513

The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

in Shaping Public Support for Policing

Jason Sunshine Tom R. Tyler

This study explores two issues about police legitimacy. The first issue is the
relative importance of police legitimacy in shaping public support of the police
and policing activities, compared to the importance of instrumental
judgments about (1) the risk that people will be caught and sanctioned for
wrongdoing, (2) the performance of the police in fighting crime, and/or (3)
the fairness of the distribution of police services. Three aspects of public
support for the police are examined: public compliance with the law, public
cooperation with the police, and public willingness to support policies that
empower the police. The second issue is which judgments about police activity
determine people’s views about the legitimacy of the police. This study
compares the influence of people’s judgments about the procedural justice of
the manner in which the police exercise their authority to the influence of
three instrumental judgments: risk, performance, and distributive fairness.
Findings of two surveys of New Yorkers show that, first, legitimacy has a
strong influence on the public’s reactions to the police, and second, the key
antecedent of legitimacy is the fairness of the procedures used by the police.
This model applies to both white and minority group residents.

Introduction

M echanisms for social control are a universal feature of all

human societies, and it is difficult to imagine a culture that lacks the
means of ensuring that its people follow its norms, rules, or laws.
Bringing the behavior of members of the public into line with
norms, rules, and laws is a core function of legal authorities. As a
consequence, understanding how people respond to different
potential mechanisms of social control is important to policy
makers, legal scholars, and social scientists (Tyler 1990; Tyler &
Huo 2002). Our concern here is with public responses to one
institution of social controlFthe police, and to one mechanism of
social controlFpolice legitimacy. We examine such responses
among two samples of the residents of New York City using
questionnaire-based responses to ‘‘voice of the community’’ surveys.
This study has two goals. The first is to test the argument that
police legitimacy has an important influence on public support for
Law & Society Review, Volume 37, Number 3 (2003)
r 2003 by The Law and Society Association. All rights reserved.
514 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

the police. In this study, we examine the influence of police

legitimacy on three aspects of public support: behavioral compli-
ance with the law, behavioral cooperation with the police, and
public willingness to support policies that empower the police to
use their discretion in enforcing the law. We compare the influence
of legitimacy to the influence of three types of instrumental
judgments: risk, performance, and distributive fairness.
Legitimacy is a property of an authority or institution that leads
people to feel that that authority or institution is entitled to be
deferred to and obeyed. It represents an ‘‘acceptance by people of
the need to bring their behavior into line with the dictates of an
external authority’’ (Tyler 1990:25). This feeling of obligation is not
simply linked to the authority’s possession of instruments of reward
or coercion, but also to properties of the authority that lead people
to feel it is entitled to be obeyed (Beetham 1991). Since the classic
writing of Weber (1968), social scientists have recognized that
legitimacy is a property that is not simply instrumental but reflects
a social value orientation toward authority and institutionsFi.e., a
normative, moral, or ethical feeling of responsibility to defer
(Beetham 1991; Kelman & Hamilton 1989; Sparks, Bottoms, &
Hay 1996; Tyler 1990). This analysis will explore the importance of
legitimacy, beyond the influence of instrumental factors shaping
reactions to the police.
Instrumental models suggest that people’s willingness to accept
and cooperate with legal authorities is linked to evaluations of
police performance, to risk, and to judgments about distributive
justice. This model, the instrumental perspective, suggests that the
police gain acceptance when they are viewed by the public as (1)
creating credible sanctioning threats for those who break rules
(risk), (2) effectively controlling crime and criminal behavior
(performance), and (3) fairly distributing police services across
people and communities (distributive fairness).
The second goal of this study is to examine the determinants of
legitimacy. The procedural justice perspective argues that the
legitimacy of the police is linked to public judgments about the
fairness of the processes through which the police make decisions
and exercise authority. If the public judges that the police exercise
their authority using fair procedures, this model suggests that the
public will view the police as legitimate and will cooperate with
policing efforts. However, unfairness in the exercise of authority
will lead to alienation, defiance, and noncooperation.
This procedural justice-based perspective on the antecedents
of legitimacy is again contrasted with an instrumental model that
links police legitimacy to instrumental judgments about the police.
The instrumental model suggests that the police develop and
maintain legitimacy through their effectiveness in fighting crime
 Sunshine & Tyler 515

