create the climate that allows
the community to develop valuable psychological and sociological
characteristics. Such engagement may be further facilitated when
there are functioning courts that can resolve conflicts and enforce
rules (Breyer, 2011). The goal of this study is to examine whether,
in fact, the legal system can as argued play a role in encouraging
engagement.
Legitimate institutions help foster identification with collectiv-
ities and the willingness to act on their behalf (i.e., collective
efficacy, see Kochel, Parks, & Mastrofski, 2011). Tyler and Blader
(2000, 2003) explore a similar relationship between people and the
collective in the context of work organizations. They demonstrate
that identification with authorities and institutions is central to
motivating the development of supportive attitudes and values, for
example legitimacy, as well as to motivating engaged cooperative
behavior. Hence, to the degree that the police and courts can build
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
3
POPULAR LEGITIMACY
identification with legal authorities and with the community itself,
they promote supportive public attitudes and voluntary cooperative
behaviors. The police and the courts can similarly build identifi-
cation with society and social institutions, and through that iden-
tification can motivate members of the community to more ac-
tively work on its behalf.
A Behavioral Approach to Evaluating Legitimacy
In early studies into police legitimacy, felt obligation to obey
legal authorities was operationalized through survey questions like
“People should obey the law even if it goes against what they think
is right” and “You should obey the police, even if you disagree
with the reasons for the action.” Trust and confidence was indexed
by items such as “On the whole Chicago police officers are
honest” and “The basic rights of citizens are well protected by the
Chicago courts.” These items were then combined into one index
of legitimacy. Capturing both authorization and motive-based
trust, such an index accords with the idea that to find an authority
to be legitimate is to feel that it is one’s duty to obey the instruc-
tions of police officers and judges (one grants legal institutions the
authority to dictate appropriate behavior) and that those authorities
have one’s best interests at heart (one believes that the power is
being exercised in ways that are justified). Of course, it is impor-
tant to recognize that in any society at least some people may see
laws and legal authorities as illegitimate and, to that degree, may
be unwilling to defer to authorities.
In this study we examine the utility of disentangling “obligation
to obey,” “trust and confidence,” and “normative alignment.” We
consider the value of treating obligation to obey as a separate
dimension of legitimacy, reflecting the internalization of the value
that it is appropriate to obey the police and the law. We also
consider the value of treating trust and confidence as a separate
dimension of legitimacy. If people feel that the authorities are
sincere, benevolent, and concerned about their welfare, then they
trust them to act in ways that benefit the people over whom they
exercise authority. Finally, we add an examination to the role of
normative alignment, the belief that power-holders have values,
goals and purposes that align with their own (Jackson et al., 2011;
Jackson, Bradford, Stanko, & Hohl, 2012).
Normative alignment can be seen as a constitutive (and sepa-
rate) dimension of legitimacy because it embodies a sense of
normative justifiability of power and authority in the eyes of the
citizens (Bradford, Jackson, & Hough, 2013; Bradford, Huq, et al.,
2013). When officers are viewed as having appropriate purposes,
goals, and values in the eyes of citizens, they are generating and
sustaining the normative validity of the power and authority of the
role and institution (European Social Survey, 2011, 2012). People
believe that their values and the goals and purposes of the police
are similar which validates power possession in the eyes of citizens
(Hough et al., 2013a, 2013b).
Other authors have used psychometric methods, factor analyz-
ing potentially relevant indices to identify elements of legitimacy
(Colquitt, 2001; Gau, 2011; Maguire & Johnson, 2010; Reisig,
Bratton & Gertz, 2007; Jackson, Bradford, Stanko, & Hohl, 2012;
Tankebe, 2009). While factor analysis can identify different di-
mensions that might define legitimacy, a distinct connection to
behaviors indicates that these dimensions have important behav-
ioral implications. So this study will use a behavioral approach,
specify these three dimensions of legitimacy a priori, and examine
how each predicts a range of different behaviors.
Our analysis thus far has identified three target behaviors (com-
pliance, cooperation, and engagement) and outlined three elements
of legitimacy (obligation, trust and confidence, and shared pur-
poses, goals, and values). The approach that will be taken to
evaluating each element of legitimacy is to examine its distinct
contribution to predicting these three behavioral goals. And, each
of these aspects of legitimacy is distinguished by its normative
content. In other words, it involves a judgment about what is
appropriate. For example, obligation is linked to the perceived
responsibility to accept authority, not to the costs or rewards of
deference; trust and confidence is linked to the character and
intentions of the authorities, not their competence or ability to
deliver services or safety; and normative alignment is an alignment
in values and purposes. While everyone in the community may
share the goal of stopping crime, normative alignment is about
shared values and purposes, for example, a shared sense of what is
right or wrong in terms of desirable defining characteristics of a
community and its members.
Creating and Sustaining Legitimacy
Why do people confer legitimacy on legal authorities? Research
points to the importance of procedural justice, that is, whether
authority figures wield their power in fair, just and neutral ways
(Tyler, 2006a, 2006b). The most immediate context of procedural
justice is the direct experience that citizens have with police and
court officials. The primary factor shaping decision acceptance
(when legal authorities make decisions concerning the individual
in question) is the procedural justice of the process through which
a decision was reached (Tyler, 2006b). Similar findings emerge
when studies examine why people have positive or negative views
about authorities. Again procedural justice is the key antecedent.
In particular, procedural justice shapes views about the overall
legitimacy of the law and the legal system (Tyler & Fagan, 2008).
In studies of the general population, people are similarly found
to regard the police as legitimate if they believe that the police
exercise their authority through fair and impartial means (Sunshine &
Tyler, 2003; Jackson et al., in press). Importantly, available evidence
suggests that procedural justice judgments are more central to
judgments of legitimacy than are such factors as the perceived
effectiveness of the police in combating crime. To the extent that
people perceive law enforcement officials as legitimate, they are
significantly more willing to comply with the law in general
(Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2006a).
Importantly, this work also shows the centrality of procedural
justice to normative alignment. When officers wield their power in
fair and just ways, this imbues them with a sense of appropriate
normative purpose and values in the eyes of citizens, in turn
strengthening the willingness of citizens to cooperate with legal
authorities (Jackson, Bradford, Hough et al., 2012; Jackson, Brad-
ford, Stanko, & Hohl, 2012).
As understood in U.S. communities, procedural justice is de-
fined in terms of four issues. First, people want to have an
opportunity to explain their situation or tell their side of the story
in a conflict. This opportunity to make arguments and present
evidence should occur before the police make decisions about
what to do. They are interested in having a forum in which they
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
4TYLER AND JACKSON
can tell their story, that is, they want to have a voice. Second,
people react to evidence that the authorities with whom they are
dealing are neutral. This involves making decisions based upon
consistently applied legal principles and the facts of the case, not
officer’s personal opinions and biases. Transparency or openness
about how decisions are being made facilitates the belief that
decision making procedures are neutral when it reveals that deci-
sions are being made in rule based and unbiased ways (Blader &
Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992).
Third, people are sensitive to whether they are treated with
dignity and politeness, and to whether their rights as citizens are
respected. The issue of interpersonal treatment consistently
emerges as a key factor in reactions to dealings with legal author-
ities (Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Huo, 2002; Tyler & Lind, 1992).
People believe that they are entitled to treatment with respect and
react very negatively to dismissive or demeaning interpersonal
treatment. Finally, people focus on cues that communicate infor-
mation about the intentions and character of the legal authorities
with whom they are dealing (“their trustworthiness”). People react
favorably to the judgment that the authorities with whom they are
interacting are benevolent and caring, and are sincerely trying to
do what is best for the people with whom they are dealing.
Authorities communicate this type of concern when they listen to
people’s accounts and explain or justify their actions in ways that
show an awareness of and sensitivity to people’s needs and con-
cerns (Blader & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992).
The key point about procedural justice is that being treated fairly
communicates value and respect within a group which fosters
compliance with group rules, promotes cooperation, and leads to
identification and engagement with the group. Hence, procedural
justice promotes legitimacy and advances each of the three goals
outlined: compliance, cooperation, and engagement.
Summary of Research Objectives
The purpose of this study is to test whether the legitimacy of law
and legal authorities motivates each of the three outlined forms of
connection between people and legal authorities: compliance, co-
operation and engagement. It seeks to compare the influence of
legitimacy to instrumental judgments about risk and performance.
It further examines whether the elements of legitimacy that are
important shift as the type of behavior being considered changes.
Finally, it explores the role that procedural justice plays in shaping
each of the three aspects of legitimacy outlined, and through them
each of the three types of behavior of concern.
Method
Participants
Participants for this study were drawn from a panel of compen-
sated respondents maintained by Knowledge Networks. Knowl-
edge Networks is a survey research firm in Menlo Park, CA which
maintains a panel of respondents who complete online question-
naires for compensation. The panel is designed, with appropriate
weighting, to approximate the demographics of the American
population.
