Procedural justice, police legitimacy and public cooperation with legal authorities

Abstract

The procedural justice model posits that judgments regarding how fairly the police exercise their authority shape perceptions of police legitimacy, which, in turn, largely determines people's willingness to cooperate with the police and other legal authorities. Much of the empirical support for this theoretical argument comes from studies conducted in the United States. Research from developing countries, however, shows that the impact of legitimacy is more modest and that other factors (i.e. police effectiveness) have a more powerful influence on public cooperation. This study assesses whether it is possible to generalise the procedural justice model using survey data from a high school-based sample of young adults surveyed in autumn 2011 in Slovenia (N=683). A total of 275 respondents have had experiences with the police (40%) in various police procedures. The results from the regression analyses reveal that procedural justice has a strong correlation with police legitimacy, and that the latter influences confidence in and willingness to cooperate with the police. Overall, these research findings confirm the procedural justice model on a sample of young people in Slovenia.

Full text

147
Procedural Justice, Police
Legitimacy, and Public
Cooperation with the Police
Among Young Slovene Adults
Michael D. Reisig, Justice Tankebe, Gorazd Meško
Purpose:
The purpose of this study is to test various research hypotheses derived from
the process-based model of policing. More specically, the eect of procedural
justice judgments on perceived police legitimacy is empirically scrutinized. The
inuence of police legitimacy on a variety of forms of public cooperation with
police is also adjudicated.
Design/Methods/Approach:
This study tests process-based model hypotheses using cross-sectional data
from pencil-and-paper surveys administered to 683 individuals 18 years and older
who were enrolled in 6 high schools located in Maribor and Ljubljana, Slovenia.
A series of linear regression equations are estimated for purposes of hypothesis
testing.
Findings:
The regression analyses show that procedural justice is a strong correlate of
police legitimacy, and that the laer inuences public cooperation, net of police
eectiveness. However, when the public cooperation scale is disaggregated, the
eect of police legitimacy varies across dierent cooperation outcomes. When the
police legitimacy scale is disaggregated into its component parts, only the eect of
trust in police is statistically signicant. The impact of obligation to obey on public
cooperation with police is eectively zero.
Research Limitations/Implications:
Future process-based model research should not only assess the eects of
the dierent dimensions of police legitimacy (i.e., obligation to obey and trust
in police), but also test the impact of police legitimacy on disaggregated public
cooperation with police measures. Doing otherwise increases the risk of masking
dierential eects.
Practical Implications:
Results from this study underscore the utility of process-based policing
practices. Police ocials in Slovenia and elsewhere should seriously consider
seeking out and/or developing training curricula that teach and promote fair and
just practices.
VARSTVOSLOVJE,
Journal of Criminal
Justice and Security
year 14
no. 2
pp. 147-164

148
Originality/Value:
This study extends prior research in two important ways. First, this study
contributes to a small but growing body of literature that tests process-based
model hypotheses in research seings outside the United States. Second, this study
evaluates the eect of police legitimacy on dierent forms of public cooperation
with police and ideas for further research.
UDC: 351.74/.76(497.4)
Keywords: procedural justice, police legitimacy, process-based model, police,
Slovenia
Postopkovna pravičnost, legitimnost policijske dejavnosti in pripravljenost
mladih ljudi za sodelovanje s policijo v Sloveniji
Namen prispevka:
Namen te študije je preverjanje raziskovalnih hipotez, ki izhajajo iz modela
postopkovne pravičnosti policijskega dela. Gre za empirično preverjanje učinka
mnenj o postopkovni pravičnosti na zaznano legitimnost policijskega dela. Študija
obravnava tudi vpliv zaznave legitimnosti policijskega dela na različne oblike
sodelovanja javnosti s policijo.
Metode:
Na podlagi podatkov, ki smo jih zbrali jeseni 2011 z metodo anketiranja na
vzorcu 683 dijakov četrtih letnikov s šestih slovenskih srednjih šol v Ljubljani in
Mariboru, starih 18 let in več, smo z linearnimi regresijskimi izračuni preverjali
hipoteze v zvezi s postopkovno pravičnostjo.
Ugotovitve:
Rezultati regresijske analize kažejo, da je postopkovna pravičnost v močni
korelaciji z legitimnostjo policijskega dela, pri čemer je najpomembnejša ugotovitev,
da zaznava legitimnosti policijske dejavnosti vpliva na sodelovanje z javnostjo in
prepričanje o učinkovitosti policijske dejavnosti.
Ko faktor sodelovanje z javnostjo razčlenimo, učinek legitimnosti policijskega
dela variira glede na različne oblike sodelovanja. Razčlenjen faktor legitimnosti
policijskega dela pokaže, da je statistično pomemben edino učinek zaupanja v
policijo. Vpliv prepričanja o dolžnosti ljudi za upoštevanje pravil (zakonov) na
sodelovanje javnosti s policijo ne obstaja.
Omejitve/uporabnost raziskave:
V prihodnje bi bilo potrebno v raziskavah o postopkovni pravičnosti policijske
dejavnosti, poleg ocenjevanja učinkov različnih dimenzij legitimnosti policijskega
dela (npr. dolžnost upoštevanja in zaupanje v policijo), preverjati tudi vpliv
legitimnosti policijskega dela na sodelovanje z javnostjo skupaj s policijskimi
ukrepi.
Praktična uporabnost:
Rezultati te študije poudarjajo pomembnost policijskih postopkov na
oblikovanje stališč ljudi do policije in pripravljenost za sodelovanje s policijo
pri preiskovanju kaznivih dejanj ter podporo pri drugih policijskih dejavnostih.
Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy, and Public Cooperation with the Police Among Young ...

