Content uploaded by Toby Miles-Johnson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Toby Miles-Johnson on Aug 02, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
www.crimejusticejournal.com IJCJ&SD 2018 7(2): 91-106 ISSN 2202-8005
© The Author(s) 2018
Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Citizen Decisions
to Report Hate Crime Incidents in Australia1
Susann Wiedlitzka
University of Sussex, United Kingdom
Lorraine Mazerolle
University of Queensland, Australia
Suzanna Fay-Ramirez
University of Queensland, Australia
Toby Miles-Johnson
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Abstract
This article examines the importance of perceptions of police legitimacy in the decision to
report hate crime incidents in Australia. It addresses an identified gap in the literature by
analysing the 2011-2012 National Security and Preparedness Survey (NSPS) results to not
only explore differences between hate crime and non-hate crime reporting but also how
individual characteristics and perceptions of legitimacy influence decisions about reporting
crime to police. Using the NSPS survey data, we created three Generalised Linear Latent and
Mixed Models (Gllamm), which explore the influence of individual characteristics and
potential barriers on the decision to report crime/hate crime incidents to police. Our results
suggest that hate crimes are less likely to be reported to police in comparison to non-hate
crime incidents, and that more positive perceptions of police legitimacy and police
cooperation are associated with the victim’s decision to report hate crime victimisation.
Keywords
Hate crime; policing; reporting crime; victimisation.
Please cite this article as:
Wiedlitzka S, Mazerolle L, Fay-Ramirez S and Miles-Johnson T (2018) Perceptions of police
legitimacy and citizen decisions to report hate crime incidents in Australia. International
Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 7(2): 91-106. DOI: 10.5204/ijcjsd.v7i2.483.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licence. As an
open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-
commercial settings. ISSN: 2202-8005
Susann Wiedlitzka et al.: Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Citizen Decisions to Report Hate Crime Incidents in Australia
IJCJ&SD 92
Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2018 7(2)
Introduction
Prejudice motivated crime (PMC)—predominantly referred to in academic literature as hate
crime2—is severely under-reported and under-reporting happens on an unequal basis
(Gerstenfeld 2011). Multiple factors have an impact on the under-reporting of hate crime, such as
the victim’s minority group status (Culotta 2005; Gerstenfeld 2011; Miles-Johnson 2013; Shively
et al. 2001; Zaykowski 2010) and the victim’s perception of the legitimacy of criminal justice
system agencies (Goudriaan et al. 2004; Tyler 2005, 2011). Citizen perceptions of the legitimacy
of institutions play a central role in understanding PMC reporting behavior. Legitimacy is an
important aspect for authorities, institutions and institutional arrangements to be successful due
to the inherent difficulty of coercing others by possession and power (Tyler 2006). The public
needs to believe in the values upheld by the police to consider their actions legitimate (Kääriäinen
and Sirén 2011). Legitimacy influences cooperation with police and fair procedures enhance
police legitimacy even further (Tyler and Fagan 2010).
The relationship between the public and police is important in battling hate crime (Hall 2012).
Existing research explores the influence of police legitimacy on victim reporting behavior
(Jackson et al. 2012; Kääriäinen and Sirén 2011; Tyler and Fagan 2010) as well as the influence
of minority group status on trust in and cooperation with the police (Miles-Johnson 2015; Murphy
2013; Murphy and Cherney 2010; Sargeant et al. 2014). There is limited research, however, on
the importance of perceptions of police legitimacy in the decision to report hate crime incidents.
This article addresses this gap in the literature by analysing the 2011-2012 National Security and
Preparedness Survey (NSPS) results (Ramirez et al. 2013) and exploring the differences between
reporting PMC and non-PMC—comparable crimes that do not have the motive of prejudice, bias
or hate (Mason and Dyer 2013)—including how individual characteristics and perceptions of
legitimacy shape the decision to report crimes.
Literature review
Australian and international research indicates that ethnic minorities display low levels of
confidence and trust in the police, resulting in less voluntary cooperation (Cherney and Chui
2009; Murphy and Cherney 2011; Tyler 2011). Perceptions of over-policing and under-protecting
influence these levels of cooperation, as well as prior negative experiences with law enforcement
in former countries of residency (Cherney and Chui 2009; Murphy and Cherney 2011). The
Leicester Hate Crime Project conducted in the United Kingdom from 2012 to 2014 found that hate
crime victims have felt their complaints had not been taken seriously by police (and other
authorities) and only a few had declared that they would report hate crime in the future
(Chakraborti et al. 2014).
Multiple studies have confirmed an association between trust in the police and the willingness to
cooperate (Cherney and Chui 2009; Murphy and Cherney 2011; Tyler 2005, 2011). Prior research
has determined that the general public judges police officers and police procedures not only by
the efficacy of crime control but also by their standards of justice, focusing on the fairness of
procedures (Tyler 2005). Procedures under evaluation are the ‘neutrality of decision making,
respectful and polite interpersonal treatment and providing opportunities for input into
decisions’ (Tyler 2005: 339). Positive perceptions of police officers’ authority matter and abuse
of authority by police officers results in decreased trust in police and, consequently, in less
willingness to report crime (Tyler 2005). Further, different ethnic groups have different
expectations and requirements regarding the service of police, and many ethnic groups
differentiate between police performance and procedural justice (Sargeant et al. 2014). Sargeant
et al. (2014) found that procedural justice is less important for cooperation with police for
Vietnamese and Indian respondents compared to the general population, while police
performance was more effective in promoting trust in the police for Vietnamese respondents
(with no significant differences for Indian participants). This result might be due to historical
Susann Wiedlitzka et al.: Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Citizen Decisions to Report Hate Crime Incidents in Australia
IJCJ&SD 93
Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2018 7(2)
experiences of conflict and cultural differences as well as more recent incidents of biased policing,
especially in Australia (Sargeant et al. 2014).
The matter of government legitimacy also influences the reporting behaviour of victims. The
police force is a government agency and, as such, its officers represent the rules and regulations
of the government. The state has the responsibility to maintain peace, protect individuals and
achieve public legitimacy (Tyler 2003). Individuals who see the government as legitimate will be
more likely to accept laws implemented by the government and take on the responsibility to abide
by such laws and cooperate with government bodies. Dissimilarities in the confidence in the
police (and government) additionally undermine social integration and create social differences
(Cao 2011). Bradford (2014) has examined the links between procedural justice, social identity
and police cooperation and has tested if people are more cooperative with the police if they feel
included in the social group that the police represents and identify with this group. The study
found significant evidence for police fairness, legitimacy and social identity to influence
cooperation with police (Bradford 2014). Oliveira and Murphy (2015) even established that
social identity is more important than ethnicity or race in predicting views of the police.