The fieldwork was carried out between August and September
2012. Individuals in the panel were offered the opportunity to
complete this survey as part of their long-term commitment to the
organization. The research panel was comprised of a probability
sample of U.S. residents that was acquired through random digit
dialing and address-based sampling methodologies of online and
offline adults (18⫹). Selected respondents were contacted by
e-mail and provided with a laptop computer and Internet access if
needed. For this survey 2,561 respondents randomly chosen from
the larger ongoing panel of residents of the United States main-
tained by Knowledge Networks were invited to take part in the
survey and reminded after three days. This number was chosen to
produce an adequate number of completed questionnaires. Of
those who might particulate 1,603 individuals (62.5% response
rate) completed the survey either in English or in Spanish. Poten-
tial respondents read a description of the content of the study and
then choose whether to participate.
The sample was 48% male. It included 21% respondents who
were 29 or younger; 26% respondents who were 30 – 44; 28% of
respondents who were 45–59 and 26% respondents who were 60
or over. Education includes 30% high school graduates or less;
29% people with some college; and 29% college graduate or more.
The sample was 36% with an annual family income below
$40,000; 33% with an annual family income between $40,000 and
$84,000 and 31% with an annual family income $85,000 or above.
It was 6% Hispanic; 12% African American; 72% White; and 10%
other ethnicity. Finally; 41% were Republican; 55% were Demo-
cratic; and 4% were undecided.
The panel sample is designed to approximate a national sample
and the responses received were weighted to adjust for deviations
from a representative national sample. This adjustment involved
weighting respondents’ questionnaires based upon their demo-
graphic characteristics. The characteristics used were gender, age,
ethnicity, education, income, region, and primary language. The
comparison data were drawn from the Current Population Survey
(2010), with Hispanic data drawn from the 2010 Pew Hispanic
Center Survey. The weighted sample (n⫽1,603) should therefore
approximate a sample of American adults. A comparison of the
sample to 2012 Current Population demographics indicated no
significant deviations (Dennis, 2012). For example, in 2012 the
U.S. population was 72% White, and the sample was 72% White.
The U.S. population was 51% female, as was the sample. And in
2010 37% of the U.S. population was age 18 – 44, as was the
sample.
Materials and Procedure
The survey replicates measures from the “trust in justice” mod-
ule in Round 5 of the European Social Survey (Jackson et al.,
2011; European Social Survey, 2011, 2012; Hough et al., 2013a,
2013b), which itself modified measures used in a number of prior
U.S. studies (e.g., Tyler, 2006a; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Below
we detail the relevant indicators.
Outcome Variables
We distinguish between three goals of legal authorities: com-
pliance, cooperation, and engagement. We make a further distinc-
tion between cooperation as an action that directly helps the police
and criminal courts and cooperation as the belief that legal author-
ities monopolize rightful force in society.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
5
POPULAR LEGITIMACY
Compliance
Participants were asked how frequently they disobeyed five
everyday laws in the last five years (Never; once; twice; 3– 4
times; 5 or more times). The responses were skewed, with most
respondents indicating that they never engaged in these behaviors.
Major crimes were measured by asking about the following: “mak-
ing an exaggerated or false insurance claim (97% never)”; “Buying
something you think might be stolen (94% never)”; “Taking some-
thing from a store without paying for it (94% never)”. These three
items were combined into a scale of major compliance (␣⫽.79).
Minor crimes were as follows: “Broken traffic laws regarding
speeding or running a red light (38% never)” and “Illegally dis-
posed of rubbish or litter (86% never).” These two items were
combined into a scale of minor compliance (five items; ␣⫽.60).
Cooperation: Direct Actions That Help the Police and
Criminal Courts
Help police. How likely to “Call the police to report a crime”;
“Report suspicious activity near your home”; “Provide information
to help the police find a suspected criminal.” Scale (1) very
unlikely to (4) very likely (three items; ␣⫽.91).
Help legal system. If you saw someone push a person to the
ground and steal their purse or wallet, how likely would you be to
“call the police?”; “if you were the only witness, how willing
would you be to identify the person who committed the crime”;
and “Give evidence in court against the accused.” Scale (1) very
unlikely to (4) very likely (three items; ␣⫽.93).
Cooperation: Accepting the Police’s Sole Use of
Rightful Force
Violence in self-defense. Is violence acceptable for protection
“to protect yourself from attack on the street,” “to protect yourself
from an intruder in your home.” (very wrong;wrong;not very
wrong;not wrong at all; two items; ␣⫽.91).
Violence as revenge and protest. Participants were asked
how wrong it was to take actions outside the law, that is, the
appropriateness of using violence to “Take revenge against some-
one who has insulted or injured you”; “Resolve a dispute with a
neighbor”; “Protest against laws or policies that you think are
unjust”; “Write or distribute leaflets encouraging violence against
people of different ethnic groups”; “Use violence to protest against
economic policies”; and “Use violence to promote a particular
religion or religious cause.” The scale ranged from very wrong to
not wrong at all (six items; ␣⫽.85).
Engagement
Community identification. Do you agree strongly, agree,
disagree, or disagree strongly that “You are proud to live in your
community”; “When someone praises the achievements of others
in your community it feels like a personal compliment”; “The
things that your community stands for are important to you”;
“Being a part of the community you live in is important to the way
that you think of yourself as a person”; “Others in your community
respect how you live your life”; “Others in your community
respect what you contribute to the community”; and “Others in
your community respect your values” (seven items; ␣⫽.89).
Perceived social capital. How likely is it that your neighbors
would intervene (very unlikely,unlikely,likely,very likely)if
“Children were skipping school and hanging around on a street
corner”; “Children were spray-painting graffiti on a local build-
ing”; “Children were showing disrespect for an adult”; “A fight
broke out in front of your house” and “The fire station closest to
your home was threatened with budget cuts” (five items; ␣⫽.86).
Political activity. How often (almost never;seldom;some-
times;frequently) do you: “attend meetings involving local offi-
cials to discuss community problems”; “vote in local elections”;
“communicate your views about community issues to elected
officials”; and “talk with your neighbors about problems in your
community” (four items; ␣⫽.75).
Economic activity. How often (almost never;seldom;some-
times;frequently) do you: “Go to downtown area of your commu-
nity to shop”; “to eat out or to go to a movie or other type of
entertainment” (two items: ␣⫽.86).
Legitimacy
The analysis treats legitimacy in two distinct ways. First as a
general summary index that averages measures of obligation (to
the police, courts and the law); trust and confidence (in the police
and the courts) and normative alignment (with the police, the
courts and the law). Second legitimacy is treated as three distinct
indices reflecting obligation, trust, and confidence and normative
alignment.
Legitimacy: Obligation
Obligation to obey. The items were “All laws should be
strictly obeyed”; “It is hard to break the law and keep your
self-respect”; “People should do what the law says”; “A person
who disobeys laws is a danger to others in the community”;
“Obeying the law ultimately benefits everyone in the community”;
“Some laws are made to be broken (reverse scored)”; “Sometimes
doing the right thing means breaking the law (reverse scored)”;
“There are times when it is ok to ignore the law (reverse scored).”
and “Sometimes you have to bend the law for things to come out
right (reverse scored)” (nine items; ␣⫽.86).
Police obligation. The questions were “You should support
the decisions of police officers even when you disagree with
them”; “You should do what the police tell you even if you do not
understand or agree with the reasons”; “You should do what the
police tell you to do even if you do not like how they treat you.”
and “The police in your community are legitimate authorities so
you should do what they tell you to do” (four items; ␣⫽.82).
Court obligation. The questions were “You should” “Support
the decisions made by judges even when you disagree with them”;
“Do what judges tell you even if you do not understand or agree
with the reasons”; “Do what judges tell you even if you do not like
how they treat you”; and “The courts in your community are
legitimate authorities and you should obey them” (four items;
␣⫽.83).
Legitimacy: Trust and Confidence
Trust in the law. Three items (reverse scored) “The law
represents the values of the people in power, rather than the values
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
6TYLER AND JACKSON
of people like yourself”; “People in power use the law to try to
control people like you”; and “The law does not protect your
interests” (three items; ␣⫽.83).
Trust in the police. Respondents were asked to agree strongly
to disagree strongly that “You generally support how the police act
in your community”; “When the police deal with people they
almost always behave according to the law”; “The decisions and
actions of the police are unduly influenced by pressure from
political parties and politicians (reverse scored)”; “The police only
care about the views of some of the people in your community
(reverse scored)”; and “The police take bribes (reverse scored)”
(five items; ␣⫽.87).
Trust in the courts. Respondents were asked to agree
strongly to disagree strongly that “The courts protect the interests
of the rich and powerful above those of ordinary people (reverse
scored)”; “The courts are unduly influenced by pressure from
political parties and politicians (reverse scored)”; “Judges take
bribes (reverse scored)”; “Put people in jail for no good reason
(reverse scored)”; “Judges make decisions based upon their prej-
udices or personal opinions (reverse scored)”; “When judges make
decisions they almost always behave according to the law” (six
items; ␣⫽.82).