149
Michael D. Reisig, Justice Tankebe, Gorazd Meško
Rezultati raziskave kažejo na pomembnost vključevanja vsebin s področja
postopkovne pravičnosti in legitimnosti v programe usposabljanj in izobraževanja
policistov.
Izvirnost/pomembnost prispevka:
Študija razširja predhodno raziskovalno delo na dva pomembna načina.
Prvič, prispeva k manjšemu, a naraščajočemu obsegu raziskav o preverjanju
hipotez modela postopkovne pravičnosti v raziskovalnih okoljih zunaj Združenih
držav Amerike. Drugič, ocenjuje vpliv legitimnosti policijskega dela na različne
oblike sodelovanja javnosti s policijo v Sloveniji in ponuja izhodišča za novo
raziskovanje.
UDK: 351.74/.76(497.4)
Ključne besede: postopkovna pravičnost, legitimnost, policijska dejavnost, policija,
Slovenija
1 INTRODUCTION
One of the most important developments in criminological research over the last
two decades has been the increasing focus on normative considerations, such as
perceptions of police legitimacy (see, e.g., Tyler, 2003). Traditionally, criminologists
have preoccupied themselves with deterrence and the idea that people obey the
law based on self-interested calculations about potential punishments and benets
(see, e.g., Klepper & Nagin, 1989; Sherman, 1990). But people are not only rational
actors; they are also moral beings “whose interactions with each other depend
on mutually recognizable paerns that can be articulated in terms of right versus
wrong conduct, or of what one ought to do in a certain seing” (MacCormick, 2007:
20). They are therefore likely to obey the law and to cooperate with legal authorities
on the grounds of deterrence and also for reasons of legitimacy (Beetham, 1991).
Starting with Tom Tyler’s (1990) Why People Obey the Law, there has been an
explosion of research on the antecedents and consequences of police legitimacy.
The weight of the empirical evidence indicates that perceptions of police legitimacy
are central to people’s willingness to comply with the law, to accept the police
decisions, and to help the police ght crime (Reisig, Braon, & Ger, 2007; Reisig,
Wolfe, & Holtfreter, 2011; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). This body
of research also demonstrates that perceptions of legitimacy are based primarily
on concerns about the fairness of processes that police follow when exercising
their authority. This two-step framework is known as the process-based model
of policing. Although there is a burgeoning literature that investigates hypotheses
derived from the process-based model outside the United States (see, e.g., Murphy
& Cherney, 2012; Reisig & Lloyd, 2009; Tankebe, 2009), much of what is known
today is based primarily on data from the United States. Michael Tonry (2007:
4) suggested that the reason for this focus is because of America’s “distinctive
constitutional scheme premised on the notions of limited powers of government
and entrenched rights of citizens, compared with the étatist traditions of Europe.”
Additional process-based policing research that is conducted in dierent socio-

150
political contexts is necessary to ascertain whether research ndings from the
United States merely reect “local truths” or they have empirical validity across
borders (Nelken, 2010).
The purpose of this study is to investigate whether and to what extent process-
based model research hypotheses are supported in the Slovenian context. This
study will focus on the factors that shape perceptions of police legitimacy, and
the impact of police legitimacy on public cooperation with the police. Unlike prior
research, the current study will assess the eect of police legitimacy on a variety of
ways the public helps the police ght crime (e.g., report a stolen wallet and serve as
a witness in a criminal court case). Evaluating the correlates of public cooperation
with the police in this fashion will shed light on the explanatory scope of the
process-based model of policing. Does police legitimacy inuence whether people
volunteer information to legal authorities when asked about a relatively minor
criminal maer? What about when deciding whether to solicit police intervention
in a more serious case that does not directly involve them? To accomplish these
objectives, a series of linear regression models are estimated using cross-sectional
survey data from a school-based sample of 683 young Slovene adults.
The article is structured into four main sections. First, a brief review of prior
process-based model research is provided. The second section describes the
research design, while the third section presents the empirical ndings. Finally, the
results are discussed in the light of prior studies and avenues for future research
are identied.
2 THE PROCESS-BASED MODEL OF POLICING
A central concept in the process-based model of policing is legitimacy. The concept
is neither new nor universally praised in the social sciences. In fact, legitimacy has
been the subject of much criticism. It has been described as a “mushy” concept
that is beer avoided and yet crucial for understanding the maintenance of
authority (Huntingdon, 1993: 46). The problem of legitimacy can be traced back to
Aristotle’s work on the mechanisms of compliance (Rothschild, 1977). However, its
contemporary stature owes much to Max Weber, whose seminal work continues to
frame social-scientic inquiry of legitimacy. Weber identied a threefold typology
of legitimate authority – traditional, legal rational and charismatic – each of which
is distinguished by the norms upon which it is considered valid. He argues that,
in the modern State, legality is the dominant basis for legitimacy, a claim that has
lead some scholars to argue that Weber equates legitimacy with “obeyed legality”
(Lassman, 2000). Weber’s analysis has aracted much criticism for a variety of
reasons (see, e.g., Coicaud, 2002; Matheson, 1987). Beetham (1991), for example,
argues that Weber places unnecessary emphasis upon people’s subjective beliefs.
Analysis of legitimacy, according to Beetham, should focus on the objective
compatibility between the legal validity of power and the manner in which that
power is exercised and the shared values of society.
In spite of the criticism, contemporary process-based model research relies
heavily on citizens’ subjective beliefs about the rightness or appropriateness of police
Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy, and Public Cooperation with the Police Among Young ...