Certain attributes of individuals not only contribute to the chance of PMC and other types of crime
victimisation but also play a more specific role in PMC reporting behaviour. As Culotta (2005: 23)
states, ‘[t]he very reason a victim may have been singled out (that is, ethnicity) may also create
an obstacle for reporting the incident’. Indigenous Australians especially have specific barriers
when reporting a crime. Next to cultural and language barriers, members of Indigenous
communities—especially in those communities that are small and isolated—fear negative
repercussions, stigmatisation and banishment. Additionally, these persons may experience
deficiencies in victim support, government and non-government services and police resources,
all of which are barriers to reporting crimes to police (Taylor and Putt 2007; Willis 2011). An
unawareness of relevant authorities or distrust towards those authorities as well as a feeling of
resignation influences the (un)willingness of Arabs, Muslims and individuals of Middle Eastern
appearance to report PMC (Poynting and Noble 2004). Those individuals who have reported an
incident in the past have often been dissatisfied with the response and service they have received,
resulting in victims avoiding public places and feeling excluded from public life (Poynting and
Noble 2004).
Accordingly, being part of a minority group and experiencing a PMC further decreases the
reporting of such crime. PMC victims are more likely to refrain from filing reports and less likely
to involve the police (Perry 2001). Victims of PMC are more prone to be in powerless situations
as well as more likely to have poor relations with law enforcement officials (Gerstenfeld 2011).
Personal barriers such as language, culture, sexual orientation, hate crime law knowledge, trust
in police and responses to hate crime have an effect on reporting behaviour (Culotta 2005; Shively
et al. 2001). The literature points to people with perceptions of lower levels of police legitimacy
than the majority of the population as less likely to report crime. The literature also suggests that
minority groups have lower perception levels of police legitimacy compared to the majority
group. The study on which this article is based hypothesised that perceptions of police legitimacy
influences the decision to report PMC. A detailed discussion of the methods used for this
assessment is outlined next.
Methods
Data were drawn from the NSPS, a national probability sample, collected under the auspices of
the Australian Research Council Centre for Excellence in Policing and Security (CEPS). The study
randomly sampled 6,590 Australian residents via Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews.
These individuals completed a short two-minute phone survey and 6,098 of these respondents
agreed to go on to complete the main survey (online or via hardcopy). Of those recruited, 4,258
people returned completed surveys3 and of these, 762 had been victims of crime within the
Susann Wiedlitzka et al.: Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Citizen Decisions to Report Hate Crime Incidents in Australia
IJCJ&SD 94
Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2018 7(2)
previous twelve months. The NSPS primarily benchmarked attitudes and perceptions towards
national security and disaster preparedness (Ramirez et al. 2013), but the survey also included
items designed to measure self-reported crime and victimisation as well as accounting for hate
crime occurrences.4 Further, the survey allowed for distinction between violent and property
victimisation as well as whether non-PMC victims or PMC victims reported a crime to police.
Outcome variable
Two of the questions included in the NSPS asked respondents, firstly, if they had been victims of
a property or violent crime in the past twelve months and, secondly, if they had reported the
crime to police. Some of the 762 respondent victims had experienced multiple crime incidents
and, for each crime incident, we recorded whether the victim had reported the crime to police.
We created a multilevel dataset to reflect types of crime victimisation for individuals in order to
account for property and violent crimes experienced by each person. In some cases, a respondent
experienced both types of crime but only reported one and not the other. The newly created
dichotomous reporting variable included 871 incidents of crime nested within the 762 individual
victims.
Explanatory variables
Perception of police legitimacy
The NSPS measures police legitimacy consistent with existing long-standing literature on the
topic (Bradford 2014; Gau 2011; Hinds and Murphy 2007; Murphy and Cherney 2012; Murphy et
al. 2010; Reisig et al. 2007). Items measuring perceptions of police legitimacy in the survey asked
about how much respondents strongly disagreed (1) to strongly agreed (5) with the following
statements about the police:
(a) police try to be fair when making decisions;
(b) police treat people fairly;
(c) police treat people with dignity and respect;
(d) police are always polite when dealing with people;
(e) police listen to people before making decisions;
(f) police make decisions based upon facts, not their personal biases or opinions;
(g) police respect people’s rights when decisions are made;
(h) overall, I think that police are doing a good job in my community;
(i) I trust the police in my community;
(j) I have confidence in the police in my community; and
(k) police are accessible to the people in this community.
The above scale (α = 0.95) includes police legitimacy items (that is, trust in the police, police
performance), as well as procedural justice items (that is, quality of treatment, quality of decision-
making) because of high loadings onto one factor during a factor analysis, which specified the
items best fitted for the scale. Gau (2011) has tested the assumption that procedural justice and
police legitimacy are distinct from each other using a confirmatory factor analysis and has found,
to the contrary, that a tendency for trust to load with procedural justice items exists (see also
Tankebe 2013; Tankebe et al. 2016).
Willingness to cooperate with police
An additional scale was created to inquire whether respondents have noted that they will
cooperate with police and, if they were victims, whether they were willing to report the crime to
police (see, that is, Bradford 2014; Murphy and Cherney 2012; Murphy et al. 2010; Sunshine and
Tyler 2003; Tankebe 2013; Tyler and Fagan 2010). This scale included the response categories
ranging from ‘very unlikely’ (1) to ‘very likely’ (5) to the question, ‘If the situation arose, please
indicate how likely you would be to do any of the following’:
Susann Wiedlitzka et al.: Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Citizen Decisions to Report Hate Crime Incidents in Australia
IJCJ&SD 95
Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2018 7(2)
(a) call the police to report a crime;
(b) help police find someone suspected of committing a crime by providing them with
information;
(c) report dangerous or suspicious activity to police; and
(d) willingly assist police if needed (α = of 0.90).
Identifying with Australia and its community
Bradford (2014) has established a link between procedural justice, social identity and police
cooperation, with people being more cooperative if they feel included in the social group that the
police represents and with which they identify. The NSPS instrument asked respondents: ‘How
much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?’, with response categories ranging
from 1 for ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 for ‘strongly agree’ for the following items:
(a) I see myself first and mainly as a member of the Australian community;
(b) it is important for me to be seen by others as a member of the Australian community;
(c) I am proud to be Australian; and
(d) what Australia stands for is important for me (α = 0.84).