Legitimacy: Normative Alignment
Normative alignment with the law. “Your own feelings
about right and wrong usually agree with the laws that are enforced
by the police”; “The laws in your community are consistent with
your own intuitions about what is right and just”; “The laws of our
criminal justice system are generally consistent with the views of
the people in your community”; “The law represents the moral
values of people like yourself” (four items; ␣⫽.86).
Normative alignment with the police. The items were “The
police generally have the same sense of right and wrong that you
do”; “The police stand up for values that are important to you”;
“The police usually act in ways consistent with your own ideas
about what is right and wrong”; “You and the police want the same
things for your community”; “The values of most police officers
who work in your community are similar to your own”; and “The
police stand up for values that are important to you” (six items;
␣⫽.92).
Normative alignment with the courts. “Judges stand up for
the values that are important to you”; and “Judges generally have
the same sense of right and wrong that you do” (two items; ␣⫽
.88).
Judgments About Legal Authorities
Police and courts are accurate. Two items were four-point
scales ranging from disagree strongly to agree strongly: “The
police often arrest people for no good reason (reverse scored)” and
“Most of the time when the police arrest someone there is a good
reason to believe that they have done something wrong”; and two
items were four-point scales ranging from “almost never” to “al-
most always.” The items were “How often do the courts in your
community “Make mistakes and let guilty people go free (reverse
scored)” and “Make mistakes and convict innocent people (reverse
scored)” (four items; ␣⫽.81).
Police are effective. “How successful are the police”: “At
preventing crimes where violence is used or threatened in your
community?” and “At catching people who commit house burglar-
ies?”. The scale ranged from (1) Extremely unsuccessful to (11)
Extremely successful and, “If a violent crime were to occur near
your home and the police were called, how soon would they arrive
at the scene?” (1) Extremely slowly to (11) Extremely quickly (␣⫽
.83). This 11-point scale was used to mirror the European Social
Survey question format for questions about effectiveness.
Procedural justice of decision-making. These items use a
four-point scale (never to always). “How often do the [police,
courts]”: “make fair and impartial decisions in the cases they deal
with”; “Give people a chance to tell their side of the story before
they decide what to do”; and “Make decisions based upon the law
and not their personal biases or opinions” (four items; ␣⫽.84).
Fairness of interpersonal treatment. These items use a four
point scale (never to always). “How often do the [police, courts]”:
“Treat people with dignity and respect”; “Respect people’s rights”;
“Try to do what is best for the people they are dealing with”;
“Explain their decisions and actions in ways that people can
understand”; “Make decisions that are good for everyone in the
community” (five items; ␣⫽.94).
Judgments About Personal Experience
The prior indices have measured general attitudes toward the
legal system, law-related behavior, and evaluations of how the
police and courts generally behave. An additional question is how
respondents are influenced by their past personal experience.
The first questions assess the amount of personal experience.
Respondents were asked the following: In the past two years have
“the police approached you or stopped you or made contact for any
reason (35% yes)”; “have you approached the police in your
community to ask for help or assistance of any kind (25% yes)”.
“In the past two years have you been a defendant in a court case
in which you were accused of a crime (6% yes)”; “have you been
in court because you were a victim of or witnessed a crime (3%
yes)”; and “have you been in court because you went to get help
resolving a conflict or to collect money you felt another person
owed you (3% yes).”
Justice of decision making. “How fairly did the [police,
court] make decisions about what to do?” (five points; very un-
fairly to very fairly).
Fairness of interpersonal treatment. “How fairly were you
treated by the [police, court]?” (five points; very unfairly to very
fairly).
Favorability of outcome. “To what extent did you get the
outcome you wanted?” (five points; nothing that you wanted to
everything that you wanted).
Accuracy of outcome. “To what extent did you receive the
right outcome based upon your understanding of the law?” (five
points; not at all to completely).
Other Factors Potentially Influencing Legitimacy and
Behavior
Disorder. Teenagers hanging around on the streets “Rubbish
or litter lying around”; “Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate
damage to property or vehicles”; “People being drunk or rowdy in
public places.” (1) Not a problem at all to (4) A very big problem
(three items; ␣⫽.87).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
7
POPULAR LEGITIMACY
Fear of crime. How much do you worry about “Having your
house broken into and something stolen”; and “Being mugged or
robbed” (1) Very worried to (4) Not worried at all (two items; ␣⫽
.84).
Sanction risk. How likely are you to be caught and punished
for “Making an exaggerated or false insurance claim”; “Buying
something you think might be stolen”; “Taking something from a
store without paying for it” (three items; ␣⫽.87).
Social norms. If your family or friends found out that you did
these things how likely is it that they would think you had done
something wrong: “Make an exaggerated or false insurance
claim”; “Buy something you think might be stolen”; “Take some-
thing from a store without paying for it” (three items; ␣⫽.90).
Personal morality. How morally wrong would you say it is to
“Make an exaggerated or false insurance claim”; “Buy something
you think might be stolen”; “Take something from a store without
paying for it” (three items; ␣⫽.79).
Correlations Between Key Variables
Descriptive statistics and a correlation matrix for key variables
are included in an Appendix.
Results
The Legitimacy Landscape
An examination of public evaluations of the police and courts is
presented in Table 1, which shows the mean and standard devia-
tion for each measure of legitimacy used in this study. These levels
of legitimacy support the findings of prior national surveys. The
public is moderately positive in its views of both the police and the
courts. On scales ranging from 1 to 5, with higher numbers
reflecting greater legitimacy; scores range from 3.20 to 3.91 and
average 3.47 (see Table 1). These findings seem generally consis-
tent with the results of other national surveys, but this study
provides a more extensive range of measures than most national
surveys which typically rely upon a single item. Of course, as with
other surveys interpreting the level of legitimacy depends upon
what levels are viewed as necessary or appropriate.
Who thinks legal authority is more or less legitimate? Regres-
sion analysis was used to address this issue. In that analysis
legitimacy was the dependent variable, while demographic ele-
ments were the independent variables. The entries are standardized
regression coefficients (beta weights) that indicate the relative
strength of the contribution of each independent variable to ex-
plaining the dependent variable, controlling upon the other inde-
pendent variables in the equation. The total ability of the indepen-
dent variables to explain variance in the dependent variable,
adjusted for the number of independent variables under consider-
ation, is reflected in the adjusted square of the multiple correlation
coefficient (adjusted R-square).
An analysis of demographics indicates that 13% of the variance
in legitimacy is determined by demographic characteristics (see
Table 2). The analysis suggests that age, race, education, party, and
region all shaped legitimacy. Considered alone age accounted for
5% of the variance in legitimacy; race 4%; education 4%; party
2%; region 0%; and gender 0%.
The Importance of Legitimacy in Predicting
Compliance, Cooperation, and Engagement
Studying legitimacy and focusing upon the legal culture of the
United States is predicated on the assumption that legitimacy
matters. In the current analysis the importance of legitimacy is
conceptualized as related to whether legitimacy shapes desirable
public behaviors. Three types of behavior are distinguished: com-
pliance, cooperation, and actions that facilitate social and eco-
nomic development.
In this analysis we use a single index of legitimacy that com-
bines the subscales measuring obligation: trust and confidence and
normative alignment. The analysis is a regression analysis in
which compliance is the dependent variable and legitimacy and
other judgments about the police were the independent variables,
along with demographic controls. The entries shown are the stan-
dardized regression coefficients (beta weights). This analysis of
compliance indicates that there is a robust association between
people’s expressed everyday adherence to the law and their views
about the legitimacy of the police (see Table 3). This is true both
of minor crimes (speeding, littering; ⫽0.15, p⬍.001) and more
serious ones (stealing from stores, etc.; ⫽0.21, p⬍.001).
Compliance behavior is also linked to the risk of being caught and
punished for breaking the law (average ⫽0.11, p⬍.05).
A regression analysis in which cooperation is the dependent
variable and legitimacy, other judgments about the police and
demographic variables the independent variables indicates that
legitimacy continues to be linked to cooperation, as are risk esti-
mates (see Table 4). It was not expected that legitimacy would
have a strong influence upon the use of violence in self-defense,
which is a response to the actions of others. Answers to this
question indicate that those who thought the law was legitimate
expressed less likelihood of engaging in self-defensive actions, but
this link is weak (⫽⫺0.10, p⬍.05).