151
Michael D. Reisig, Justice Tankebe, Gorazd Meško
exercise of power. An explanation for this situation can be traced to contribution
from the eld of psychology, as evidence by the work of Tom Tyler, which
continues to inform empirical assessments on the determinants and consequences
of police legitimacy. Tyler (2003) argues that legitimacy describes situations where
the inuence an authority or institution exerts on people is not based on sheer
capacity to muster force but rather because the decisions such an institution makes
and the rules it enacts are seen as “right” or “proper” and therefore ought to be
followed. One of the often-cited denitions of legitimacy is that it “represents an
acceptance by people of the need to bring their behavior into line with the dictates
of an external authority it has the right to dictate their behavior” (Tyler, 1990:
25). Because the present study specically assesses hypotheses derived from the
process-based model of policing, the social-psychological conception of legitimacy
is adopted.
Extant process-based model research focuses on two key themes. The rst
concerns the antecedents of police legitimacy; that is, the factors that shape
legitimacy perceptions of criminal justice institutions (e.g., the police). The second
theme relates to the eect of police legitimacy on people’s behavior (e.g., cooperation
with police). The systematic evidence that relates to both of these themes will be
reviewed in turn.
Tyler (1990) draws a distinction between two perspectives on the antecedents
of police legitimacy: instrumental and normative. The instrumental perspective
holds that the police are legitimate to the extent that they are eective in ghting
crime and in preventing disorder. This perspective has been much discussed in the
analysis of institutional legitimacy in communist societies, where rulers aempted
to cultivate legitimacy through performance (Rothschild, 1977; Tankebe, 2008). The
normative perspective stresses the importance of procedural justice. The argument
here is that legitimacy is linked to the perceived fairness of the processes through
which the police make decisions and exercise authority. More specically, people
expect the police to exercise their authority in a manner that is neutral, honest and
consistent. When the police do otherwise, people conclude that they have been
treated unfairly and this, in turn, leads them to call into question the legitimacy of
the police. Conversely, a positive judgment of having been treated fairly enhances
police legitimacy.
Procedural justice itself turns out to embrace two dimensions: “quality of
decision-making” and “quality of interpersonal treatment” (Sunshine & Tyler,
2003). Quality of decision-making encapsulates a number of considerations,
including the opportunity for people to present fully their case to the police, the
neutrality of the police in the decision-making process, and the consistency of
the police in applying the law (Paternoster, Bachman, Brame, & Sherman, 1997;
Tyler, 2003). Quality of interpersonal treatment concerns public perceptions that
the police treat them with politeness and dignity, and respect their human rights.
While these considerations might seem minor aspects of police–public encounters,
they powerfully inuence individual judgments about the morality of power.
A number of studies have examined both of these perspectives, as well
as the eects of police legitimacy on public willingness to cooperate with the
police. Sunshine and Tyler’s (2003) study of New York City residents found that

152
perceptions of police legitimacy were based on procedural justice judgments, and
to a lesser extent on police performance in maintaining law and order. Further,
they found that legitimacy inuenced people’s willingness to cooperate with the
police. Tyler and Sunshine used data from before and after September 11, 2001 to
adjudicate their hypotheses. During both time periods procedural justice remained
the principal driver of police legitimacy. More recently, Tyler, Schulhofer, and Huq
(2010) interviewed Muslim-Americans in New York and found that their views
about police legitimacy were shaped by the fairness of the processes the police
employed when interacting with the public. Those views, in turn, determined
Muslim-Americans’ willingness to alert the police about terrorist activities in their
communities.
Drawing upon a nationwide sample of adults in the United States, Reisig,
Braon, and Ger (2007) found that both procedural justice and distributive justice
(i.e., the perception police resources are fairly distributed) were key correlates of
police legitimacy. Consistent with Sunshine and Tyler’s ndings, procedural justice
was the stronger correlate. Reisig and his colleagues also assessed the impact
of the two legitimacy subscales – trust and obligation – on cooperation with the
police. They found that trust in the police predicted cooperation with the police,
but feelings of obligation to obey to police displayed no discernible inuence. The
present study will follow Reisig et al.’s lead and test the unique eects of trust and
obligation.
Only a handful of researchers have sought to test process-based model
hypotheses outside the United States. One the rst was conducted by Hinds and
Murphy (2007). Making use of survey data from adults residing in an Australian
city, the authors found that procedural justice was the main antecedent of police
legitimacy, with perceived police eectiveness playing a secondary role. In
their study of Jamaican school children, Reisig and Lloyd (2009) reported that
assessments of procedural justice increased the likelihood of cooperation with the
police. Contrary to prior ndings, however, the authors did not observe support
for the legitimacy–cooperation association. This laer nding is consistent with
Tankebe’s (2009) Ghana study. Specically, Tankebe observed that legitimacy
did not explain cooperation with the police; what appeared salient in Ghana was
perceived police eectiveness in ghting crime. It should be noted that the laer
two studies operationalized police legitimacy as felt obligation to obey the police.
The evidence thus far from studies conducted outside the United States is
inconclusive. There is a clear need for additional research that addresses whether
process-based model hypotheses are empirically valid in dierent national
contexts. That is one of the tasks of the present study. Support for process-based
model hypotheses using survey data from Slovenia will suggest that the theoretical
argument is not bound to a specic country. Evidence of this type may also call
into question Tonry’s (2007) assertion regarding the utility of legitimacy outside
specic constitutional arrangements.
Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy, and Public Cooperation with the Police Among Young ...

153
Michael D. Reisig, Justice Tankebe, Gorazd Meško
3 METHODS
3.1 Data
This study uses data from pencil-and-paper surveys administered to Slovenian
high school students aged 18 years and older. The sample was generated by rst
sending a leer to all of the high schools in Ljubljana and Maribor explaining the
study and requesting permission to survey their students. These cities were selected
because a majority of the high schools in Slovenia are located in these two areas.
Ocials from six schools (4 in Ljubljana and 2 in Maribor) granted permission
to conduct student interviews. Data collection took place in November and
December of 2011. Students were rst told about the study by their teachers. Project
managers traveled to each research site and administered surveys in classrooms.
Prior to lling out the questionnaire, participants received instructions on how to
complete the survey, they were informed that their participation was voluntary,
and were also guaranteed that their responses were completely anonymous. Most
participants completed the questionnaire within 20 and 25 minutes. A total of 684
participated in the study. Similar response paern imputation (or “hot-decking”)
was used to handle missing data. Information for 683 individuals was available
after the completion of the imputation process. Given the nonrandom nature of the
sampling strategy, the ndings generated from this sample do not easily generalize
to broader populations.
The sample consisted of more participants who aended a high school in
Ljubljana (68.6%; n = 469) than Maribor (31.4%; n = 215). Concerning age (in years),
77.0% were 18 (n = 526), 16.0% were 19 (n = 109), 4.5% were 20 (n = 31), 2.5% were
21 or older (n = 17). The sample is comprised of more women (61.2%; n = 418) than
men (38.8%; n = 265).
3.2 Measures
Public cooperation with police. The primary dependent variable reects
participants’ willingness to cooperate with the police in a variety of situations,
including instances of minor theft (“Imagine that you were out and saw someone
steal another person’s wallet. How likely would you be to call the police?” and “If
the police were looking for witnesses in a case where someone’s wallet was stolen,
how likely would you be to volunteer information if you witnessed the theft?”),
government corruption (“Imagine you had evidence that someone had bribed a
government ocial in order to obtain a service that they would otherwise not have
received. How likely would you be to report this behavior to the police?”), and
a house or car being broken into (“How likely would you be to call the police if
you saw someone break into a course or car?” and “How likely would you be to
volunteer to serve as a witness in a criminal court case involving a crime that you
witnessed?”). The closed-ended responses for these survey items ranged from 1
(very unlikely) to 4 (very likely). A principal-axis factoring model that featured all
of the items used to construct the additive scales discussed in this section showed