Perceptions of government legitimacy
As Goudriaan et al. (2004) point out, opinions toward the government and its responsibility can
influence the reporting behaviour of victims. Perceptions of federal government legitimacy were
established through asking respondents ‘How much of the time can you trust the Australian
government to do what is right?’ (on a scale of four from 1 for ‘just about always’ to 4 for ‘just
about never’; reverse-coded) and asking about their level of confidence in the Prime Minister of
Australia, federal politicians and federal parliament (1 for ‘hardly any confidence’, 2 for ‘only
some confidence’ and 3 for ‘a great deal of confidence’; α = 0.82).
Due to a factor analysis indicating loading onto two separate factors, we distinguished between
federal and state government legitimacy and explored perceptions of state government
legitimacy with respondents’ level of confidence in their State Premier and their State Politicians
(1 for ‘hardly any confidence’, 2 for ‘only some confidence’ to 3 for ‘a great deal of confidence’; α
= 0.81). Prior research utilises similar items to tap into the legitimacy of authority figures and
government agencies (Useem and Useem 1979; van der Toorn et al. 2011; Weatherford 1992).
Perceptions of law legitimacy
Similar to prior research (see, for example, Murphy, Murphy and Mearns 2010; Murphy, Tyler
and Curtis 2009), we measured attitudes and obligations toward the law by items asking
respondents how much they strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) with the following
statements:
(a) you should always obey the law even if it goes against what you think is right;
(b) I feel a moral obligation to obey the law; and
(c) people should do what our laws tell them to do even if they disagree with them (α = 0.86).
Control variables
Variables that may influence victims’ reporting behaviours include linguistic difficulties of
respondents, such as speaking another language than English at home (LOTE dummy) (Culotta
2005; Lockyer 2001); the Indigenous status of respondents (ATSI dummy) because Indigenous
communities in Australia experience cultural and language barriers (Willis 2011); and Australian
citizenship (dummy), because citizenship status guarantees equal rights and services to
individuals. Further potential barriers to reporting behavior may include the immigrant status of
a respondent (foreign born dummy) because immigrants and ethnic minorities are more prone to
victimisation and less likely to report crime to authorities (Culotta 2005); the perception of social
Susann Wiedlitzka et al.: Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Citizen Decisions to Report Hate Crime Incidents in Australia
IJCJ&SD 96
Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2018 7(2)
isolation in the community (preference for Anglo-Saxons as neighbours;5 1 for ‘strongly disagree’
to 5 for ‘strongly agree’; α = 0.82); and religion (a dummy coded variable indicating ‘Christian’ or
‘Other’).
We also controlled for demographics such as age, gender, dependent children, income (ranging
from less than $20,000 to $150,000 or more), education (seven levels from ‘No school’ to
‘Postgrad’), homeownership, marital status, and employment status.6
Table 1 displays the percentages of the potential barriers for reporting crime to police by victim
group (No-victim, Non-PMC victim and PMC victim).
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of potential barriers for reporting crime to police
Potential barriers for reporting
No-victim
(%, M, Md)
Non-PMC victim
(%, M, Md)
PMC victim
(%, M, Md)
LOTE
Yes
No
6.23%
93.77%
2.53%
97.47%
2.17%
97.83%
ATSI
Yes
No
0.97%
99.03%
0.84%
99.16%
2.17%
97.83%
Australian citizen
Yes
No
90.74%
9.26%
93.82%
6.18%
97.83%
2.17%
Foreign born
Yes
No
25.10%
74.90%
19.94%
80.06%
28.26%
71.74%
Preference for Anglo-Saxons as
neighbours
M: 2.721 (1, 5)
Md: 3
M: 2.751 (1, 5)
Md: 3
M: 2.946 (1,5)
Md: 3
Religion
Christian
Other
63.44%
36.56%
63.48%
36.52%
58.70%
41.30%
Analytic approach
We used Generalised Linear Latent and Mixed Models (Gllamm) with the dependent variable
indicating whether the victim reported the crime incident to police, controlling for all control and
explanatory variables. In this multilevel model, units of observations were captured at two
different levels. The level one units were crime incidents (property and violent crime) and level
two units were individual respondents. The NSPS multilevel dataset included 871 crime incidents
nested within 762 individuals, which will vary depending on the model and the missing data on
certain variables. According to Pardoe (2004: 298), a hierarchical model ‘can account for lack of
independence across levels of nested data’ (that is, crime incident nested in individuals). The
binary response for the multilevel model for the ith observation for the jth individual is the
following: = 1 for crime reported; = 0 for crime not reported. According to Grilli and
Rampichini (2006: 10), the two-level model assumes the form below:
| x , ~ (1, )
g= + x + , ~ (0,
)
with g(.) indicating the link function.
Limitations
According to Shively et al. (2001), future research may only adequately deal with the limitation
of infrequent hate crime events and predominant minority group victimisation by oversampling
minority groups until a sufficient sample for analysis exists. The outcome variable is a
dichotomous one, indicating whether the crime has been reported to the police, instead of a
Susann Wiedlitzka et al.: Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Citizen Decisions to Report Hate Crime Incidents in Australia
IJCJ&SD 97
Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2018 7(2)
process variable, explaining why the victim has decided to report the crime to police, which limits
the understanding of the decision-making process around reporting-behaviour. Further, the
explanatory variables (for example, perception of police, law and government legitimacy and
willingness to cooperate with police) have been collected after the dependent variable of reporting
the crime to police; therefore, it is possible that respondents reported the crime to police which
led to an unsatisfactory result or unfair treatment, and which would have consequently
influenced responses to explanatory variables. If experiences with reporting the crime to police
were satisfactory, this could have similarly shaped their responses to perception of legitimacy.
We therefore cannot rule out the possibility of reverse causality; that is, the respondents’
experiences of reporting crime could shape their perceptions of legitimacy, rather than their
perceptions of legitimacy shaping their reporting behaviour.
The limitations around the utilisation of surveys including hate crime items, such as the NSPS,
indicate that better measures are necessary to observe and record hate crime victimisation and,
consequently, the reporting of hate crime to police, and thus to capture PMC in Australia. Better
data collection processes and recording of PMC incidents by police could increase the visibility of
PMC incidents, while further research into the utilisation of different legislative approaches and
police strategies could have an impact on the reporting behaviour of PMC victims. With Australia’s
lack of official recording practices in regards to hate crime victimisation, surveys including
victimisation items may be the best possible way to explore hate crime victimisation and victims’
reporting behaviour at this time.