and disorder in the community. This instrumentally based model

of legitimacy is often found in studies of political leaders, in which
public support is viewed as based upon leader performance in
dealing with economic and social problems (Citrin & Muste 1999).
Conceived of more broadly, the two-stage model outlined
reflects process-based regulation (Tyler & Huo 2002). Process-based
regulation seeks to manage the relationship between legal
authorities and the communities they police through self-regula-
tion that flows from the activation of people’s own feelings of
responsibility and obligation to the community and to community
authorities. These social valuesFi.e., legitimacyFare, in turn,
linked to public assessments of the fairness of the manner in which
authorities exercise their discretionary authority when implement-
ing the law and/or making decisions about whether and how to
provide assistance to those in need. This process-based approach to
regulation builds upon the recognition by social theorists that legal
authorities depend upon their ability to activate feelings of
obligation and responsibility for their effectiveness (Weber 1968;
Beetham 1991), and that those feelings, in turn, are linked to
justice-based judgments about legal authorities (Tyler 1990).

Police and Policing

Since the establishment of the first formal full-time police force

in the United States circa 1837, the police have endured numerous
challenges to their legitimacy as an institution of social control.
Throughout their history, the relationship between the police and
the public has been tumultuous. Instances of police misconduct,
with recent examples being the police beating of Rodney King in
Los Angeles, the shooting of Amadou Diallo in New York, and the
sexual assault on Abner Louima in New York, have long sparked
reactions ranging from full-scale riots to public indictments of
police practices and public mistrust of the police (Skolnick & Fyfe
1993).
The public is clearly divided over their feelings for the police.
And, of particular concern, studies of public views about the police
typically reveal large racial and ethnic group differences, with
minority group members expressing much more negative attitudes
about the police and having lower trust and confidence in
institutions of social control. A polarized public is problematic on
numerous levels. It inhibits the police from fulfilling their
regulatory role in society and produces polarization and discontent
through the recognition that certain groups feel disproportionately
mistreated by the police. Thus, understanding what it is about
police behavior that the public finds problematic is important to
516 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

accurately address the needs of citizens as well as to enable the

police to function effectively.

The Influence of Legitimacy on Public Support

The legitimacy of the police in the eyes of the public is

important because it is the fulcrum of the relationship between
the police and the public. We hypothesize, first, that if the
public views the police as legitimate, then they are more likely to
obey the law. To test this argument, we examine the relationship
between people’s evaluations of the legitimacy of the New York
City Police Department (NYPD) and their behavioral compliance with
the law. We compare the extent to which judgments of legitimacy
guide people’s behavior with the degree of influence of instru-
mental factors also thought to shape people’s behavior. In
particular, we consider the influence of people’s estimates of
the likelihood that they will be caught and punished for
wrongdoing (risk).
Traditional law enforcement strategies are hinged on the belief
that people will be deterred from engaging in criminal activity if
they fear getting caught and being punished. Strategies based on
this belief are grouped under the term deterrence. Though policing
in the United States has undergone numerous changes in the past
decades, the belief in deterrence-based strategies as an effective
method of crime control has largely been left intact. It is believed
that the best way to regulate the public’s behavior is by making
undesirable behaviors extremely risky (Harcourt 2001; Kelling &
Coles 1996; McArdle & Erzen 2001). This is achieved by increasing
the number of officers on the street, increasing arrests, and/or
increasing the threat or use of force by the police (Silverman
1999).
Second, we examine the relationship between people’s
judgments about police legitimacy and their willingness to cooperate
with police activities. This concern with cooperation develops from
the recognition that effective crime control and disorder manage-
ment depends on public cooperation with the police (Sampson,
Raudenbush, & Earls 1997). We test the argument that if the public
views the police as legitimate, they will be more likely to assist the
police with crime prevention (i.e., reporting crime or calling for
help). We compare this argument to the view that cooperation
develops from instrumental judgments about the effectiveness of
police performance in fighting crime. This instrumental perspec-
tive suggests that people will help the police when they think that
the police are being effective in managing crime and urban
disorder.
 Sunshine & Tyler 517