154
that the cooperation items loaded on single latent construct (λ = 2.387, loadings >
0.40; see Table 1). The level of internal consistency exhibited by the scale exceeded
conventional thresholds (Cronbach’s α = 0.733; mean inter-item r = 0.359). Public
cooperation with police is a summated scale coded so that higher score reect a
greater willingness among study participants to cooperate with legal authorities
(M = 14.086, SD = 3.024). As noted previously, the ve cooperation survey items
will also be assessed separately in this study.
Police legitimacy. Prior research has conceptualized police legitimacy as a two-
dimensional concept (Tyler, 2003; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Empirical research
supports this contention (Reisig, Braon, & Ger, 2007). The rst dimension,
obligation to obey, is constructed using two items (“You should do what the police
tell you to do even if you disagree” and “You should accept police decisions even
if you think they are wrong”) that are moderately correlated with each other (r =
0.528, p < 0.001). Trust in police, the second dimension, is also represented by two
survey items (“The police in my community are trustworthy” and “I am proud
of the police in this community”). The correlation between the two trust items is
0.653 (p < 0.001). These four items featured a 4-point response set that ranged from
strongly disagree (coded 1) to strongly agree (coded 4). Results from the factor
analysis conrmed that these four items load on the hypothesized factors (λ =
1.019 for obligation to obey and λ = 1.313 for trust in police, respectively). The
present study operationalizes police legitimacy as a two-dimensional construct by
combining the obligation to obey items and the trust in police items into a single
summate scale (Cronbach’s α = 0.632; mean inter-item r = 0.301). The scale is coded
so that higher scores reect higher levels of perceived police legitimacy (M = 9.824,
SD = 2.302).
Procedural justice. Six survey items are used to construct the procedural justice
scale. These items reect personal judgments about how the police treat people
(“The police are courteous to people they come into contact with” and “The police
treat everyone with dignity”) and the quality of the decisions they make (“The
police make decisions based on the facts,” “The police explain their decisions to
the people they deal with,” “The police make decisions to handle problems fairly,”
and “The police follow though on their decisions and promises they make”). The
closed-ended response set for these items ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4
(strongly agree). These items reect a unitary latent construct (λ = 4.717, loadings
> 0.40), and also exhibit a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.777;
mean inter-item r = 0.369). The additive scale is coded so that higher scores reect
more positive procedural justice judgments (M = 14.876, SD = 3.142).
Police eectiveness. Four survey items that reect judgments among the
study participants for how well the police are dealing with crime and disorder
in their neighborhoods were used to construct the police eectiveness scale. More
specically, participants were presented the following statements: “There are
not many instances of crime in my neighborhood,” “I feel safe walking in my
neighborhood at night,” “The police are doing a good job preventing crime
in my neighborhood,” and “The police do a good job maintaining order in my
neighborhood.” The factor analysis revealed that these items all load on the same
factor (λ = 1.491, loadings > 0.50). The alpha coecient for this summate scale is
Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy, and Public Cooperation with the Police Among Young ...

155
Michael D. Reisig, Justice Tankebe, Gorazd Meško
0.708 (mean inter-item r = 0.386). The scale is coded so that higher scores reect
more positive judgments regarding police eectiveness at dealing with crime and
disorder (M = 10.395, SD = 2.671).
Demographic variables. Two demographic variables are included in the
analyses to help ensure that the observed estimates in the multivariate models are
unbiased. Age is coded using categories ranging from 1 (18 years) to 5 (22 years
or older) (M = 1.332, SD = 0.712). Male is a dichotomous measure (1 = yes). Male
participants made up approximately 39 percent of the sample.
I II III IV V
1 Imagine that you were out and saw someone
steal a wallet. How likely would you be to
call the police? 0.050 0.557 -0.029 -0.049 -0.048
2If the police were looking for witnesses in a
case where someone’s wallet was stolen, how
likely would you be to volunteer information
if you witnessed the theft?
-0.006 0.748 0.031 -0.011 0.047
3 Imagine you had evidence that someone
bribed a government ocial. How likely
would you be to report this behavior to the
police?
-0.055 0.465 0.073 0.014 -0.025
4 How likely would you be to call the police if
you say someone break into a house or car? -0.029 0.535 -0.013 0.125 0.004
5 How likely would you be to volunteer to
serve as a witness in a criminal court case
involving a crime that you witnessed? 0.046 0.699 -0.041 -0.039 -0.009
6 You should do what the police tell you to do
even if you disagree. -0.051 0.002 0.031 0.032 0.786
7 You should accept police decisions even if
you think they are wrong. 0.087 -0.031 -0.017 -0.019 0.656
8 The police in my community are trustworthy. -0.020 0.033 0.057 0.791 0.001
9 I am proud of the police in this community. 0.154 -0.016 -0.068 0.732 0.014
10 The police are courteous to citizens they
come into contact with. 0.583 0.034 -0.041 0.098 -0.040
11 The police treat everyone with dignity. 0.665 -0.036 -0.074 0.063 -0.038
12 The police make decisions based on the facts. 0.497 -0.044 -0.100 0.111 0.018
13 The police explain their decisions to the
people they deal with. 0.619 0.046 0.027 -0.167 0.058
14 The police make decisions to handle
problems fairly. 0.633 0.040 0.001 0.046 0.028
15 The police follow through on their decisions
and promises they make. 0.692 -0.016 0.027 -0.085 0.011
16 There are not many instances of crime in my
neighborhood. -0.170 0.061 0.614 0.041 0.031
17 I fell safe walking in my neighborhood at
night. -0.081 -0.011 0.572 -0.081 0.011
Table 1:
Promax-Rotated
Principal-
Axis Paern
Loadings