Results
In this analysis, we were especially interested in the influence of police legitimacy on victims’
reporting behaviour. A hate crime variable was included on the assumption that people who
experience PMC are less likely to report crime to police than people who experience a crime
without a prejudice motive. An indicator for experiencing a property crime incident versus a
violent crime incident was also included, as people experiencing property crime may be more
likely to report the crime to police due to monetary incentives than people experiencing a violent
crime. The model assumes that all of the above constructs could potentially have an impact on the
reporting behaviour of victims.
Using the NSPS survey data, we created three Gllamm models (outcomes displayed in Table 2),
which explore the influence of individual characteristics and potential barriers on the decision to
report crime incidents to police. As this is a multilevel model, the table contains the crime
incidents (level one units) and the individual respondents (level two units). Model 1 includes the
demographic control variables and the crime incident flags, Model 2 includes the demographic
and potential barriers control variables and the crime incident flags, and Model 3 includes all
control variables, the policing explanatory variables and the crime incident flags.
Model 1 interpretation: Demographics influencing reporting behaviour
Model 1 suggests that, out of all demographic variables, age alone was significantly associated
with the likelihood of reporting crime incidents to police. Every one unit increase in individual
age is associated with an estimated 0.4% increase in the odds of reporting crime to police (OR:
1.004; p-value: 0.004). Prior findings from Carcach (1997) and Goudriaan et al. (2004) support
conclusions that victims who are older are more likely to report crime to police. According to
Carcach (1997), gender is an additional important factor for reporting behaviour but reporting
depends on the type of crime (for example, assault versus robbery). In this study, none of the
other demographic variables was significantly associated with reporting crime to police.
Susann Wiedlitzka et al.: Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Citizen Decisions to Report Hate Crime Incidents in Australia
IJCJ&SD 98
Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2018 7(2)
Table 2: Gllamm models indicating the likelihood of reporting crime incidents to police
Level
Model 1
OR [95%CI]
SE
Model 2
OR [95%CI]
SE
Model 3
OR [95%CI]
SE
Crime incidents
Hate crime
0.851*[0.738, 0.982]
0.062
0.845* [0.732, 0.974]
0.062
0.851* [0.740, 0.980]
0.061
Violent crime
1.075 [0.982, 1.177]
0.050
1.072 [0.978, 1.174]
0.050
1.070 [0.977, 1.172]
0.050
Property crime
1.147* [1.032,1.276]
0.062
1.138* [1.023, 1.266]
0.062
1.137* [1.024, 1.263]
0.061
Individual: Control variables: Demographics
Age (18-95)
1.004** [1.001, 1.007]
0.001
1.004** [1.001, 1.007]
0.001
1.004*[1.001, 1.007]
0.001
Gender (female)
1.053 [0.981, 1.131]
0.038
1.056 [0.983, 1.134]
0.039
1.026 [0.955, 1.102]
0.038
Dependent children
0.954 [0.879, 1.035]
0.040
0.962 [0.886, 1.045]
0.040
0.968 [0.892, 1.049]
0.040
Income
1.005 [0.987, 1.024]
0.009
1.004 [0.986, 1.022]
0.009
1.001 [0.983, 1.019]
0.009
Education
0.986 [0.959, 1.015]
0.014
0.985 [0.957, 1.014]
0.015
0.984 [0.955, 1.013]
0.015
Home ownership
0.958 [0.870, 1.056]
0.048
0.953 [0.864, 1.051]
0.048
0.960 [0.872, 1.057]
0.047
Married
1.062 [0.984, 1.146]
0.041
1.061 [0.982, 1.146]
0.042
1.041 [0.964, 1.124]
0.041
Unemployed
0.888 [0.729, 1.082]
0.090
0.871 [0.712, 1.065]
0.089
0.868 [0.712, 1.058]
0.088
Individual: Control variables: Potential barriers
LOTE
1.033 [0.817, 1.305]
0.123
0.983 [0.781, 1.238]
0.116
ATSI
1.091 [0.787, 1.512]
0.182
1.064 [0.774, 1.463]
0.173
Australian citizen
1.168 [0.995, 1.372]
0.096
1.162 [0.988, 1.368]
0.096
Foreign born
1.038 [0.943, 1.142]
0.051
1.021 [0.929, 1.123]
0.049
Preference for Anglo-
Saxons as neighbours
0.991 [0.952, 1.031]
0.020
0.994 [0.955, 1.035]
0.020
Religion (Christian)
0.991 [0.921, 1.068]
0.037
0.993 [0.922, 1.070]
0.038
Individual: Explanatory variables
Police legitimacy
1.002 [0.950, 1.057]
0.027
Cooperation with police
1.162*** [1.096, 1.232]
0.035
Identifying with Australia
and its community
0.975 [0.927, 1.025]
0.025
Law legitimacy
1.013 [0.962, 1.066]
0.027
Federal government
legitimacy
1.008 [0.933, 1.088]
0.040
State government
legitimacy
0.999 [0.933, 1.071]
0.035
Variance of random
intercept (level 2)
0.088
0.086
0.076
Log likelihood
-580.15
-572.27
-548.98
N
841/733
833/725
823/717
AIC
1188.29
1184.53
1149.96
BIC
1254.58
1279.03
1272.50
Note: *p-value < 0.05; **p-value < 0.01; ***p-value < 0.001
OR: odds ratio; SE: standard error; CI: confidence intervals
Susann Wiedlitzka et al.: Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Citizen Decisions to Report Hate Crime Incidents in Australia
IJCJ&SD 99
Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2018 7(2)
These multilevel models allow for a distinction between hate crime and crime without a prejudice
motive and between violent crime and property crime. Model 1 indicates that the variables hate
crime and property crime are significantly associated with whether the crime incident was
reported to police. Experiencing a hate crime incident is associated with an estimated 14.9% (1 -
0.851) decrease in the odds of reporting crime to police (OR: 0.851; p-value: 0.027), while
experiencing a property crime incident is associated with an estimated 14.7% increase in the
odds of reporting crime to police (OR: 1.147; p-value: 0.011).