If the police are viewed as effective, citizens may view the help
the police have to offer as more important because it would have a
greater likelihood of leading to concrete results. As with the
deterrence perspective, this view of public support is instrumental.
It suggests that people make instrumental evaluations of authority,
working with the police when they think that the police are
effectively dealing with community issues and problems (Skogan
1990; Skogan & Hartnett 1997).
Third, we examine the relationship between people’s judg-
ments about police legitimacy and their willingness to empower the
police. We test the argument that, if the police are viewed as
legitimate, they are given a wider range of discretion to perform
their duties. When they are not viewed as legitimate, their actions
are subject to challenge, their decisions are not accepted, and their
directives are ignored. We contrast this view with the distributive
justice perspective, which suggests that people support and
empower officials when they think that those authorities distribute
police services fairly across groups (Sarat 1977).
The distributive justice argument is that people will be more
willing to give power to legal authorities when they feel that those
authorities deliver outcomes fairly to people and groups. Sarat
(1977) argues that the demand for equal treatment is a core theme
running through public evaluations of the police and courts. He
suggests that the
perception of unequal treatment is the single most important
source of popular dissatisfaction with the American legal system.
According to available survey evidence, Americans believe that
the ideal of equal protection, which epitomizes what they find
most valuable in their legal system, is betrayed by police, lawyers,
judges, and other legal officials. (1977:434)
This argument roots evaluations of the police and police services
in judgments of resource distribution across people and across
groups (Tyler et al. 1997).

Legitimacy as a Social Value-Based Motivation

Political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists have long

considered legitimacy to be an essential quality for leaders and
regimes to have. When people view an authority as legitimate, it is
believed that they will voluntarily comply with that individual or
institution’s edicts. Tyler (1990) has demonstrated that when
people believe the police or the courts are legitimate, they are
more likely to comply with their directives. The key point is that
this motivation is distinct from the belief that one is likely to be
caught and punished for breaking the law.
518 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

This study tests a broader model of the consequences of

legitimacy. In addition to exploring the influence of legitimacy on
compliance, as did Tyler (1990), this study also examines the
importance of legitimacy in shaping cooperation with the police. It
has been recognized that the police want more from people than
just their willingness to defer to law by limiting their engagement in
illegal behavior. The police also want members of the community to
engage in proactive behaviors that help the police fight crime. In
fact, recent studies make clear that the police cannot effectively
control crime and disorder without the cooperation of community
residents (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls 1997).
Further, legal authorities want the public to accept the
legitimacy of granting discretionary authority to the police to allow
them to fight crime in the community. Recent research makes clear
that the boundary of police authority is a contested one, with
community residents sensitive to being stopped and questioned,
arrested, and jailed by the police as part of police crime-fighting
authority. The issue of whether and in what way the police have the
authority to intrude into people’s lives by stopping them on the
street or in cars, by questioning them, and by arrests and
detentions, is central to current controversies about racial profiling,
all of which address the question of when the police have discretion
to decide whom to stop, question, and ticket. Clearly, the police
must have some discretion about how to do their jobs. And in some
areas, such as whom to shoot, the police have traditionally been
given wide discretion, since the threshold for retrospectively
judging a shooting to be inappropriate is quite high. The question
addressed here is what factors shape the boundaries of discretion
in the eyes of the public.

The Determinants of Legitimacy

This study also explores the aspects of police behavior that

influence people’s assessment of the legitimacy of the police. As
before, we compare two models, one linked to instrumental
judgments about the police and the other to procedural justice.
Again, the outcome model is built upon three types of evaluations
of the police: (1) their ability to catch rule-breakers, (2) their
performance in fighting crime, and (3) the fairness of their
distribution of outcomes.
We contrast this outcome perspective with a procedural justice
model. The procedural justice model focuses on how the police
treat people as antecedents of people’s views on police legitimacy,
rather than seeing legitimacy as linked to how effective they are or
whether they provide people with fair outcomes.
 Sunshine & Tyler 519