It was expected that legitimacy would lead respondents to
indicate that they would not engage in violence in response to
grievances that could be addressed within the legal and political
systems. A regression analysis indicates that viewing the legal
system as legitimate was related to empowering legal authorities to
Table 1
The Legitimacy of Law and Legal Authorities
Legitimacy
Overall 3.47 (0.56)
Law
Obligation 3.37 (0.61)
Trust and confidence 3.20 (0.84)
Normative alignment 3.70 (0.79)
Police
Obligation 3.36 (0.77)
Trust and confidence 3.38 (0.70)
Normative alignment 3.61 (0.79)
Courts
Obligation 3.33 (0.69)
Trust and confidence 3.91 (0.65)
Normative alignment 3.46 (0.77)
Note. The entries are the mean, with its standard deviation. All scales run
from 1–5, with higher scores indicating greater legitimacy.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
8TYLER AND JACKSON
resolve problems rather than engaging in private or collective
violence (⫽0.23, p⬍.001; see Table 4).
Regression analysis was also used to examine the antecedents of
cooperation with the police and courts to fight crime. People who
viewed legal authorities as more legitimate were more likely to
report crime and criminals (⫽0.27, p⬍.001). They were also
more likely to be willing to cooperate with the legal system in
prosecuting criminals (⫽0.20, p⬍.001). Again, these behaviors
were also affected by whether people believed that when people
like themselves break the law they were likely to be caught and
punished (average ⫽0.16, p⬍.001).
Finally, the study examined attitudes and behaviors related to
social and economic development (see Table 5). Again regression
analysis was used. In the first equation the dependent variable was
identification with the community and legitimacy is the indepen-
dent variable. In the other equations both legitimacy and commu-
nity identification are included as independent variables and the
dependent variables are perceived social capital, political activity,
and economic activity. The results indicated that both legitimacy
(⫽0.23, p⬍.001) and effectiveness (⫽0.20, p⬍.001) were
related to identification with one’s community. That identification,
combined with legitimacy, led to perceived social capital (⫽
0.25, p⬍.001 for legitimacy; ⫽0.26, p⬍.001 for identifica-
tion). And, community identification encouraged political (⫽
0.31, p⬍.001) and economic (⫽0.30, p⬍.001) activity in the
community. Hence legitimacy may facilitate community develop-
ment directly by helping to develop social capital and indirectly by
helping to build community identification, which encourages po-
litical and economic activity in the community.
The Meaning of Legitimacy
Legitimacy involves three distinct elements (obligation, trust
and confidence, and normative alignment) and as the behavioral
focus shifts from compliance through cooperation to facilitation, it
is hypothesized that different aspects of legitimacy came to the
foreground as key antecedents. In this regression analysis sum-
mary indices of the three types of behavior being examined—
compliance, cooperation, and engagement—are the dependent
variables. The components of legitimacy are the independent vari-
ables. This analysis of the three elements of legitimacy confirms
the hypothesis that different elements have distinct influences on
different behaviors. In the case of compliance, obligation (⫽
0.12, p⬍.001) and trust and confidence (⫽0.10, p⬍.05) are
important. With cooperation obligation (⫽0.08, p⬍.05), trust
and confidence (⫽0.12, p⬍.01), and normative alignment
(⫽0.29, p⬍.001) are important. In the case of engagement the
key element of legitimacy that matters is normative alignment
(⫽0.22, p⬍.001). These findings (see Table 6) suggest that as
the nature of the relationship between legal authorities and com-
munities changes, the elements of legitimacy that are most needed
also changes. In particular, a more active and involved role for
legal authorities requires more than obligation; people have to feel
that there is a shared vision of values for the community.
In addition to the various theoretical frameworks outlined, prior
analyses of legitimacy have sought to distinguish legitimacy from
two other forces shaping behavior: social norms and personal
morality (Tyler, 2006b). Social norms refer to the views of family
and friends, while personal morality is concerned with values
articulating right and wrong. To distinguish legitimacy from these
factors scales were conducted to reflect social norms and personal
morality. These were then used along with risk of punishment and
legitimacy as predictors of a combined index of law related be-
havior reflecting compliance, cooperation and engagement.
A regression analysis examining the influence of legitimacy,
social norms, personal morality, and risk of punishment on law-
related behavior indicates that collectively these factors explain
37% of the variance in behavior. In that analysis legitimacy con-
tinues to be independently important (⫽0.37, p⬍.001),
whereas social norms (⫽0.24, p⬍.001) and personal morality
(⫽0.27, p⬍.001) also matter. Risk has no independent
influence (⫽⫺.01, ns).
These findings support the argument that legitimacy has an
independent influence upon people’s law related behavior, in this
Table 2
Demographic Influences on Legitimacy
Legitimacy Law Police Courts
Hispanic vs. White ⫺.03 0.03 ⫺.06
ⴱ
⫺.04
African-American vs. White ⫺.09
ⴱ
⫺.05 ⫺.09
ⴱⴱ
⫺.09
ⴱⴱ
Age 0.22
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.24
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.18
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.15
ⴱⴱⴱ
Education 0.15
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.12
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.14
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.13
ⴱⴱⴱ
Income 0.09
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.08
ⴱⴱ
0.08
ⴱⴱ
0.08
ⴱⴱ
Gender ⫺.06
ⴱ
⫺.11
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.02 ⫺.03
Political party ⫺.12
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.10
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.14
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.07
ⴱ
Region
New England ⫺.07
ⴱ
⫺.03 ⫺.08
ⴱ
⫺.07
ⴱ
Mid-Atlantic ⫺.13
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.11
ⴱ
⫺.13
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.10
ⴱⴱ
East-North Central ⫺.05 ⫺.04 ⫺.03 ⫺.08
ⴱ
West-North Central ⫺.05 ⫺.04 ⫺.04 ⫺.05
South-Atlantic ⫺.13
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.09
ⴱ
⫺.12
ⴱⴱ
⫺.13
ⴱⴱⴱ
East-South Central ⫺.06
ⴱ
⫺.04 ⫺.05 ⫺.07
ⴱ
Mountain ⫺.08
ⴱ
⫺.05 ⫺.08
ⴱⴱ
⫺.08
ⴱ
Pacific ⫺.13
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.09
ⴱ
⫺.13
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.11
ⴱⴱ
13%
ⴱⴱⴱ
11%
ⴱⴱⴱ
12%
ⴱⴱⴱ
8%
ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. Entries are standardized regression coefficients. The region (West
South Central) with the highest level of legitimacy was used as the
comparison group for the regional effects.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
Table 3
The Influence of Legitimacy on Compliance
Compliance
(minor)
Compliance
(major)
Legitimacy 0.15
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.21
ⴱⴱⴱ
Accuracy 0.10
ⴱ
⫺.03
Police effectiveness 0.05 ⫺.17
ⴱⴱⴱ
Risk of being caught and punished 0.08
ⴱ
0.13
ⴱⴱⴱ
Disorder 0.01 0.12
ⴱⴱⴱ
Fear ⫺.07
ⴱ
⫺.09
ⴱ
Hispanic ⫺.13
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.02
African-American ⫺.03 ⫺.07
ⴱ
Age 0.06
ⴱ
0.10
ⴱⴱⴱ
Education 0.16
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.03
Income 0.08
ⴱⴱ
0.09
ⴱⴱ
Gender 0.09
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.01
Party 0.05 ⫺.05
Adj. R.-sq. 12%
ⴱⴱⴱ
10%
ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. Entries are standardized regression coefficients.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
9
POPULAR LEGITIMACY
case when controls are made for the possible influence of personal
morality and social norms. This finding also highlights the con-
ceptual point that normative justification, an idea used here to
index legitimacy, is not the same thing as personal morality.
Personal morality refers to whether or not the respondent thinks
that particular behaviors are or are not immoral. Normative justi-
fication involves an evaluation of whether legal authorities share
the values, purposes and goals of the community.
Why Is Authority Legitimate?
Finally this study examines the aspects of the behavior of legal
authorities that shape legitimacy. In particular, this study contrasts
the justice of the procedures through which legal authority is
implemented to evaluations of the accuracy of legal decisions. It
does so on two levels. The first level of analysis examines
people’s general evaluations of the actions of the police and the
courts. This regression analysis, which has legitimacy as its
dependent variable, is shown in Table 7 and reflects overall
views about legal authorities. The second level of analysis
explores people’s responses to their personal experiences. This
regression analysis, which has legitimacy as its dependent vari-
able, is shown in Table 8.
When people were making the general evaluations of legitimacy
shown in Table 7 those evaluations were shaped by one aspect of
procedural justice— quality of treatment (⫽0.37, p⬍.001)—
and by accuracy (⫽0.44, p⬍.001). These two issues were
important with each of the three components of legitimacy: obli-
gation, trust and confidence, and normative alignment.
As has been found in prior studies people are much more likely
to have personal experience with the police as opposed to the
courts (Tyler & Huo, 2002). In the two years prior to the interview
44% of respondents had dealt with the police (15% more than
once). In contrast, 9% had dealt this the courts (2% more than
once). Hence, the police play a more central role in shaping
legitimacy.