Model 2 interpretation: Potential barriers influencing reporting behaviour
Model 2 explores the potential barriers that may influence the reporting of crime to police and
displays similar results to Model 1: the variables age, hate crime and property crime are
significantly associated with reporting behaviour. The results show that a one unit increase in age
and experiencing a property crime incident is associated with an estimated 0.4% (OR: 1.004; p-
value: 0.004) and 13.8% (OR: 1.138; p-value: 0.018) increase, respectively, in the odds of
reporting crime to police. Experiencing a hate crime incident is again associated with an
estimated 15.5% (1 - 0.845) decrease in the odds of reporting crime to police (OR: 0.845; p-value:
0.021). Although prior research indicates that minority group status influences the decision to
report crimes to the police, the potential barrier variables are not significantly associated with
reporting or not reporting crime incidents to police. This result may indicate that the potential
barrier variables are less likely to impact on the reporting behaviour of victims or could suggest
that the NSPS sample of PMC victims does not fit the typical hate crime victim often featured in
the hate crime literature. Our sample suggests that PMC victims were primarily native-born,
English speaking Australians and therefore may not experience the same potential barriers that
exist in other international contexts.7 PMC victims in the NSPS self-reported that they (or anyone
in their household) were victimised because of their skin colour, ethnicity, race or religion, which
suggests their perceptions as victims of hostility was associated with some part of their identity.
Model 3 interpretation: Policing scales influencing reporting behaviour
Model 3 seeks to explore if the explanatory variables may have an influence on reporting crime
to police. As Table 2 shows, the findings of Model 3 mirror the findings from Model 1 and 2,
indicating that variables age, hate crime and property crime are again significantly associated with
crime reporting behaviour. An increase in age and experiencing a property crime incident was
significantly associated with an estimated 0.4% (OR: 1.004; p-value: 0.011) and 13.8% (OR:
1.137; p-value: 0.016) increase, respectively, in the odds of reporting crime to police, and
experiencing a hate crime incident is associated with an estimated 14.9% (1 - 0.851) decrease in
the odds of reporting crime to police (OR: 0.851; p-value: 0.025). In addition, none of the potential
barriers variables was significantly associated with reporting behaviour and a partial mediating
effect between the variables Australian citizenship and property crime exists.8
In regards to the explanatory variables, only a respondent’s willingness to cooperate with police
is significantly associated with crime reporting behaviour. Every one unit increase in individual
willingness to cooperate with police is associated with an estimated 16.2% increase in the odds
of reporting crime to police (OR: 1.162; p-value: 0.000). This suggests that respondents who
stated that they were likely to cooperate and assist police were also more likely to report the
crime to the police. Perceptions of police legitimacy was, at one point, also significantly associated
with reporting behaviour until willingness to cooperate with police was added into the model.
Every one unit increase in individual perceptions of police legitimacy was associated with an
estimated 5.2% increase in the odds of reporting crime to police (OR: 1.052; p-value: 0.032).
Respondents who indicated having higher perceptions of police legitimacy were also more likely
to report the crime to the police.
We checked for a moderating and mediating effect and found a true mediation effect between
perceptions of police legitimacy and the willingness to cooperate with police.9 The willingness to
Susann Wiedlitzka et al.: Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Citizen Decisions to Report Hate Crime Incidents in Australia
IJCJ&SD 100
Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2018 7(2)
cooperate with police completely mediates the police legitimacy and crime reporting
relationship. This suggests that the willingness to cooperate with police explains the relationship
between perceptions of police legitimacy and the reporting of crime to police. People who have
higher perceptions of police legitimacy are also more willing to cooperate with police and,
ultimately, more likely to report the crime to police.
Discussion
The analysis above shows that perceptions of police and the willingness to cooperate with police
along with certain demographic characteristics play important roles for victims’ decision-making
processes to report hate crime to police. Consistent with international literature, our results
suggest that PMC is less likely to be reported to police in comparison to non-PMC incidents, and
that more positive perceptions of police legitimacy and police cooperation are associated with
the victim’s decision to report PMC victimisation. Interestingly, potential barriers that prevent
victims from reporting hate crime as indicated by prior research were not associated with
reporting behaviour in our analysis. However, there is some indication that citizenship status may
partially mediate the likelihood of reporting property crime to the police.
Potential barriers to reporting hate crime
Our results suggest that the potential barriers to reporting PMC indicated by prior research—
religion, speaking a language other than English, foreign born residents, and so on—did not reach
significance in their association with reporting behaviour. These victim characteristics are
considered barriers to reporting hate crimes because they highlight the isolation from
mainstream culture—in this study, Australian culture—that many victims face. These barriers
highlight language difficulties as well as problems with cultural differences, and understanding
and normalisation of behaviour (Taylor and Putt 2007; Willis 2011). Instead, we suspect that the
lack of association in our study between these potential barriers and hate crime reporting reflect
the unique nature of Australian crime and immigration patterns.
Hate crime victims in this sample are typically English speaking Australian citizens. Those who
indicated they were a victim of a PMC and who were also foreign born where typically from White
English speaking countries. Therefore, the PMC victims in this sample did not represent the
typical PMC victim that is often the focus of hate crime research. Thus PMC victims in this survey
did not necessarily experience those barriers as they were native speakers of English, and were
part of, or visibly akin to, the majority White population. While there is little information
regarding who PMC victims are in the Australian context, there is some evidence that the majority
of people who indicate they are the victims of a PMC are primarily native-born, English speaking
Australians. Research by Benier (2017) on the Brisbane, Queensland, sample of the Australian
Community Capacity Study (a longitudinal study of community processes, crime and disorder)
also shows similar patterns in self-report data. Benier’s (2017) study showed that only 35 per
cent of PMC victims were foreign born, and only 29 per cent of PMC victims spoke English as a
second language. Thus, in the Australian context, the majority of self-reported hate crimes are not
from victims who experience barriers due to their belonging to minority groups. This
distinguished our results from prior research in this area.
So why do these hate crime victims perceive that they are the victim of a crime motivated by their
own national, ethnic or racial identity? If the majority of these victims are native-born English
speaking residents, perhaps it is the context of their victimisation that leads to the perception
they are the victims of hate motivated crime. One possibility is that their perceptions are
influenced by (perceived) changes to population diversity in their neighbourhoods and
communities. Australia’s population is becoming increasingly diverse, which means that
individuals are more likely to come into contact and interact with others who identify as a
different race or ethnicity (Forrest and Dunn 2011). This is consistent with work by Lyons (2007)
who found that White residents typically report their victimisation as a PMC when it occurs in
Susann Wiedlitzka et al.: Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Citizen Decisions to Report Hate Crime Incidents in Australia
IJCJ&SD 101
Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2018 7(2)
disadvantaged neighbourhoods that have greater populations of race and ethnic minorities than
more wealthy neighbourhoods. Thus Lyons (2007) argues that ‘anti-White hate crime’ looks
typically like regular crime more so than it looks like anti-Black hate crime. Perhaps PMC victims
in this study perceived their victimisation to be motivated by hate simply because the perpetrator
is of a different race or ethnic identity.