A wide body of research makes clear that people’s reactions to

their personal experiences with the police are shaped by their
evaluations of the fairness of the procedures the police use to
exercise their authority (Tyler & Lind 1988; Tyler 1990; Tyler et al.
1997; Tyler & Huo 2002). Further, studies demonstrate that
procedural justice is central in other hierarchical situations in
which people are dealing with authorities, such as in mediation
(Pruitt et al. 1993), work organizations (Tyler & Blader 2000),
courts (Casper, Tyler, & Fisher 1988; Tyler & Lind 1988), and
prisons (Sparks, Bottoms, & Hay 1996). Hence, considerable
evidence suggests that procedural justice will be central to the
relationship between people and legal authorities in the arena of
policing.
Our hypothesis is that procedural fairness will also be a
primary influence on judgments of legitimacy when people are
evaluating the police in general, in addition to when they are
reacting to personal encounters with particular authorities. This
assumption underlies a procedural justice approach of policing. It
is supported by prior studies of personal experience (Tyler 1990),
by secondary analyses of several public opinion polls of public
evaluations of the police and courts (Tyler 2001b), and by the
findings of studies of rule-following behavior in work settings
(Tyler & Blader 2000). While suggestive, these prior efforts lack a
direct comparison of the role of procedural and instrumental
factors in shaping legitimacy in legal settings. This study provides
such a direct comparison.
In considering the procedural justice-based model of legiti-
macy, it is important to recognize that we are working with cross-
sectional data in the studies outlined. It is always possible that
compliance leads to legitimacy and perceptions of procedural
justice. While the data examined here cannot address this issue,
other longitudinal data (Tyler 1990) suggest that the model
articulated here is reasonable. Ultimately, experiments are needed
to test the causal sequence outlined.
A procedural justice-based approach to policing has numerous
advantages over an instrumental approachFi.e., an approach that
links cooperation to risk, performance, and/or distributive fairness.
One advantage stems from the intrinsic motivations engaged by
legitimacy, which leads to a self-regulatory stance by community
residents. In other words, when people view the police as
legitimate, they are more likely to voluntarily defer to police action
and less likely to challenge it. Further, intrusive police tactics are
more widely tolerated by the public when the public trusts the
motives that drive those tactics (Tyler & Huo 2002). Greater
discretionary authority will enable the police to perform their
regulatory role more effectively and efficiently.
520 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

Second, research suggests that a procedural approach to citizen

interaction may enhance the safety of both law enforcement
officers and community residents (Tyler & Huo 2002). As
mentioned above, instrumental approaches encourage competitive
interaction. The powerful partyFthe police officerFinitiates
interaction by establishing dominance over the weaker party. It is
thought that in the face of overwhelming power the weaker party
will submit out of fear of the consequences of noncompliance.
However, current social science evidence does not support this
conclusion. Pruitt and Rubin (1986) argue that when power-based
tactics are used by one party, they are imitated by the opposing
party. Corroborating that finding, Lawler, Ford, and Blegen (1988)
argue that anger and resentment stemming from the imposition of
power elicits behavior from the weaker party meant to resist and
harm the aggressor. Generally, conflicts based on domination tend
to become irrational and quickly escalate as hostility increases
(Pruitt 1981).
By contrast, interaction based on fairness and cooperation can
defuse a fight over dominance. In fact, Axelrod (1984) argues that
the most effective negotiation strategy for both sides is usually
(although not always) to begin with cooperation but to respond with
competition if an opponent reciprocates with competition. Similarly,
a procedural justice-based policing strategy doesn’t mean the police
should not resort to the use of force when faced with a hostile
individual. It simply means that to the extent that the police can
elicit compliance without the use of force, the police officers, the
institution of policing, and society in general will benefit greatly.
A procedural justice-based approach to policing allows the
police to focus on controlling crime without alienating the public.
As previously argued, deterrence and other performance-based
strategies have not faired well for the police in regard to creating
and maintaining a favorable climate of public opinion. Research
indicates that evaluations of the police are based more on how the
police treat people than how well they perform their job (Tyler
1990; Tyler & Huo 2002; Tyler 2001a). For example, Tyler and
Huo (2002) found in a study of Oakland residents living in high
crime areas that how the police treated people explained more of
the variance in police evaluations than did variations in the quality
of police performance. Thus, when police change the way they
interact with citizens, moving from a command-and-control
orientation to a fair and respectful disposition, public evaluations
will eventually become more favorable. Effectively controlling
crime and maintaining positive public evaluations is not a tradeoff
that the police have to make. In fact, on the contrary, the police can
engage in effective crime control and increase public support when
they exercise their authority fairly.
 Sunshine & Tyler 521

Our goal in this analysis is not to test the effectiveness of a

particular policing strategy. Rather, we are testing the validity of
the underlying psychological model upon which such a strategy is
based. Unless that psychological model is a correct description of
people’s psychological dynamics in dealings with the police, the
policing strategy outlined is unlikely to be effective.