156
18 The police are doing a good job preventing
crime in my neighborhood. 0.184 0.016 0.642 0.044 -0.017
19 The police are doing a good job maintaining
order in my neighborhood. 0.184 0.016 0.642 0.044 -0.017
Eigenvalue (λ) = 4.717 2.387 1.491 1.313 1.019
Note. Paen loadings greater than |0.40| are shown in boldface.
3.3 Analytic Strategy
The analyses proceed in two stages. In the rst part, the two hypotheses derived
from the process-based model of policing are tested in a manner largely consistent
with prior research. Doing so entails regressing the police legitimacy scale onto
respondents’ judgments of procedural justice, police eectiveness, and the two
demographic variables. During this stage, the eect of police legitimacy on public
cooperation is also evaluated in a regression context, net of police eectiveness,
age, and male. The second stage breaks from prior research by investigating
whether the eects observed to this point are sensitive to the operationalizations
of two variables—police legitimacy and public cooperation. This is carried out in
two ways. First, a series of regression models are estimated so that the eect of
police legitimacy on the ve component parts of the public cooperation with police
scale can be evaluated, net of police eectiveness, age, and male. Next, the direct
eects of the two domains of police legitimacy—obligation to obey and trust in the
police—on public cooperation are subjected to empirical scrutiny.
Because the dependent variables in this study are treated as interval scale
measures, ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression is used to test the hypotheses
of interest. Preliminary analyses indicate the presence of heteroscedastic errors.
Additionally, because students are nested in schools, the observations are not
independent. These two features of the data can result in biased parameter
estimates. To guard against these threats, Huber-White robust standard errors
corrected for clustering on schools are used when estimating multivariate models.
4 RESULTS
The analyses begins by evaluating the Pearson’s r correlation coecients. Doing
allows a preliminary empirical assessment of the hypotheses of interest. Regarding
the rst step in the process-based model, the results clearly demonstrate that
procedural justice judgments covary with perceptions of legitimacy in the
hypothesized direction (r = 0.521, p < 0.001). This nding supports a key process-
based model hypothesis. The bivariate correlations also show that the police
legitimacy and the public cooperation scale are empirically linked. Although
the two variables are related at the 0.05 level, the magnitude of the coecient is
relatively weak (r = 0.081). Nevertheless, this observation supports the second
process-based model hypothesis. Overall, the Pearson’s r correlation coecients
support both theoretical hypotheses. Although encouraging, more rigorous tests
Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy, and Public Cooperation with the Police Among Young ...

157
Michael D. Reisig, Justice Tankebe, Gorazd Meško
that take into account the impact of third variables (e.g., police eectiveness) need
to be conducted before conclusions can be drawn.
The correlation coecients also provide a look at the relationships between
the independent variables. Importantly, none of the coecients exceed an absolute
value of 0.50, which is below that conventional threshold for detecting harmful
levels of collinearity (i.e., an absolute value of 0.70). To further investigate whether
collinearity would bias the parameter estimates, tolerance tests were conducted
for the regression models in Table 2. The results indicate that collinearity is not a
concern (tolerance tests > 0.70).
Variables Police legitimacy Public cooperation with police
BSE t-ratio BSE t-ratio
Procedural justice 0.334 0.029 11.57** --- --- ---
Police legitimacy --- --- --- 0.076 0.028 2.71*
Police eectiveness 0.130 0.040 3.26* 0.058 0.020 2.85*
Male -0.280 0.083 -3.39* -0.384 0.272 -1.41
Age -0.223 0.086 -2.59* -0.161 0.188 -0.86
Constant 3.912 0.386 10.13** 13.098 0.424 30.92**
F-test 5050.30** 22.87*
R20.298 0.014
Note. Entries are unstandardized regression coecients (b), and robust standard errors
that adjust for clustering on schools in parentheses.
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test)
In Table 2 the police legitimacy scale is regressed onto procedural justice,
police eectiveness, and the demographic variables. The joint association test
(F-test) indicates that the four-variable model provides more explanatory power
than would be expected by chance alone. The coecient of multiple determination
(R2) shows that the model explains nearly 30% of the variation associated with
police legitimacy. Separate analyses reveal that the procedural justice scale
accounts for a large portion (approximately 91%) of the explained variation.
The t-ratio for the unstandardized partial regression procedural justice estimate
in Table 2 is statistically signicant at the 0.01 level. The test statistic for police
eectiveness also achieves statistical signicance, suggesting that perceptions of
whether police successfully deal with neighborhood crime and disorder inuences
participants’ legitimacy perceptions. Interestingly, however, the inclusion of the
police eectiveness in the police legitimacy model only modestly aenuates the
procedural justice eect (about a 12% reduction). This indicates that the observed
eect of procedural justice is not spurious. Overall, the observations thus far are
consistent with the bivariate results and support the process-based model tenet
that police legitimacy is signicantly inuenced by fair and just interpersonal
treatment by the police.
Also featured in Table 2 is the OLS equation for public cooperation with police.
The F-test indicates that the four-variable model is superior relative to a constant-
Table 2: Police
Legitimacy
and Public
Cooperation
with Police
OLS Regression
Models