An examination of what it is about experience which shapes
legitimacy, shown in the regression analysis presented in Table 8,
Table 4
Legitimacy and Cooperation With Legal Authorities
Cooperation: Accepting the police’s monopoly over
rightful force
Cooperation: Actions that
aid legal authorities
Violence as self-defense Violence as revenge and protest Help police Help courts
Legitimacy ⫺.10
ⴱ
0.23
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.27
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.20
ⴱⴱⴱ
Accuracy 0.04 0.12
ⴱⴱ
0.04 0.06
Police effectiveness 0.06 ⫺.10
ⴱⴱ
0.03 ⫺.07
ⴱ
Risk ⫺.07
ⴱ
0.07
ⴱⴱ
0.15
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.17
ⴱⴱⴱ
Disorder ⫺.05 0.07
ⴱ
⫺.01 0.00
Fear ⫺.03 0.04 ⫺.07
ⴱ
⫺.03
Hispanic 0.18
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.02 ⫺.06
ⴱ
⫺.07
ⴱ
African-American 0.00 ⫺.01 0.01 ⫺.01
Age ⫺.10
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.06
ⴱ
0.16
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.11
ⴱⴱⴱ
Education 0.02 0.10
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.02 0.08
ⴱⴱ
Income ⫺.10
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.07
ⴱ
0.09
ⴱⴱ
0.08
ⴱⴱ
Gender ⫺.08
ⴱⴱ
⫺.17
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.02 0.03
Party 0.10
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.01 0.02 ⫺.03
Adj. R.-sq. 10%
ⴱⴱⴱ
18%
ⴱⴱⴱ
20%
ⴱⴱⴱ
15%
ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. Entries are standardized regression coefficients.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
Table 5
Legitimacy and Community Engagement
Community
identification
Perceived
social
capital
Political
activity
Economic
activity
Legitimacy 0.23
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.25
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.05 0.01
Community identification — 0.26
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.31
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.30
ⴱⴱⴱ
Accuracy 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.05
Police effectiveness 0.20
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.08
ⴱ
⫺.08
ⴱ
⫺.03
Risk 0.09
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.07
ⴱ
⫺.03 0.02
Disorder ⫺.02 0.07
ⴱ
⫺.09
ⴱ
⫺.08
ⴱⴱ
Fear 0.04 ⫺.07
ⴱ
⫺.04 0.03
Hispanic 0.13
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.03 ⫺.05
ⴱ
⫺.08
ⴱⴱ
African-American 0.07
ⴱⴱ
0.06
ⴱ
0.01 ⫺.05
Age 0.18
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.04 0.30
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.00
Education 0.02 ⫺.02 0.16
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.08
ⴱⴱ
Income 0.06
ⴱ
⫺.04 0.10
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.14
ⴱⴱⴱ
Gender 0.01 0.08
ⴱⴱ
⫺.02 ⫺.03
Party 0.02 0.02 ⫺.08
ⴱⴱ
⫺.01
Adj. R.-sq. 21%
ⴱⴱⴱ
24%
ⴱⴱⴱ
23%
ⴱⴱⴱ
12%
ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. Entries are standardized regression coefficients.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
Table 6
The Role of Different Elements of Legitimacy in Shaping
People’s Attitudes and Behavior
Compliance Cooperation Engagement
Risk 0.12
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.16
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.04
Performance 0.10
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.03 0.00
Obligation 0.12
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.08
ⴱ
0.02
Trust & confidence 0.10
ⴱ
0.12
ⴱⴱ
0.05
Normative alignment 0.05 0.29
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.22
ⴱⴱⴱ
Adj. R.-sq. 5%
ⴱⴱⴱ
24%
ⴱⴱⴱ
8%
ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. Entries are standardized regression coefficients.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10 TYLER AND JACKSON
which only includes people with prior personal experience, indi-
cates that procedural justice matters more than decision accuracy
or outcome favorability. In this case both aspects of procedural
justice are important: the justice of decision making (average ⫽
0.33) and the fairness of interpersonal treatment (average ⫽
0.27) matter while neither decision accuracy or outcome favorabil-
ity has a significant influence upon legitimacy (see Table 8). The
impact of personal experience is heavily based upon perceived
justice.
One important issue from prior research is whether positive
experiences increase legitimacy. It is difficult to address this
question with a cross-sectional study because change cannot be
measured. However, it is possible to do a tentative test by com-
paring the no experience group to those respondents whose aver-
age experience was unfair or fair as defined by dividing them at the
midpoint of 2.5 on the 1–5 scale. Those with unfair experiences (n⫽
84) reported significantly lower legitimacy scores [M⫽3.08(0.63) com-
pared with those with no experience whose mean score was
3.59(0.57): t(939) ⫽7.97, p⬍.001)]. Those with fair experiences
(n⫽653) reported significantly higher legitimacy scores [M⫽
3.65 (0.52); t(1508) ⫽2.23, p⬍.05)].
While the increase attributable to fair personal experience is a
marginal increase, that increase is greater if only those who report
very fair experiences is considered. If the smaller group who
reported higher fairness scores are considered (3.5 or above on a
five point scale, n⫽513) a strong positive influence is found,
t(1508), p⬍.001). In other words, fairness was capable of raising
legitimacy, especially if we only consider those who felt very
fairly treated. Of course, these findings must be viewed as tenta-
tive, because the causal order could be the reverse of that assumed
here. Prior legitimacy may influence evaluations of the fairness of
a subsequent experience confounding the variables being consid-
ered in a cross-sectional analysis.
These findings accord with prior evidence that procedural justice is
an important factor behind obligation, trust and confidence, and
normative alignment, and thus behind law-related behavior. First,
when police officers wield their power in fair and neutral ways, this
legitimizes their authority. The exercise of authority via the applica-
tion of fair process and decision-making strengthens the social bonds
between individuals and institutions. People identify with the group
that the authority represents and internalize the belief that they should
follow the rules of the group and the directives of authorities. Second,
identification with the group activates the sense that the authorities are
prototypical representatives of the group who have the best interests
of others in the group at heart. Third, procedural justice generates a
sense that the authorities act in ways that are normatively valid in the
context of the role and institution. Legal authorities should represent
fairness and justice in society, and their power in part rests on
normative justification.
Discussion
This snapshot of the legitimacy of law and legal authorities in
contemporary America provides a more in-depth look at relation-
Table 7
The Influence of General Judgments About the Policies and Practices of Legal Authorities on
Legitimacy
Legitimacy Obligation Trust and confidence Normative alignment
Fairness of decision making 0.00 0.03 0.12
ⴱⴱ
0.05
Quality of treatment 0.37
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.24
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.24
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.41
ⴱⴱⴱ
Accuracy 0.44
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.56
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.23
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.32
ⴱⴱⴱ
Police effectiveness 0.12
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.13
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.05 0.12
ⴱⴱⴱ
Risk 0.02 ⫺.02 0.05
ⴱ
0.04
Disorder ⫺.01 ⫺.03 ⫺.01 ⫺.01
Fear ⫺.02 0.03 ⫺.03 ⫺.04
ⴱ
Hispanic 0.03 0.00 ⫺.02 0.00
African-American 0.03 0.01 0.06
ⴱⴱ
⫺.01
Age 0.07
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.02 0.08
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.05
ⴱⴱ
Education 0.04
ⴱ
0.02 0.03 0.06
ⴱⴱⴱ
Income 0.02 0.00 ⫺.04 0.00
Gender ⫺.07
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.06 ⫺.08 ⫺.07
ⴱⴱⴱ
Party ⫺.03 0.01 ⫺.09 ⫺.02
Adj. R.-sq. 70%
ⴱⴱⴱ
71%
ⴱⴱⴱ
35%
ⴱⴱⴱ
65%
ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. Entries are standardized regression coefficients.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
Table 8
The Influence of Personal Experience With the Police or Courts
on Overall Legitimacy
Police Courts
Procedurally just 0.38
ⴱⴱⴱ
— 0.78
ⴱⴱⴱ
—
Fairness of decision making — 0.20
ⴱⴱ
— 0.55
ⴱⴱⴱ
Quality of treatment — 0.19
ⴱⴱ
— 0.34
ⴱⴱⴱ
Favorability of outcome 0.00 0.00 ⫺.17 ⫺.19
Accuracy of outcome ⫺.11 0.11 ⫺.07 ⫺.10
Hispanic ⫺.03 ⫺.03 ⫺.07 ⫺.05
African-American ⫺.03 ⫺.03 0.03 0.02
Age 0.21
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.21
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.23
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.23
ⴱⴱ
Education 0.08
ⴱ
0.08
ⴱ
0.22
ⴱⴱ
0.12
Income 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.11
Gender ⫺.07
ⴱ
⫺.07
ⴱ
0.01 0.05
Party ⫺.13
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.13
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.14
ⴱ
⫺.12
Adj. R.-sq. 35%
ⴱⴱⴱ
35%
ⴱⴱⴱ
54%
ⴱⴱⴱ
52%
ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. Entries are standardized regression coefficients. The judgments
about personal experience are an average for all the experiences reported
during the last two years.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
11
POPULAR LEGITIMACY
ship of legitimacy to behavior than is typically found in public
opinion polls and prior empirical work. In addition, our study also
distinguishes between the legitimacy of the law, the police, and the
courts, and considers all three within the same study. The results of
our in-depth look at legitimacy support the general finding of most
superficial public opinion polls which indicate that American legal
authorities enjoy moderately favorable popular legitimacy (Tyler,
2005). This is true of public views about the law, the police, and
the courts and includes the obligation to obey, trust and confi-
dence, and normative alignment. Hence, these findings paint a
picture of broad but moderate support.