Policing Strategies

The recognition of the importance of the relationship between

the public and the police toward building police legitimacy has
already spawned a trend toward community-oriented policing
(Kelling & Moore 1988; Friedman 1992; Skogan et al. 1999;
Skolnick & Fyfe 1993). The police have learned that they cannot
function effectively without public support, and they are building
policing strategies designed to build such support.
Traditionally, police strategies for crime fighting were reactive.
Officers would patrol neighborhoods in relative isolation from the
surrounding community. Contact with citizens would only be made
when officers were called to respond to a specific call. Crime
prevention and control were thought to be achieved through the
threat of arrest and punishment. This belief manifested itself in a
policy of ‘‘saturation patrols,’’ traffic stops, and field interrogations.
Over the past few decades, it has become clear that this
approach to policing alienated citizens and the police from one
another (Reiss 1992; Moore 1992). Police could not rely on the
public’s support for their efforts, and the public lost faith in the
ability of the police to provide safety. Community policing quickly
became a policy buzzword for numerous strategies aimed at
mending the relationship between the police and the public while
at the same time improving crime control. Fighting crime and
police/community relations were now viewed as intimately related
(Friedman 1992).
Many police departments, in response to their problematic
relationship with the public, altered the way they policed
neighborhoods. Officers were taken out of the squad car and
shifted to foot patrols, new posts were constructed to enlist the
cooperation of community leaders, and many other initiatives were
taken to engage with the community and ultimately rebuild the
relationship between citizens and police. This new police/commu-
nity outreach is a distinct departure from traditional policing
methods. However, the premise that increased police interaction
with citizens (i.e., more foot patrols, police/community meetings)
will lead to improved public opinion has not been thoroughly
tested (see Skogan & Hartnett 1997).
522 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

What these efforts show is that many police departments are

already acting based upon many elements of the psychological
model being tested in this study. However, they are doing so
without the benefit of a clearly articulated and empirically tested
model of the psychological dynamics of the public’s reactions to
policing activities. Without such a model, efforts to control crime
tend to vary depending on the political climate and personal
philosophies of community leaders (Blumstein & Wallman 2000;
Brodeur 1998; Gest 2000; Wilson & Petersilia 2002).

Policing After September 11, 2001

We have presented the various models of public evaluation as if

they were context-free. However, it is clear that public views about
law enforcement have changed in the era of counterterrorism that
has followed the attack on the World Trade Center towers. How
might that influence views about policing? Research suggests that
during times of strife and difficulty, people become more focused
on the effectiveness of police performance and less concerned
about issues of process and rights (Deutsch 1990; Nagata 1993;
Sullivan, Piereson, & Marcus 1982). This study tests the role of
context by considering public views before and following this
important public event.

The Public and the Police: Majority and Minority

Perspectives

It is also important to consider whether the models being

evaluated apply equally well to everyone in a community. In
particular, do the members of majority and minority groups
consider the same issues when evaluating the police? The nature of
the relationship between the police and the public has a serious
impact on the effectiveness of crime control strategies, the welfare
of community residents, and the institution of policing, suggesting
the importance of maintaining favorable policy/community rela-
tions among all the communities dealing with the police.
Numerous surveys explore public views toward the police and
confidence in their abilities to fight crime and maintain public
safety (Huang & Vaughn 1996). These studies suggest that there is
considerable variation between different ethnic groups. For
example, Huang and Vaughn (1996) found that 67% of African
Americans felt the police were fair (the lowest of all groups
surveyed), compared to 87% of whites. When questioning people
about the police use of force, they found that 67% of African
 Sunshine & Tyler 523

Americans thought of police use of force as a problem, compared

to 40% of whites.
Other studies, conducted in a variety of American cities (Cole
1999; Worden 1995; Sullivan, Dunham, & Alpert 1987), found that
minority citizens were especially likely to report being mistreated
by police. This is not surprising because it is minority citizens who
are more likely to be subject to police regulatory actions. For
example, in New York City between 1998 and 2000,1 84% of those
stopped and frisked were African American or Hispanic. In
addition, minority group members are more likely to need police
helpF73% of victims of violent crime were African American or
Hispanic.
A second type of study does not look at objective differences in
the experiences of the members of different ethnic groups but at
ethnic group differences in attitudes toward the police. Studies of
this type typically consider the three primary ethnic groups in New
York: whites, African Americans, and Hispanics. Considerable
evidence suggests that minority group members have less trust and
confidence in the police, the courts, and the legal system. However,
it is not clear whether minority group members base their
evaluations of the police on different criteria than do whites. Tyler
and associates (Tyler et al. 1997; Tyler & Huo 2002) argue that the
members of all ethnic groups evaluate legal authorities in similar
ways. We test that argument here by comparing the criteria used by
both white and minority community residents to evaluate the
legitimacy of the police.