158
only model. However, the amount of variation accounted for by the model is very
modest (R2 = 0.014). As expected, police legitimacy is signicantly correlated with
public cooperation. The police eectiveness scale also exerts a signicant eect on
the outcome. With regards to explanatory power, separate analyses reveal that
police legitimacy accounts for nearly twice as much explained variation as the
police eectiveness scale. The eect of police legitimacy, however, is aenuated by
about 23% when police eectiveness is included in the model. In sum, the results
support the process-based model hypothesis that police legitimacy and public
cooperation covary directly. Nevertheless, the eect appears to be fairly weak,
especially when police eectiveness is specied in the equation. The analyses
continue by considering whether the eect of police legitimacy on helping the
police holds when dierent variable operationalizations are considered. Such an
investigation will shed light on the robustness of the police legitimacy eect.
In Table 3, the ve individual survey items used to construct the public
cooperation with police scale are regressed onto police legitimacy, police
eectiveness, and the personal variables. This modeling strategy is used to
determine whether the eect of police legitimacy is invariant across the dierent
forms of cooperation. The F-tests in Table 3 are not encouraging. Only three of the
ve equations exert greater predictive power than a constant-only model. In two
of the models with signicant F-tests, the t-ratio for the police legitimacy estimate
is not statistically signicant. Interestingly, in one of the two models where the
F-test fails to achieve signicance at the 0.05 level, the t-ratio for police legitimacy is
signicant. This would appear at rst glance to show that individuals who perceive
the police to be legitimate are also more willing to call the police if they were to
witness a car or home being broken into. However, because the F-test indicates that
none of the predictors have a linear relationship with the outcome, interpreting
the police legitimacy estimate as substantively meaningful would likely be a Type
I error of inference. The only signicant police legitimacy eect is observed in the
model for volunteering information to the police who are looking for witnesses in
a case involving a stolen wallet. Three features dierentiate this indicator from the
other public cooperation with police items. First, volunteering information to the
police who are actively looking for witnesses requires less initiative than calling the
police. That is, it is a fairly passive endeavor. Second, cooperating in such a manner
also entails less of a time commitment than providing testimony in a criminal court
case. Finally, a criminal case involving a stolen wallet is far less serious than a
case involving government corruption or breaking into a house. In light of these
ndings, the OLS regression model presented in Table 2 appears to be misleading
in that the eect of police legitimacy is not invariant across dierent forms of public
cooperation. Table 3 demonstrates that the eect of police legitimacy is restricted to
a narrow form of helping the police ght crime that requires relatively lile from
individuals and involves a comparatively minor criminal oense.
Table 3:
Disaggregated
Public
Cooperation
with Police
OLS Regression
Models
Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy, and Public Cooperation with the Police Among Young ...

159
Michael D. Reisig, Justice Tankebe, Gorazd Meško
only model. However, the amount of variation accounted for by the model is very
modest (R2 = 0.014). As expected, police legitimacy is signicantly correlated with
public cooperation. The police eectiveness scale also exerts a signicant eect on
the outcome. With regards to explanatory power, separate analyses reveal that
police legitimacy accounts for nearly twice as much explained variation as the
police eectiveness scale. The eect of police legitimacy, however, is aenuated by
about 23% when police eectiveness is included in the model. In sum, the results
support the process-based model hypothesis that police legitimacy and public
cooperation covary directly. Nevertheless, the eect appears to be fairly weak,
especially when police eectiveness is specied in the equation. The analyses
continue by considering whether the eect of police legitimacy on helping the
police holds when dierent variable operationalizations are considered. Such an
investigation will shed light on the robustness of the police legitimacy eect.
In Table 3, the ve individual survey items used to construct the public
cooperation with police scale are regressed onto police legitimacy, police
eectiveness, and the personal variables. This modeling strategy is used to
determine whether the eect of police legitimacy is invariant across the dierent
forms of cooperation. The F-tests in Table 3 are not encouraging. Only three of the
ve equations exert greater predictive power than a constant-only model. In two
of the models with signicant F-tests, the t-ratio for the police legitimacy estimate
is not statistically signicant. Interestingly, in one of the two models where the
F-test fails to achieve signicance at the 0.05 level, the t-ratio for police legitimacy is
signicant. This would appear at rst glance to show that individuals who perceive
the police to be legitimate are also more willing to call the police if they were to
witness a car or home being broken into. However, because the F-test indicates that
none of the predictors have a linear relationship with the outcome, interpreting
the police legitimacy estimate as substantively meaningful would likely be a Type
I error of inference. The only signicant police legitimacy eect is observed in the
model for volunteering information to the police who are looking for witnesses in
a case involving a stolen wallet. Three features dierentiate this indicator from the
other public cooperation with police items. First, volunteering information to the
police who are actively looking for witnesses requires less initiative than calling the
police. That is, it is a fairly passive endeavor. Second, cooperating in such a manner
also entails less of a time commitment than providing testimony in a criminal court
case. Finally, a criminal case involving a stolen wallet is far less serious than a
case involving government corruption or breaking into a house. In light of these
ndings, the OLS regression model presented in Table 2 appears to be misleading
in that the eect of police legitimacy is not invariant across dierent forms of public
cooperation. Table 3 demonstrates that the eect of police legitimacy is restricted to
a narrow form of helping the police ght crime that requires relatively lile from
individuals and involves a comparatively minor criminal oense.
Table 3:
Disaggregated
Public
Cooperation
with Police
OLS Regression
Models
Variables
Report stolen
wallet
Volunteer
information
about stolen
wallet
Report bribery
of government
ocial
Report house
or car break-in
Volunteer as
a witness in
criminal court
case
bt-ratio Bt-ratio bt-ratio Bt-ratio bt-ratio
(SE) (SE) (SE) (SE) (SE)
Police
legitimacy
-0.002 -0.19 0.030 2.83* 0.002 0.16 0.033 3.34* 0.013 1.22
(0.013) (0.011) (0.013) (0.010) (0.011)
Police
eecti-
veness
0.007 0.76 0.022 2.30 0.018 2.02 0.003 0.44 0.009 0.58
(0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.008) (0.015)
Male -0.147 -3.46* -0.168 -1.99 0.165 1.70 -0.021 -0.37 -0.213 -4.37**
(0.042) (0.085) (0.097) (0.056) (0.049)
Age 0.020 0.56 -0.039 -0.89 -0.065 -0.92 -0.109 -2.09 0.032 0.89
(0.036) (0.043) (0.070) (0.052) (0.035)
Constant 2.570 20.19** 2.254 21.17** 2.693 22.97** 3.276 31.41** 2.306 11.07**
(0.3127) (0.106) (0.117) (0.104) (0.208)
F-test 8.85* 19.62** 2.64 3.89 17.53**
R2 0.007 0.022 0.013 0.028 0.016
Note. Entries are unstandardized regression coecients (b), and robust standard errors
that adjust for clustering on schools in parentheses.
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test)
The analyses in Table 4 address whether the two component parts of police
legitimacy—obligation to obey and trust in police—exert similar eects on public
cooperation with police. If they do not, then the ndings reported above are
potentially misleading in that they imply that both police legitimacy subscales
are salient in explaining public cooperation. On the left-hand side of Table 4, the
public cooperation with police scale is regressed onto obligation to obey, police
eectiveness, male, and age. The t-ratio for the obligation to obey estimate is not
statistically signicant. This observation is counter to the prediction of the process-
based model. It is plausible that police eectiveness is confounded with obligation
to obey. However, separate analyses reveal that this is not the case. For example,
the Pearson’s correlation coecient for obligation to obey (r = 0.004, p = 0.927)
indicates no signicant correlation with the public cooperation with police scale. In
contrast, the model on the right-hand side of Table 4 shows that the trust in police
estimate is in the predicted direction and the t-ratio is signicant at the 0.05 level
using a one-tailed test. These ndings are consistent with prior research conducted
in the United States (Reisig, Braon, & Ger, 2007). At a minimum, these ndings
call into question current measurement strategies relating to police legitimacy.