As is true in prior studies of minorities (Tyler, 2005, 2012) this
study finds that African Americans have lower levels of support.
This is particularly true of evaluations of the police and courts.
There are no race-based differences in the legitimacy of the law.
And, support is higher among those higher in age, education and
income. In addition conservatives are more supportive. Overall
demographics do not account for a great deal of variance in
legitimacy and geographic region is not important.
It is also interesting to compare this study to recently completed
research in Europe. That research across 26 countries in the Eu-
ropean Union supports the argument that legitimacy shapes coop-
eration. It further demonstrates that procedural justice shapes le-
gitimacy and is more important than police effectiveness. For a
detailed discussion of European findings see Hough, Jackson, &
Bradford (in press).
The most important finding of this study is that legitimacy plays
a role in motivating law related behavior. The prior role of legit-
imacy in shaping compliance is replicated, as is the role of legit-
imacy in encouraging cooperation, including ceding power to the
state and helping to address problems of crime and social order. In
addition, legitimacy is shown to have a role in motivating com-
munity engagement, for example, in building social capital and
facilitating social, political, and economic development.
How significant is the role played by legitimacy? First, the
legitimacy effects are statistically significant. In addition, they are
stronger in magnitude and more consistently found than the influ-
ence of other factors considered. However, perhaps the most direct
approach to assessing importance is to look at strength of its
impact on behavior. With minor crimes 2% of those high in
legitimacy committed such crimes, 5% of those low in legitimacy.
With major crimes 0% of those high in legitimacy committed such
crimes, 1% of those low in legitimacy. In the case of cooperation
98% of those high in legitimacy would cooperate with the police,
98% with the legal system. Among those low in legitimacy, 86%
would cooperate with the police and 85% with the legal system.
High legitimacy also increased the likelihood of shopping from
31% to 38%, the likelihood of voting from 23% to 36%. Hence,
cooperation was clearly higher when legitimacy was high.
The goals of the legal system are evolving from reactive to
proactive in terms of the most desirable relationship between legal
authorities and communities (Geller & Belsky, 2009). At one time
the public was treated as having a reactive role and a good citizen
was a person who followed rules and directives from legal pro-
fessionals. More recently there has been the recognition of the
value of a more active and willing engagement with legal author-
ities in relationship to joint efforts to fight crime and criminals.
Authorities have increasingly recognized the centrality of social
and economic development to efforts to deal with crime and
disorder. In each case this study shows that legitimacy has an
important role to play in encouraging such desired public behav-
iors.
The increasing focus on motivating proactive behavior from
people in the community highlights a long-term difference be-
tween traditional legal views of goals vis-a
`-vis the public and
views in other collectivities such as work organizations. In both a
key goal is for members of a collectivity to follow rules. However,
the legal system has traditionally treated compliance as its primary
and even sole objective. Other types of collectivities in contrast are
concerned with rule following but also with motivating their
members to actively and willingly engage in productive actions on
behalf of the group (Tyler & Blader, 2000). An employee who
simply follows workplace rules is not an ideal worker. It is also
important that they do their job well and even go beyond their
formal job description to engage in extra-role behavior. But, there
has been no corresponding view of community members. The
framework outlined in this study argues for the value of such
proactive behaviors within communities, first in terms of main-
taining social order and more recently with efforts to build the
viability of the community and focuses upon what can motivate
those behaviors.
Although popular legitimacy consistently emerges as important,
the elements of legitimacy that matter are different depending
upon which behavior is the focus of attention. Across all of the
behaviors studied at least one aspect of legitimacy matters. How-
ever, normative alignment is most important for the facilitation of
communities, whereas obligation matters most for compliance. All
three elements matter with cooperation. Hence, as the goals of the
legal system in relationship to the nature of desired public behavior
change different aspects of legitimacy become relatively more
important.
Of course, legitimacy can be defined and measured in many
ways. In this analysis we have drawn from traditional models
(Tyler, 2006a, 2006b) and added the element of normative justi-
fication which is suggested to be important by the research find-
ings outlined. It is possible to identify and consider other factors
that might be included in future analyses by considering philoso-
phy and other normative frameworks (Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012).
Our argument is that it is important to demonstrate that any factor
included makes a significant independent contribution to explain-
ing behavior and that empirical approach is the one we have used
in this paper.
Finally, the results reported suggest that legitimacy itself is
based upon the fairness of the manner through which legal author-
ities manage their authority. Of the two elements of procedure—
fair decision making and fair interpersonal treatment—it is fair
interpersonal treatment that is most centrally involved in legiti-
macy.
The findings also show that personal experience shapes legiti-
macy. Hence, what police officers and judges do when people deal
with them can build or undermine the general legitimacy of the
legal system. Here the findings suggest both that fairness can
increase legitimacy and unfairness can decrease it. They further
suggest that it is the fairness of that experience that matters. With
personal experiences, the accuracy of the judgments made is not
central, nor the favorability of decisions. It is fairness of decision
making and fairness of treatment that shapes legitimacy. And, as in
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
12 TYLER AND JACKSON
prior studies, outcome favorability is not a key factor (Tyler &
Huo, 2002).
Limitations of This Study
One clear limitation of this study is that it is based upon
completed questionnaires and hence typical issues of social desir-
ability need to be recognized. Although the survey was completed
anonymously respondents might still distort their views. Further,
the study uses self-reports of behavior and respondents may not
want to admit wrongdoing. In addition, cooperation is assessed
hypothetically and people might not act as they think they would
in real situations of having to report a crime or testify in court. For
all of these reasons the conclusions must be considered tentative.
Practical Implications
These findings are important in reframing the goals of the law.
Rather than conceptualizing law in terms of regulation law and the
actions of legal authorities are linked to proactive goals of com-
munity economic and social development. To realize these goals it
is important to create and implement laws in ways that promote not
only obligation but also normative alignment. Through this
broader conception of legitimacy it is possible to transform the
goals of policing and the impact of police activity. Fortunately the
results suggest that the key to promoting all three elements of
legitimacy is the same: procedural justice. Hence policies and
practices need to be designed and evaluated against criterion of
procedural justice, with a particular focus on interpersonal treat-
ment.
Final Words
The findings presented in this study support the idea that the
behavioral outcomes of legitimacy are multifaceted and also show
the utility of treating the concept of legitimacy as multifaceted (cf.
Jackson et al., 2011, Jackson, Bradford, Hough et al., 2012; Jack-
son, Bradford, Stanko, & Hohl, 2012). We have already discussed
the different behaviors that legitimacy can motivate. So we finish
this paper with some thoughts on the meaning and measurement of
legitimacy.
Given the strong theoretical, empirical, and practical case for the
value of legitimacy, now seems a good time to “take stock” of
legitimacy as a concept. Reexamining and expanding the way we
think about and operationalize legitimacy will help us move be-
yond the framework drawn from the existing empirical literature in
the 1980s and 1990s.
Legitimacy is about people’s perception and reception of power
and authority. Importantly, this power and authority emanates
primarily from the social roles and institutions. In the words of
Hawdon (2008: p. 186): “The role is legitimate; the individual is
trusted.” For example, police legitimacy is a belief about the right
of the police as a group to possess and authority and the police as
individuals to exercise discretionary power and influence (as op-
posed to an instrumental belief that individual officers turn up
quickly in emergencies or can control crime). We would recom-
mend that measures of legitimacy focus on the authority that the
institution (the role) confers onto individual officers and, con-
versely, the validity that actions of individual officers confer back
to the institution and role (an appropriate sense of legality, law-
fulness and the embodiment of values).
Differentiating between deference to power and authority (in
which feeling a duty to obey activates behavior like compliance)
and the justification of power and authority (in which the belief
that legal authorities are justified in their position in society
activates proactive behavior like voluntary cooperation and com-
munity engagement) also seems to us to be an important way
forward. The results of this study show legitimacy can motivate
engagement and thereby help communities to build themselves
socially and economically.
Future work should also examine the centrality of procedural
justice in this broader framework. On the one hand, procedural
justice may encourage the belief that institutions have the right to
prescribe and enforce appropriate behavior. On the other hand,
when officers wield their power in fair and just ways, this may also
imbue in them not just with authority but a sense of appropriate
purpose and values in the eyes of citizens, in turn generating and
sustaining the normative validity of the power and authority of the
role and institution (Jackson, Bradford, Hough et al., 2012; Jack-
son, Bradford, Stanko, & Hohl, 2012). Operating within an appro-
priate ethical and normative framework—principally by wielding
power in fair, just, and neutral ways—may thus validate power
possession and its discretionary use in the eyes of citizens.