Testing Procedural Justice-Based Strategies of Policing

Procedural justice-based policing rests on four key assump-

tions. First, people’s judgments of police legitimacy are as
important or more important than people’s calculations of the
risk of being caught and punished in predicting compliance with
law. In order for policing linked to procedural justice to be a viable
alternative to policing based on instrumental judgments, autho-
rities have to be able to rely on people’s internal motivations for
obeying the law. As described earlier, legitimacy represents this
internal motivation. Procedural justice-based policing is based on
the expectation that, when people view legal authority as
legitimate, they voluntarily follow the law.
Second, legitimacy is also more important than instrumental
judgments about issues such as performance for predicting
1
Taken from New York City Police Department Citywide Stop and Frisk Data 1998,
1999, and 2000 (NYPD 2001).
524 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

whether the police will experience cooperative behavior, such as

helping the police to solve crimes, on the part of community
residents. The literature reviewed earlier suggests that deterrence
was not an effective strategy for gaining long-term compliance with
the law or for eliciting cooperative behavior from community
residents. In fact, research on conflict situations suggests that
deterrence strategies were likely to be met with resistance. By
contrast, legitimacy is connected with people’s internal sense of
obligation to authority and therefore promotes voluntary, co-
operative behavior. When people view the police as legitimate, they
are more likely to call them to report crimes or volunteer their time
to work with them in their communities.
Third, legitimacy is more important than instrumental judg-
ments in shaping public deference to police activities. In other
words, when the public views the police as legitimate, they are
more likely to empower the police to perform their policing duties
and less likely to try to circumscribe police activity or limit police
discretion. Thus, public evaluations of legitimacy influence the
degree to which the police have discretionary authority that they
can use to function more effectively because the public is likely to
give them more leeway to use their expertise.
Finally, evaluations of legitimacy are based on procedural
fairness more so than on judgments about distributive fairness or
other instrumental indicators. Policymakers and police officials
often assume that the police are judged by how effective they
are in controlling crime. It is believed that the legitimacy of the
police is based on how well they perform, whether they effectively
sanction rule-breakers, and/or whether police services are dis-
tributed fairly across society. By contrast, policing based on the
process judgment of procedural justice rests on the assumption
that people form assessments of legitimacy based more on how the
police exercise their authority than on their effectiveness or on how
equally police provide assistance to the various communities where
they work.
This latter aspect of the procedural justice-based model, i.e.,
the role of procedural justice in shaping legitimacy, is crucial
because more often than not, the police cannot provide people with
what they want, nor can they control the crime rate. Though they
are charged with the responsibility of controlling crime, they only
partially control the factors that lead people to become criminals,
and the resources may or may not exist for the police to engage in
what they think will be effective strategies of crime control. Thus,
the police cannot rely on effectiveness defined in terms of
performance. They do, however, have some degree of control
over how they exercise their authority when dealing with members
of the public. According to the procedural justice-based model of
 Sunshine & Tyler 525

regulation, it is through procedurally just interactions with the

public that the police can impact their own legitimacy (Tyler & Huo
2002).

Method

The First New York City Sample—Pre-September 11, 2001

To test the assumptions of the process-based model of policing,
a self-report survey was mailed to a random sample of registered
voters in New York City. The questions used to operationalize each
of the variables in the study are shown in Appendix A. The study
was conducted during spring and summer 2001 during a period of
poor police/community relations but before the September 2001
World Trade Center terrorist attack.
Of the questionnaires sent, a sample of 586 was returned. This
reflects a response rate of 22%. Respondent age ranged from 19 to
88 (mean of 48). Gender was 62% female, 75.2% had at least some
college education, and income averaged between $40,000 and
$60,000 per year. The ethnic breakdown was 56.8% white and
43.5% nonwhite (14.8% Hispanic or Latino; 22.4% African
American; 6.3% other ethnicities).
The response rate in this study was typical of mailed
questionnaires. However, it was low and raises concerns about
potential sample bias. In considering these findings, we need to be
aware that there are potential biases in the results that are linked to
who chose to respond to the questionnaire. To correct for such
biases, we weighted the respondents’ answers to adjust for their
ethnicity, income, and education. This adjustment first involved
removing ‘‘other’’ ethnicities (6.3%) and focusing on those whites,
African Americans, and Hispanics who provided complete income
and education information. We then weighted this remaining
sample of 483 from a total of 576 returned interviews to represent
the population of New York City, as measured in the 1990 U.S.
Census. This weighting resulted in an adjusted sample of 483 (55%
white, 19% African American, 26% Hispanic). For this analysis, we
collapsed ethnicity further into a white/minority dichotomous
variable.