160
Variables Public cooperation
B SE t-ratio BSE t-ratio
Obligation to obey -0.017 0.041 -0.41 --- --- ---
Trust in police --- --- --- 0.204 0.099 2.05†
Police eectiveness 0.082 0.023 3.58* 0.036 0.020 1.73
Male -0.416 0.263 -1.58 -0.329 0.292 -1.12
Age -0.178 0.192 -0.93 -0.153 0.181 -0.85
Constant 13.715 0.256 53.61** 13.105 0.474 27.66**
F-test 46.82** 10.85*
R20.011 0.020
Note. Entries are unstandardized regression coecients (b), and robust standard errors
that adjust for clustering on schools in parentheses.
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed test), † p < 0.05 (one-tailed test)
5 DISCUSSION
Over the past decade, criminologists have assessed the causes and consequences
of police legitimacy. Regarding the former, the empirical evidence consistently
demonstrates that variation in police legitimacy is largely explained by people’s
procedural justice judgments (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Wolfe, 2011). As a predictor
variable, police legitimacy has been used to explain compliance with legal statutes
(Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Reisig et al., 2011; Tyler, 1990) and public cooperation with
police (Reisig et al., 2007; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). Extant research also generally
shows that police legitimacy is a consistent predictor of these two outcomes. The
research that fails to support the legitimacy-cooperation link comes from studies
conducted outside the United States. The current study sought to test these two
general hypotheses using survey data from a school-based sample of young adults
in Slovenia. Results from the regression analyses were largely consistent with prior
research supporting the two key hypotheses derived from the process-based model.
However, a more nuanced assessment revealed that one component of police
legitimacy—trust in police—was a more stronger correlate. The eect of the other
subscale (i.e., obligation to obey) on public cooperation was nil. Finally, this study
extends prior research by investigating whether the eect of police legitimacy is
invariant across dierent forms of cooperation. The results clearly demonstrate that
it is not. More specically, the only outcome variable that was aected by police
legitimacy involved a fairly minor form of theft and a comparatively convenient
way of assisting police ocers. Overall, the ndings from the study bear directly
on three issues that require further discussion.
The rst issue concerns the generality of the process-based model of policing.
The relative merit of social scientic theories is evaluated on a number of dimensions,
including the extent to which they are able to explain and predict phenomena of
interest in dierent seings. As noted at the outset, the vast majority of research
on the dierent aspects of the process-based model has been conducted in the
United States. Studies based in developing nations, such as Ghana and Jamaica,
suggest that aspects of the process-based model of policing may be limited to
Table 4:
The Eects
of Police
Legitimacy
Subscales
on Public
Cooperation
with Police
Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy, and Public Cooperation with the Police Among Young ...

161
Michael D. Reisig, Justice Tankebe, Gorazd Meško
industrialized democracies (see Reisig & Lloyd, 2009; Tankebe, 2009). The current
study was conducted in a nation that clearly has a dierent political, economic,
and social history when compared to the United States. However, one could
persuasively argue that Slovenia is more similar to the United States along those
three dimensions than Ghana and Jamaica. The results from the current analysis
show that support for key propositions of the process-based model can be observed
in a post-socialist state (also see Reisig & Meško, 2009). However, limitations were
also noted. This brings us to another issue that requires elaboration.
A second point relates to the ongoing debate on how best to conceptualize and
operationalize police legitimacy. The existing legitimacy literature is inuenced
heavily by work in the eld of psychology. As a result, empirical analyses rely
almost exclusively on data from people’s subjective evaluations. Unlike Beetham
(1991), we do not think subjective assessments are irrelevant to the study of
legitimacy. However, there is the need for fresh methodological experimentation
that draws upon both objective and subjective indicators. It is important to note
that there are fundamental conceptual and measurement problems with the
current approach. In the existing literature, police legitimacy is often measured by
asking people about their feelings of obligation to obey police directives and about
their trust in the police. Booms and Tankebe (2012) have argued that collectively
and individually, trust and obligation are distinct concepts that should not be
conated with legitimacy. They contend that trust tends to be future-oriented and
may be dened as “a positive feeling of expectation regarding another’s future
actions” (Barbalet, 2009: 375). Legitimacy, on the other hand, is a concept focused
on the present; it is concerned with recognition of the moral rightness of claims
to exercise power here and now, rather than in the future. On obligation to obey,
it has been argued that is it the outcome of perceived police legitimacy; that is,
people feel an obligation to obey the police when they view them to be legitimate
(Tankebe, 2009). Moreover, legitimacy is only one of many reasons (e.g., apathy,
fear, and powerlessness) why people might feel an obligation to obey the police,
and therefore it would be a mistake to read every expression of obligation to
obey the police as legitimacy. Drawing on Beetham (1991) and Coicaud (2002),
Booms and Tankebe (2012) argue for police legitimacy to be operationalized with
questions about the extent to which police activities are considered as legal and
whether the laws the police enforce reect the values of the society in question.
These are arguments beyond the scope of the present article, but addressing them
empirically is an urgent task.
Finally, the results from the present study inform police policy and practice.
It has long been assumed among criminologists that the police can do lile to
reduce community crime rates. It is probably the case that focusing police aention
on the correlates of crime, such as concentrated poverty, family disruption, and
genetic predisposition, will not aect oending paerns. However, recent research
has shown that some police strategies can impact crime rates (see, e.g., Braga &
Bond, 2008; Cerdá et al., 2009). The current study showed that in dealing with
crime the police can rely more on area residents if they cultivate legitimacy by
exercising their authority in a fair and just fashion. Indeed, the research shows
that individuals who perceive the police to behave in procedurally just ways are