Another possibility is that these hate crime victims are second-generation residents who have
been born in Australia and speak English more fluently than their immigrant parents. As such,
they too may not experience the same barriers to reporting that are often associated with
reporting PMC victimisation. There is some evidence to suggest that second generation residents
actually have higher rates of PMC victimisation than first generation immigrants (Perry 2002).
Perry (2002) suggests that second generation residents in the United States of America, born and
raised in that nation, may be targets of hate motivated crime because they represent those who
are ‘not real Americans’, implying that their visible ethnic minority status overrides fluency in
English language or their native-born status. So, while they may not experience the barriers to
reporting that are often associated with the most marginalised minority groups, their willingness
to report appears to be most associated with perceptions of police legitimacy and cooperation.
The exploration of the NSPS data in the multilevel models demonstrates that PMC victims are
more likely to report property crime than violent crime to police. In accordance with prior
literature, victims are more likely to report crime to police when a certain gain or outcome is
apparent (Schneider et al. 1976). The partial mediating effect between property crime and being
an Australian citizen for explaining the reporting of crime suggests that victims who are not
Australian citizens are less likely to have contents insurance and, therefore, as Schneider et al.
(1976) assert, have less incentive to report the crime to police.
Research conducted on the Leicester Hate Crime Project found that hate crime victims
experienced their victimisation as a ‘routine reality of being “different”’, as opposed to an incident
in need of reporting (Chakraborti 2015: 5). The 2016 Census data indicated that over 28 per cent
of Australian residents were born overseas and over 34 per cent of people had both parents born
overseas (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2017, 2018). Even though Australia is a multicultural
country, lack of support from criminal justice authorities may lead to victims normalising their
everyday experiences of hate crime. According to Gillis (2013), little is known about police
responses to hate crime incidents and often community awareness and willingness to embrace
and utilise PMC legislation stems from criminal justice system agents (police and prosecution).
What may be necessary for the successful prosecution of hate crime cases may lie in the adoption
and implementation of relevant police strategies and procedures. Mason et al. (2014) point
towards enhancing police members’ understanding of PMC by integrating such information into
police manuals, recording systems, recruit training and policy documents, which should lead to
the comprehensive investigation and successful prosecution and sentencing of hate crime
incidents. Such a strategy should enhance community confidence in police, ultimately leading to
prevention of hate crimes (Mason et al. 2014).
Police legitimacy and cooperation
The multilevel analysis indicates that perceptions of police legitimacy and the willingness to
cooperate with the police have a significant association with reporting behaviour. These
explanatory variables are key indicators for whether hate crime is reported to police. In
interviews with PMC victims, McCaffery (2013) found that, amongst the inhibiting factors for
reporting crime to police, all respondents indicated lack of confidence in the broader justice
system. Doubt in the judicial system referred to lenient sentencing, punishments reinforcing
prejudice, revolving door justice, delays in trials and court officials lacking experience, as well as
the need for adequate legislation addressing anti-social behaviour. McCaffery (2013) also found
Susann Wiedlitzka et al.: Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Citizen Decisions to Report Hate Crime Incidents in Australia
IJCJ&SD 102
Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2018 7(2)
that PMC victims’ past interaction with police as well as the overall image of the police service are
key factors in deciding whether to report the hate incident to police.
Existing literature demonstrates the challenges for police officers in commanding legitimacy and
cooperation from minority communities (Cherney and Chui 2009; Murphy and Cherney 2011).
Immigrants and race and ethnic minorities are less likely to have positive views of police in terms
of legitimacy, procedural justice and cooperation due to real or perceived tensions between
formal social control agents and marginalised groups. In deciding whether to report victimisation
to police, perceptions of legitimacy and cooperation remain important factors. However, it is clear
from this study that police legitimacy and cooperation are important influences for all groups in
their willingness to report, not just for those who belong to marginal groups.
Expanding our understanding of PMCs is of continuing important in the current political climate
in Australia and globally. Crime motivated by hate of a person’s ethnicity, national identity,
religion or sexuality, or for political reasons, has consequences not only for individual victims but
also for communities; when groups become disconnected and excluded, signs of hate can foster
radicalisation (Spalek 2007). Local law enforcement plays a vital role. Fostering perception of
legitimacy and cooperation with the most vulnerable groups in our communities is important for
encouraging connection and inclusion. This is particularly critical for victims of PMC. Police
administrators and departments need to engage more effectively with community groups
different from the mainstream population, incorporate diversity awareness and the importance
of police legitimacy and cooperation into police training, and recruit more persons from minority
groups into police forces.
Correspondence: Susann Wiedlitzka, Lecturer in Criminology, School of Law, Politics and
Sociology, University of Sussex, Freeman Building, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QE, United Kingdom.
Email: S.Wiedlitzka@sussex.ac.uk
1 This work was supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Centre of Excellence in Policing and
Security (CEPS RO70002) that funded the National Security and Preparedness Survey. This article is part
of a PhD thesis by the corresponding author, which was supported by the ARC Linkage Project ‘Targeted
Crime: Policing and Social Inclusion’ (LP110100585).
The article was not solicited as part of the special issue ′Exploring Discourses of Hate‘ but the journal’s Chief
Editors thought it appropriate to publish within the issue due to its fit with the theme.
2 The academic literature uses the term ‘hate crime’ predominantly. According to Walters (2014: 58) ‘“hate”
is a highly emotive term and narrow in meaning’. Other terms include bias crime and targeted violence.
For the purpose of this paper, any of these terms can be used interchangeably. We will, however,
predominantly resort to the term prejudice motivated crime (PMC). According to Mason and Dyer (2013:
874), parallel crimes consist of comparable crimes that do not have the motive of prejudice, bias or hate.
Lewis (2013: 57) refers to parallel non-bias-motivated offenses. We will refer to non-PMC in this context.
3 The NSPS sample showed similarities to the 2011 census; however, there was an oversample in the
Australian Capital Territory. One PMC victim supplying insufficient information and one under-age
respondent were dropped from the survey, resulting in a sample of 4,256 people.
