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

Dados Bibliográficos

ID8401404
AutoresJoseph A Hamm (0000-0001-9250-3681, Michigan State University, autor correspondente), Scott E Wolfe (0000-0002-1485-2541, Michigan State University)
Ano2021
Volume61
Fascículo2
Páginas558-579
Data de publicação2021-02-26
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoThe British Journal of Criminology (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0007-0955 • E-ISSN: 1464-3529
EditoraOxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1093/bjc/azaa079
OpenAlexW3110815991
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas4
Referências 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