As the literature on procedural justice and legitimacy in the
context of criminal justice becomes increasingly international
(e.g., Papachristos, Meares, & Fagan, 2012; Murphy et al., 2009;
Murphy & Cherney, 2012; Elliott, Thomas, & Ogloff, 2011; Ma-
zerolle et al., 2013; Gau et al., 2012; Hasisi & Weisburd, 2011;
Bradford, 2012; Kochel, 2012; Huq, Taylor, & Schulhofer, 2011;
Tankebe, 2009; Bradford, Huq, Jackson, & Roberts, 2013;
Jonathan-Zamir & Weisburd, 2013; and Blackwood, Hopkins, &
Reicher, 2013) it is more and more important to develop a robust
and theoretically sounded multidimensional conception of legiti-
macy; to address whether different dimensions predict different
types of law-related behavior; and to assess the portability of
procedural justice and legitimacy across diverse contexts (e.g.,
Factor et al., 2013; Murphy & Cherney, 2012; Mentovich, 2012;
Bradford, 2012; Jackson, Bradford, Stanko, & Hohl, 2012; Goff,
Epstein, & Reddy, 2013). Hence, it is important to consider these
issues not only within the United States as we do here, or in
Europe, but in all societies.
References
Blackwood, L. M., Hopkins, N., & Reicher, S. D. (2013). I know who I am,
but who do they think I am? Muslim perspectives on encounters with
airport authorities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36, 6, 1090 –1108. doi:
10.1080/01419870.2011.645845
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four component model of proce-
dural justice: Defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 747–758. doi:10.1177/
0146167203029006007
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and expanding the group
engagement model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 445– 464. doi:
10.1037/a0013935
Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A diologic
approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. The Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology, 102, 119 –170.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
13
POPULAR LEGITIMACY
Bradford, B. (2012). Policing and social identity: Procedural justice, in-
clusion, and cooperation between police and public. Policing and Soci-
ety. doi:10.1080/10439463.2012.724068
Bradford, B., Huq, A., Jackson, J., & Roberts, B. (2013). What price
fairness when security is at stake? Police legitimacy in South Africa.
Regulation and Governance. doi:10.1111/rego.12012
Bradford, B., Jackson, J., & Hough, M. (2013). Police legitimacy in action:
Lessons for theory and practice. In M. Reisig and R. Kane (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of police and policing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Breyer, S. (2011). Making our democracy work: A judge’s view. New
York, NY: Vintage.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A
construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
386 – 400. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
Dennis, M. (September, 2012). GfK Knowledge Networks Project Field
Report. Palo Alto, CA.
Elliott, I., Thomas, S., & Ogloff, J. (2011). Procedural justice in contacts
with the police: Testing a relational model of authority in a mixed
methods study. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 592– 610.
doi:10.1037/a0024212
European Social Survey. (2011). Trust in justice: Topline findings from the
European Social Survey. ESS Topline Results Series Issue 1.
European Social Survey. (2012). Policing by consent: Understanding the
dynamics of police power and legitimacy. ESS Country Specific Topline
Results Series Issue 1.
Factor, R., Mahalel, D., Rafaeli, A. & Williams, D. R. (in press).A social
resistance perspective for delinquent behavior among non-dominant
minority groups. British Journal of Criminology, doi:10.1093/bjc/azt035
Fuller, L. L. (1969). The morality of law. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Gau, J. M. (2011). The convergent and discriminant validity of procedural
justice and police legitimacy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 489 – 498.
doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.09.004
Gau, J. M., Corsaro, N., Stewart, E. A., & Brunson, R. K. (2012). Exam-
ining macro-level impacts on procedural justice and police legitimacy.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 333–343. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012
.05.002
Geller, W., & Belsky, L. (2009). Policymaker’s guide to building our way
out of crime. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, COPS.
Goff, P. A., Epstein, A., & Reddy, K. F. (2013). Crossing the line of
legitimacy: The impact of cross-deputization policy on crime-reporting.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, doi:10.1037/a0030123
Hasisi, B., & Weisburd, D. (2011). Going beyond ascribed identities: The
importance of procedural justice in airport security screening in Israel.
Law & Society Review, 45, 867– 892. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011
.00459.x
Hawdon, J. (2008). Legitimacy, trust, social capital and policing styles: A
theoretical statement. Police Quarterly, 11, 182–201.
Hough, M., Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2013a). The governance of
criminal justice, legitimacy, and trust. In S. Body-Gendrot, R. Lévy, M.
Hough, S. Snacken, and K. Kerezsi (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
European criminology. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Hough, M., Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2013b). Legitimacy, trust, and
compliance: An empirical test of procedural justice theory using the
European social survey. In J. Tankebe and A. Liebling (Eds.), Legiti-
macy and criminal justice: An international exploration. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2234339
Hough, M., Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Myhill, A., & Quinton, P. (2010).
Procedural justice, trust and institutional legitimacy. Policing: A Journal
of Policy and Practice, 4, 3, 203–210.
Hough, M., Jackson, J. & Bradford, B. (in press). Legitimacy, trust and
compliance. In J. Tankebe & A. Liebling (Eds.), Legitimacy and crim-
inal justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.2139/ssrn
.2234339
Huq, A. Z., Tom, T. R., & Schulhofer, S. J. (2011). Mechanisms for
eliciting cooperation in counterterrorism policing: A study of British
Muslims. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8, 728 –761. doi:10.1111/
j.1740-1461.2011.01239.x
Huq, A., Tyler, T. R., & Schulhofer, S. (2011). Why does the public
cooperate with law enforcement: The influence of the purposes and
targets of policing? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 419 – 450.
doi:10.1037/a0023367
Institute on Race and Justice, Northeastern University. (2008). Promoting
cooperative strategies to reduce racial profiling. Washington, DC:
COPS. USDOJ.
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Kuha, J., Stares, S. R., Widdop, S.,
. . . Galev, T. (2011). Developing European indicators of trust in justice.
European Journal of Criminology, 8, 267–285. doi:10.1177/
1477370811411458
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. doi:10.1093/bjc/azs032
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Stanko, E. A., & Hohl, K. (2012), Just authority?
Trust in the police in England and Wales. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
doi:10.2139/ssrn.2034343
Jackson, J., Huq, A. Z., Bradford, B., & Tyler, T. R. (in press).
Monopolizing force? Police legitimacy and public attitudes toward the
acceptance of violence. Psychology, Public Policy and Law.
Jonathan-Zamir, T., & Weisburd, D. (2013). The effects of security threats
on antecedents of police legitimacy: Findings from a quasi-experiment
in Israel. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. doi:10.1177/
0022427811418002
Kahn, R., Katz, D., & Gutek, B. (1976). Bureaucratic encounters. Univer-
sity of Michigan: ISR.
Kelling, G., & Moore, M. H. (1988). The evolving strategy of policing.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.
Kochel, T. R. (2012). Can police legitimacy promote collective efficacy.
Justice Quarterly, 29, 384 – 419. doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.561805
Kochel, T., Parks, R., & Mastrofski, S. (2011). Examining police effec-
tiveness as a precursor to legitimacy and cooperation with police. Justice
Quarterly. doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.633544
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and development: The cognitive-developmental
approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of social-
ization theory and research (pp. 347– 480). Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy. New York, NY: Russell-Sage.
Loader, I., & Walker, N. (2006). Necessary virtues: The legitimate place of the
state in the production of security. In J. Wood and B. Dupont (Eds.),
Democracy, society and the governance of security. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 165–95. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511489358.009
Maguire, E. R., & Johnson, D. (2010). Measuring public perceptions of the
police. Policing, 33, 703–730. doi:10.1108/13639511011085097
Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E., & Tyler, T. R. (2013). Shaping
citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: A randomized field trial of
procedural justice. Criminology, doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00289.x
Mentovich, A. (2012). The power of fair procedures: The effect of proce-
dural justice on perceptions of power and hierarchy. New York Uni-
versity doctoral thesis.
Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2012). Understanding cooperation with police
in a diverse society. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 181–201.
doi:10.1093/bjc/azr065
Murphy, K., Tyler, T. R., & Curtis, A. (2009). Nurturing regulatory
compliance: Is procedural justice effective when people question the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
14 TYLER AND JACKSON
legitimacy of the law? Regulation and Governance, 3, 1–26. doi:
10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01043.x
Papachristos, A., Meares, T., & Fagan, J. (2012). Why do criminals obey
the law? The influence of legitimacy and social networks on active gun
offenders. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102, 397– 439.