4 The NSPS asked respondents if ‘this incident occurred because of the skin colour, ethnicity, race or religion
of anyone in the household?’. We acknowledge that this survey did not capture crimes targeting people
because of their sexual orientation, transgender identity, disability or any other group identity or
characteristic.
5 The NSPS used the following question to explore the marginalisation and perception of isolation from the
community: ‘How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement?’ A factor analysis
indicated that item (a) people in this community prefer that residents in the area are mostly Anglo Saxon
Susann Wiedlitzka et al.: Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Citizen Decisions to Report Hate Crime Incidents in Australia
IJCJ&SD 103
Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2018 7(2)
and item (b) people in this community do not like having members of other ethnic groups as next door
neighbours, loaded highly onto one factor.
6 For further information, see Wiedlitzka (2016).
7 We detected a partial mediation effect between property crime and identifying as an Australian citizen,
indicating that being victimised by a property crime may partially explain why Australian citizenship is
related to reporting crime to police. People of other nationalities might not come forward to report crime
to police because they may be unfamiliar with the Australian criminal justice system, have negative
experiences with criminal justice authorities in their home country, may not want to cause any trouble in
their host countries or may fear for deportation due to illegal status.
8 Before the addition of property crime, identifying as an Australian citizen was associated with an estimated
18.5% (OR: 1.185; p-value: 0.041) increase in the odds of reporting crime to police.
9 The willingness to cooperate with police variable tapped into respondents’ general attitudes towards
reporting a crime to police, while the crime report variable directly tested if people have reported a crime
to police in the past twelve months. We ran a simple correlation to test if these constructs were too similar
and found that, with a Pearson's r score of 0.23, this did not seem to be the case.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017) Migration, Australia, 2015-16, Cat No. 3412.0. Available at
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3412.0 (accessed 14 May 2018).
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2018) 2016 Census QuickStats. Available at
http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/03
6?opendocument#cultural (accessed 14 May 2018).
Benier K (2017) The harms of hate: Comparing the neighbouring practices and interactions of
hate crime victims, non-hate crime victims and non-victims. International Review of
Victimology 23(2): 179-201. DOI: 10.1177/0269758017693087.
Bradford B (2014) Policing and social identity: Procedural justice, inclusion and cooperation
between police and public. Policing and Society 24(1): 22-43. DOI:
10.1080/10439463.2012.724068.
Cao L (2011) Visible minorities and confidence in the police. Canadian Journal of Criminology
and Criminal Justice 53(1): 1-26. DOI: 10.3138/cjccj.53.1.1.
Carcach C (1997) Reporting crime to the police. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 68.
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Chakraborti N (2015) Mind the gap! Making stronger connections between hate crime policy
and scholarship. Criminal Justice Policy Review 27(6): 577-589. DOI:
10.1177/0887403415599641.
Chakraborti N, Garland J and Hardy S (2014) The Leicester Hate Crime Project: Findings and
Conclusions. Leicester, England: University of Leicester, Economic and Social Research
Council.
Cherney A and Chui WH (2009) Policing ethnically and culturally diverse communities. In
Broadhurst R and Davies SE (eds) Policing in Context: An Introduction to Police Work in
Australia, 1st edn: 160-173. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.
Culotta KA (2005) Why victims hate to report: Factors affecting victim reporting in hate crime
cases in Chicago. Kriminologija & Socijalna Integracija 13(2): 15-27.
Forrest J and Dunn K (2011) Attitudes to diversity: New perspectives on the ethnic geography of
Brisbane, Australia. Australian Geographer 42(4): 435-453. DOI:
10.1080/00049182.2012.619957.
Gau JM (2011) The convergent and discriminant validity of procedural justice and police
legitimacy: An empirical test of core theoretical propositions. Journal of Criminal Justice
39(6): 489-498. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.09.004.
Susann Wiedlitzka et al.: Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Citizen Decisions to Report Hate Crime Incidents in Australia
IJCJ&SD 104
Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2018 7(2)
Gerstenfeld PB (2011) Hate crimes: Causes, Controls, and Controversies. Los Angeles, California:
Sage Publications.
Gillis B (2013) Understanding hate crime statutes and building towards a better system in
Texas. American Journal of Criminal Law 40(2): 197-226.
Goudriaan H, Lynch JP and Nieuwbeerta P (2004) Reporting to the police in western nations: A
theoretical analysis of the effects of social context. Justice Quarterly 21(4): 933-969. DOI:
10.1080/07418820400096041.
Grilli L and Rampichini C (2006) A review of random effects modelling using gllamm in Stata.
Bristol, England: Centre for Multilevel Modelling.
Hall N (2012) Policing hate crime in London and New York City: Some reflections on the factors
influencing effective law enforcement, service provision and public trust and confidence.
International Review of Victimology 18(1): 73-87. DOI: 10.1177/0269758011422477.
Hinds L and Murphy K (2007) Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to
improve police legitimacy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 40(1): 27-42.
DOI: 10.1375/acri.40.1.27.
Jackson J, Bradford B, Hough M, et al. (2012) Why do people comply with the law?: Legitimacy
and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology 52(6): 1051-1071. DOI:
10.1093/bjc/azs032.
Kääriäinen J and Sirén R (2011) Trust in the police, generalized trust and reporting crime.
European Journal of Criminology 8(1): 65-81. DOI: 10.1177/1477370810376562.
Lewis CS (2013) Tough on Hate?: The Cultural Politics of Hate Crimes. New Brunswick, New
Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Lockyer B (2001) Reporting Hate Crimes: The California Attorney General's Civil Rights
Commission on Hate Crimes. State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney
General.
Lyons CJ (2007) Community (dis)organization and racially motivated crime. American Journal of
Sociology 113(3): 815-863. DOI: 10.1086/521846.
Mason G and Dyer A (2013) ‘A negation of Australia's fundamental values’: Sentencing
prejudice-motivated crime. Melbourne University Law Review 36(3): 871-914.
Mason G, McCulloch J and Maher J (2014) Policing prejudice motivated crime: A research case
study. In Chakraborti N and Garland J (eds) Responding to Hate Crime: The Case for
Connecting Policy and Research: 199-213. Clifton: Policy Press.
McCaffery P (2013) Why Do Hate Crime Victims Report? Saarbrücken, Germany: Lap Lambert
Academic Publishing.
Miles-Johnson T (2013) LGBTI variations in crime reporting: How sexual identity influences
decisions to call the cops. SAGE Open 3(2): 1-15. DOI: 10.1177/2158244013490707.
