Using public priorities to disentangle the dimensions of procedural justice and trustworthiness in police–citizen interactions

Datos Bibliográficos

ID8401404
AutoresJoseph A Hamm (0000-0001-9250-3681, Michigan State University, autor de correspondencia), Scott E Wolfe (0000-0002-1485-2541, Michigan State University)
Año2021
Volumen61
Número2
Páginas558-579
Fecha de publicación2021-02-26
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaThe British Journal of Criminology (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0007-0955 • E-ISSN: 1464-3529
EditorialOxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1093/bjc/azaa079
OpenAlexW3110815991
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas4
Referencias citadas29

Multidimensional constructs like procedural justice and trustworthiness are important drivers of public trust in the police. Less attention has been paid, however, to the differential import of the dimensions of procedural justice (voice, respect and impartiality) or trustworthiness (ability, benevolence and integrity). A national convenience sample of US residents was asked to prioritize among the dimensions of procedural justice (Study 1) or trustworthiness (Study 2) in designing the officer with whom they would want to interact in each of the four scenarios. These scenarios were then varied as a function of the ostensible severity and concreteness of the salient, police-controlled harm. Our results suggest that, when forced to allocate limited resources among them, participants systematically prioritized some dimensions over others. The findings also shed preliminary light on the elements of the situation that may impact that prioritization

Cognitive psychology · Concreteness · Economic Justice · Function (biology) · Harm · Impartiality · Officer · Perception · Political science · Procedural justice · Public relations · Public trust · Salient · Sample (material) · Trustworthiness · Crime Patterns and Interventions · Law · Policing Practices and Perceptions · Psychology · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Psychology