Peffley, M., & Hurwitz, J. (2010). Justice in America: The separate realities of
Blacks and Whites. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University 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. doi:10.1177/0093854807301275
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and
violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277,
918 –924. doi:10.1126/science.277.5328.918
Sargeant, E., Wickes, R., & Mazerolle, L. (2013). Policing community
problems: Exploring the role of formal social control in shaping collec-
tive efficacy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 46,
70 – 87. doi:10.1177/0004865812470118
Sklansky, D. A. (2011). The persistent pull of police professionalism.
Cambridge: Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, Har-
vard Kennedy School.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and
legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Re-
view, 37, 513–548. doi:10.1111/1540-5893.3703002
Tankebe, J. (2009). Self-help, policing, and procedural justice: Ghanaian
vigilantism and the rule of law. Law & Society Review, 43, 245–270.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893.2009.00372.x
Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice?: Criteria used by citizens
to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law & Society Review, 22,
103–135. doi:10.2307/3053563
Tyler, T. R. (2005). Policing in black and white: Ethnic group differences
in trust and confidence in the police. Police Quarterly, 8, 322–342.
doi:10.1177/1098611104271105
Tyler, T. R. (2006a). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legit-
imation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375– 400. doi:10.1146/
annurev.psych.57.102904.190038
Tyler, T. R. (2006b). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2011). Why people cooperate. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2012). Justice in America: The separate realities of blacks and
whites. Law & Society Review, 46, 456 – 458. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893
.2012.00500.x
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural
justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA:
Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. (2003). Procedural justice, social identity, and
cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7,
349 –361. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07
Tyler, T. R., Casper, J. D., & Fisher, B. (1989). Maintaining allegiance
toward political authorities: The role of prior attitudes and the use of fair
procedures. American Journal of Political Science, 33, 629 – 652. doi:
10.2307/2111066
Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do
people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State
Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231–275.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public
cooperation with the police and courts. New York, NY: Russell-Sage
Foundation.
Tyler, T. R., & Jackson, J. (2013, forthcoming). Future challenges in the
study of legitimacy and criminal justice. In J. Tankebe and A. Liebling,
(Eds.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: An international exploration.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in
groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115–191.
doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60283-X
Tyler, T. R., Schulhofer, S. J., & Huq, A. Z. (2010). Legitimacy and
deterrence effects in counter-terrorism policing: A study of Muslim
Americans. Law & Society Review, 44, 365– 402. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
5893.2010.00405.x
(Appendix follows)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
15
POPULAR LEGITIMACY
Appendix
Means (Standard Deviations) for Variables in the Study
(Appendix continues)
Table A1
Means (Standard Deviations)
Variable Range High means
Number
of cases Mean (SD)
Major compliance 1–5 Comply 1539 4.91 (.37)
Minor compliance 1–5 Comply 1543 4.10 (.94)
Help the police 1–4 Will help 1550 3.44 (.67)
Help the courts 1–4 Will help 1537 3.52 (.69)
Attitudes towards violence as self defense 1–4 No violence 1518 1.37 (.67)
Attitudes towards violence as revenge and protest 1–4 No violence 1524 3.31 (.62)
Community identification 1–5 Identify 1571 3.48 (.66)
Perceived social capital 1–5 High 1541 3.58 (.82)
Political activity 1–4 High 1470 3.06 (1.21)
Economic activity 1–4 High 1488 2.68 (1.02)
Obligation 1–5 High 1569 3.35 (.55)
Trust/confidence 1–5 High 1556 3.89 (.61)
Normative alignment 1–5 High 1556 3.63 (.64)
Accuracy 1–5 Accurate 1556 2.09 (.59)
Effectiveness 1–11 Effective 1582 7.17 (1.89)
Justice of decision making 1–4 Fair 1548 2.77 (.62)
Fairness of treatment 1–4 Fair 1543 2.80 (.67)
Disorder in neighborhood 1–4 Little disorder 1563 2.95 (.73)
Fear of victimization 1–4 Low fear 1561 2.74 (.79)
Risk of being caught for rule breaking 1–4 High risk 1550 2.90 (.85)
Personal–justice of decision making 1–5 Fair 705 3.93 (1.13)
Personal–fairness of treatment 1–5 Fair 701 4.09 (1.08)
Personal–outcome favorability 1–5 Fair 706 3.65 (1.34)
Personal–outcome lawfulness 1–5 Fair 702 3.95 (1.20)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
16 TYLER AND JACKSON
Table A2
Zero Order Correlations Between Some Key Variables
Major
compliance
Minor
compliance
Help the
police
Help the
courts
Attitudes
towards
violence as
self
defense
Attitudes
towards
violence as
revenge
and protest
Community
identification
Perceived
social
capital
Political
activity
Economic
activity Obligation
Trust and
confidence
Normative
alignment
Major compliance 1
Minor compliance .251
ⴱⴱ
1
Help the police .230
ⴱⴱ
.012 1
Help the courts .205
ⴱⴱ
⫺.070
ⴱⴱ
.582
ⴱⴱ
1
Attitudes towards violence
as self defense ⫺.214
ⴱⴱ
.124
ⴱⴱ
⫺.312
ⴱⴱ
⫺.336
ⴱⴱ
1
Attitudes towards violence
as revenge and protest .297
ⴱⴱ
⫺.053
ⴱ
.243
ⴱⴱ
.224
ⴱⴱ
⫺.086
ⴱⴱ
1
Community identification ⫺.043 .043 .241
ⴱⴱ
.240
ⴱⴱ
⫺.046 .068
ⴱⴱ
1
Perceived social capital .034 .041 .282
ⴱⴱ
.324
ⴱⴱ
⫺.126
ⴱⴱ
.039 .373
ⴱⴱ
1
Political activity .152
ⴱⴱ
⫺.071
ⴱⴱ
.208
ⴱⴱ
.251
ⴱⴱ
⫺.179
ⴱⴱ
.129
ⴱⴱ
.270
ⴱⴱ
.192
ⴱⴱ
1
Economic activity ⫺.003 ⫺.056
ⴱ
.117
ⴱⴱ
.154
ⴱⴱ
⫺.032 .060
ⴱ
.298
ⴱⴱ
.160
ⴱⴱ
.286
ⴱⴱ
1
Obligation .148
ⴱⴱ
.113
ⴱⴱ
.317
ⴱⴱ
.252
ⴱⴱ
⫺.104
ⴱⴱ
.251
ⴱⴱ
.282
ⴱⴱ
.276
ⴱⴱ
.165
ⴱⴱ
.089
ⴱⴱ
1
Trust and confidence .198
ⴱⴱ
.032 .327
ⴱⴱ
.256
ⴱⴱ
⫺.088
ⴱⴱ
.287
ⴱⴱ
.301
ⴱⴱ
.292
ⴱⴱ
.202
ⴱⴱ
.091
ⴱⴱ
.565
ⴱⴱ
1
Normative alignment .144
ⴱⴱ
.008 .405
ⴱⴱ
.351
ⴱⴱ
⫺.157
ⴱⴱ
.297
ⴱⴱ
.414
ⴱⴱ
.390
ⴱⴱ
.217
ⴱⴱ
.135
ⴱⴱ
.691
ⴱⴱ
.783
ⴱⴱ
1
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
(Appendix continues)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
17
POPULAR LEGITIMACY
Received July 2, 2013
Revision received August 29, 2013
Accepted August 29, 2013 䡲
Table A3
Zero Order Correlations Between Personal Experience Variables
Justice of decision making 1
Fairness of treatment 0.88
ⴱⴱⴱ
1
Favorability of outcome 0.70
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.68
ⴱⴱⴱ
1
Lawfulness of outcome 0.75
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.72
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.77
ⴱⴱⴱ
1
Major compliance 0.13
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.22
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.13
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.14
ⴱⴱⴱ
Minor compliance 0.06 0.04 0.03 ⫺.01
Help the police 0.28
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.36
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.21
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.24
ⴱⴱⴱ
Help the courts 0.16
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.20
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.13
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.12
ⴱⴱⴱ
Attitudes towards violence as self defense ⫺.05 ⫺.14
ⴱⴱⴱ
⫺.07 ⫺.09
ⴱ
Attitudes towards violence as revenge and protest 0.12
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.12
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.04 0.03
Community identification 0.28
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.28
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.24
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.20
ⴱⴱⴱ
Perceived social capital 0.26
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.27
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.19
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.19
ⴱⴱⴱ
Political activity 0.18
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.18
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.15
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.17
ⴱⴱⴱ
Economic activity 0.10
ⴱⴱ
0.09
ⴱ
0.08
ⴱ
0.08
ⴱ
Obligation 0.35
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.37
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.27
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.31
ⴱⴱⴱ
Trust and confidence 0.53
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.51
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.38
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.46
ⴱⴱⴱ
Normative alignment 0.49
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.49
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.38
ⴱⴱⴱ
0.43
ⴱⴱⴱ
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p⬍.001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
18 TYLER AND JACKSON