162
not only more likely to perceive them as legitimate, but also are signicantly more
willing to get involved in crime prevention programs (Reisig, 2007). Given this
amount of systematic support, police ocials in Slovenia and elsewhere should
seriously consider seeking out and/or developing training curricula that teach and
promote fair practices.
Combined with prior research, this study demonstrates the general applicability
of the process-based model of policing. Questions remain, however, as to whether
procedural justice and police legitimacy have similar eects in other post-socialist
countries in Europe. And other seings, such as industrialized democracies on
the Asian continent, are equally intriguing potential research seings that have
yet to be included among the growing roster of process-based model studies.
Future researchers who conduct studies similar to the one presented here in
the aforementioned sites could provide added insight into the generality of the
process-based model of policing.
REFERENCES
Barbalet, J. (2009). A characterization of trust, and its consequences. Theory and
Society, 38(4), 367-382.
Beetham, D. (1991). The legitimation of power. London: Macmillan.
Booms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach
to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1),
119-170.
Braga, A. A., & Bond, B. J. (2008). Police crime and disorder hot sports: A randomized
controlled trial. Criminology, 46(3), 577-607.
Cerdá, M., Tracy, M., Messner, S. F., Vlahov, D., Tardi, K., & Galea, S. (2009).
Misdemeanor policing, physical disorder, and gun-related homicide: A spatial
analytic test of “broken-windows” theory. Epidemiology, 20(4), 533-541.
Coicaud, J.-M. (2002). Legitimacy and politics: A contribution to the study of political right
and political responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fagan, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Legal socialization of children and adolescents. Social
Justice Research, 18(3), 217-242.
Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural
justice to improve police legitimacy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Criminology, 40(4), 27-43.
Huntington, S. P. (1993). The third wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Klepper, S., & Nagin, D. (1989). The deterrent eect of perceived certainty and
severity of punishment revisited. Criminology, 27(4), 721-746
Lassman, P. (2000). The rule of man over man: Politics, power, and legitimation.
In S. Turner (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Weber (pp. 83-98). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
MacCormick, N. (2007). Institutions of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Matheson, C. (1987). Weber and the classication of forms of legitimacy. British
Journal of Sociology, 38(2), 199-215.
Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy, and Public Cooperation with the Police Among Young ...

163
Michael D. Reisig, Justice Tankebe, Gorazd Meško
Murphy, T., & Cherney, A. (2012). Understanding cooperation with police in a
diverse Society. British Journal of Criminology, 52(1), 181-201.
Nelken, D. (2010). Comparative criminal justice: Making sense of dierence. London:
Sage.
Paternoster, R., Bachman, R., Brame, R., & Sherman, L. W. (1997). Do fair procedures
maer? The eects of procedural justice on spousal assault. Law & Society
Review, 31(1), 163–204.
Reisig, M. D. (2007). Procedural justice and community policing: What shapes
residents’ willingness to participate in crime prevention programs? Policing: A
Journal of Policy and Practice, 1(3), 356-369.
Reisig, M. D., & Lloyd, C. (2009). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and helping
the police ght crime: Results from a survey of Jamaican adolescents. Police
Quarterly, 12(1), 42-62.
Reisig, M. D., & Meško, G. (2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and prisoner
misconduct. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 15(1), 37-54.
Reisig, M. D., Braon, J., & Ger, M. G. (2007). The construct validity and renement
of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 1005-
1028.
Reisig, M. D., Wolfe, S., & Holtfreter, K. (2011). Legal cynicism, legitimacy, and
criminal oending: The nonconfounding eect of low self-control. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 38(12), 1265-1279.
Rothschild, J. (1977). Observation on legitimacy in contemporary Europe. Political
Science Quarterly, 92(3), 487-501.
Sherman, L. (1990). Police crackdowns: Initial and residual deterrence. Crime and
Justice: An Annual Review of Research, 12, 1-48.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in
shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37(3), 513-548.
Tankebe, J. (2008). Police eectiveness and police trustworthiness in Ghana: An
empirical appraisal. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 8(2), 185–202.
Tankebe, J. (2009). Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: Does procedural
fairness maer? Criminology, 47(4), 1265-1293.
Tonry, M. (2007). Preface: Legitimacy and criminal justice. In T. Tyler (ed.), Legitimacy
and criminal justice (pp. 3-8). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the eective rule of law. Crime
and Justice: A Review of Research, 30, 283-357.
Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help
the police ght crime in their communities? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law,
6(1), 231-275.
Tyler, T. R., Schulhofer, S., & Huq, A. Z. (2010). Legitimacy and deterrence eects
in counterterrorism policing: A study of Muslim Americans. Law and Society
Review, 44(2), 365-402.
Wolfe, S. (2011). The eect of low self-control on perceived police legitimacy. Journal
of Criminal Justice, 39(1), 67-74.

164
About the Authors:
Michael D. Reisig, PhD, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona
State University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA; reisig@asu.edu
Justice Tankebe, PhD, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, United Kingdom; jt340@cam.ac.uk
Gorazd Meško, PhD, Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, University of
Maribor, Ljubljana, Slovenia; gorazd.mesko@fvv.uni-mb.si
Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy, and Public Cooperation with the Police Among Young ...