Miles-Johnson T (2015) ‘They don't identify with us’: Perceptions of police by Australian
transgender people. International Journal of Transgenderism 16(3): 169-189. DOI:
10.1080/15532739.2015.1080647.
Murphy K (2013) Policing at the margins: Fostering trust and cooperation among ethnic
minority groups. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism 8(2): 184-199. DOI:
10.1080/18335330.2013.821733.
Murphy K and Cherney A (2010) Understanding minority group willingness to cooperate with
police: Taking another look at legitimacy research. Working Paper Series 15. Geelong,
Victoria: Alfred Deakin Research Institute,.
Murphy K and Cherney A (2011) Fostering cooperation with the police: How do ethnic
minorities in Australia respond to procedural justice-based policing? Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Criminology 44(2): 235-257. DOI: 10.1177/0004865811405260.
Susann Wiedlitzka et al.: Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Citizen Decisions to Report Hate Crime Incidents in Australia
IJCJ&SD 105
Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2018 7(2)
Murphy K and Cherney A (2012) Understanding cooperation with police in a diverse society.
The British Journal of Criminology 52(1): 181-201. DOI: 10.1093/bjc/azr065.
Murphy K, Murphy B and Mearns M (2010) The 2007 Public Safety and Security in Australia
Survey: Survey Methodology and Preliminary Findings. Geelong, Victoria: Alfred Deakin
Research Institute.
Murphy K, Tyler TR and Curtis A (2009) Nurturing regulatory compliance: Is procedural justice
effective when people question the legitimacy of the law? Regulation & Governance 3(1): 1-
26. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01043.x.
Oliveira A and Murphy K (2015) Race, social identity, and perceptions of police bias. Race and
Justice 5(3): 259 - 277. DOI: 10.1177/2153368714562801.
Pardoe I (2004) Model assessment plots for multilevel logistic regression. Computational
Statistics and Data Analysis 46(2): 295-307. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-9473(03)00147-6.
Perry B (2001) In the Name of Hate: Understanding Hate Crimes. New York: Routledge.
Perry B (2002) Defending the color line: Racially and ethnically motivated hate crime. American
Behavioral Scientist 46(1): 72-92. DOI: 10.1177/0002764202046001006.
Poynting S and Noble G (2004) Living with racism: The experience and reporting by Arab and
Muslim Australians of discrimination, abuse and violence since 11 September. Report to the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Sydney, New South Wales: Human Rights
and Equal Opportunity Commission.
Ramirez S, Western M, Mazerolle L, et al. (2013) National Security and Preparedness Survey:
Technical report (unpublished). Brisbane, Queensland: Institute for Social Science Research
and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Policing and Security.
Reisig MD, Bratton J and Gertz MG (2007) The construct validity and refinement of process-
based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior 34(8): 1005-1028. DOI:
10.1177/0093854807301275.
Sargeant E, Murphy K and Cherney A (2014) Ethnicity, trust and cooperation with police:
Testing the dominance of the process-based model. European Journal of Criminology 11(4):
500-524. DOI: 10.1177/1477370813511386.
Schneider AL, Burcart JM and Wilson II LA (1976) The role of attitudes in the decision to report
crimes to the police. In Macdonald WF (ed.) Criminal Justice and the Victim: An Introduction:
89-113. London: Sage Publications.
Shively M, McDevitt J, Cronin S, et al. (2001) Understanding the Prevalence and Characteristics of
Bias Crime in Massachusetts High Schools: Final Report. Rockville, Maryland: National
Criminal Justice Reference Service, Office of Justice Programs.
Spalek B (2007) Disconnection and exclusion: Pathways to radicalisation? In Abbas T (ed.)
Islamic Political Radicalism: A European Perspective: 192-206. Edinburgh, Scotland:
Edinburgh University Press.
Sunshine J and Tyler TR (2003) The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public
support for policing. Law & Society Review 37(3): 513-548. DOI: 10.1111/1540-
5893.3703002.
Tankebe J (2013) Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police
legitimacy. Criminology 51(1): 103-135. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00291.x.
Tankebe J, Reisig MD and Wang X (2016) A multidimensional model of police legitimacy: A
cross-cultural assessment. Law and Human Behavior 40(1): 11-22. DOI:
10.1037/lhb0000153.
Taylor N and Putt J (2007) Adult sexual violence in Indigenous and culturally and linguistically
diverse communities in Australia. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 345. Canberra,
Australian Capital Territory: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Susann Wiedlitzka et al.: Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Citizen Decisions to Report Hate Crime Incidents in Australia
IJCJ&SD 106
Online version via www.crimejusticejournal.com © 2018 7(2)
Tyler TR (2003) Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice
30: 283-357.
Tyler TR (2005) Policing in black and white: Ethnic group differences in trust and confidence in
the police. Police Quarterly 8(3): 322-342. DOI: 10.1177/1098611104271105.
Tyler TR (2006) Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of
Psychology 57(1): 375-400. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038.
Tyler TR (2011) Trust and legitimacy: Policing in the USA and Europe. European Journal of
Criminology 8(4): 254-266. DOI: 10.1177/1477370811411462.
Tyler TR and Fagan J (2010) Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight
crime in their communities? In Rice S and White M (eds) Race, Ethnicity, and Policing: 84-
117. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Useem B and Useem M (1979) Government legitimacy and political stability. Social Forces 57(3):
840-852. DOI: 10.1093/sf/57.3.840.
van der Toorn J, Tyler TR and Jost JT (2011) More than fair: Outcome dependence, system
justification, and the perceived legitimacy of authority figures. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology 47(1): 127-138. DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.09.003.
Walters MA (2014) Conceptualizing ‘hostility’ for hate crime law: Minding ‘the Minutiae’ when
interpreting Section 28(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Oxford Journal of Legal
Studies 34(1): 47-74. DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqt021.
Weatherford MS (1992) Measuring political legitimacy. American Political Science Review 86(1):
149-166. DOI: 10.2307/1964021.
Wiedlitzka S (2016) The legislative context of prejudice motivated victimisation: Perceptions of
police legitimacy and citizen decisions to report hate crime incidents. PhD Thesis. Brisbane,
Queensland: University of Queensland. DOI: 10.14264/uql.2016.194.
Willis M (2011) Non-disclosure of violence in Australian Indigenous communities. Trends &
Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 405. Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: Australian
Institute of Criminology.
Zaykowski H (2010) Racial disparities in hate crime reporting. Violence and Victims 25(3): 378-
394. DOI: 10.1891/0886-6708.25.3.378.