Results

The Consequences of Legitimacy

The first question is whether legitimacy influences public
support for the police. We performed regression analysis using the
indexes of legitimacy, risk, distributive justice, instrumental
526 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

evaluations, and demographic variables to predict compliance with

the law, cooperation with police, and the empowerment of law
enforcement. Demographic variables included in the analysis were
ethnicity, education, age, sex, and education. The purpose of the
regression analysis was twofold. First, the results would enable us to
determine the relative impact each independent variable has on
each dependent variable. Second, regression allowed us to
conclude that the impact of any significant variable in the equation
was independent of the impact of any other variable in the
equation.
The results indicated that both legitimacy (beta 5 0.22,
po0.001) and risk estimates (beta 5 0.18, po0.001) influenced
compliance (overall R2 5 9%, po0.001). No effect was found for
distributive justice or other instrumental judgments. Compliance
was also found to be influenced by ethnicity, income, and gender,
with whites, the more well off, and female respondents more likely
to comply with the law. In addition, because the compliance scale
was skewed, a Tobit analysis was performed. The results of that
analysis supported those already noted. In that analysis, legitimacy
(beta 5 0.14, po0.001) and risk (beta 5 0.07, po0.05) influenced
compliance. In addition, whites and women were more likely to
obey the law.
Perceptions of police legitimacy (beta 5 0.30, po0.001) and
evaluations of police performance (beta 5 0.11, po0.05) predicted
citizen cooperation with the police (overall R2 5 14%, po0.001).
Estimates of risk and distributive justice had no impact on
cooperation. Ethnicity also impacted cooperation, with minority
respondents more likely to cooperate with the police.
Finally, empowerment was predicted by perceptions of
legitimacy (beta 5 0.40, po0.001) and distributive justice
(beta 5 0.21, po0.001) (overall R2 5 40%, po0.001). Those with
higher incomes were less likely to support the empowerment of the
police.

What Determines Legitimacy?

The second question is which judgments about the police
determine legitimacy. We performed a regression analysis using
indexes of procedural justice, distributive justice, performance
evaluations, risk estimates, and demographic variables to predict
legitimacy. The resulting model accounted for 73% of the variance
in legitimacy. The results indicated that legitimacy was based
predominantly on procedural justice (beta 5 0.62, po0.001), and
to a lesser extent on performance evaluations (beta 5 0.20,
po0.001) and distributive justice judgments (beta 5 0.11,
po0.001), but not on estimates of risk. Significant effects were
 Sunshine & Tyler 527

also found regarding education. More highly educated respon-

dents were likely to indicate lower levels of legitimacy.

Procedural Justice-Based Policing: A Statistical Model

We constructed a latent structural equation incorporating all
the variables measured in this study into a single model. This
procedure has numerous advantages over standard regression
analysis. First, all assumptions of the process-based model of
policing could be tested simultaneously, accounting for all variance
at once. Second, latent structures correct for measurement
inaccuracy, providing a more accurate picture of underlying
relationships. Third, intermediate effects can be observed directly
(see Joreskog and Sorbom [1986] for review of latent structured
equation models).
Figure 1 represents the final model produced using this latent
structure approach. The model fit the data well (CFI 5 0.90,
IFI 5 0.90, RMSEA 5 0.060, chi-square 5 1222.6, df 5 411).2 Thus,
this model represents a stringent test of the assumptions upon
which a process-based model of regulation rests. In estimating the
model shown, all possible paths were allowed. Figure 1 shows only
the paths that emerged as significant.
As in the regression equation performed earlier, procedural
fairness was the primary driver of perceptions of legitimacy
(beta 5 0.74). Distributive fairness and estimates of risk had no
effect on legitimacy, while performance evaluations had a relatively
larger effect than that revealed by the previous regression analysis
(beta 5 0.15). Finally, confirming the earlier regression equations,
legitimacy had a substantial impact on empowerment (beta 5 0.47),
cooperation (beta 5 0.28), and compliance (beta 5 0.25). Coopera-
tion was also influenced by performance (beta 5 0.16), and
compliance by risk (beta 5 0.23).
Unlike the earlier regression equations, we found no direct
effects on cooperation for procedural justice when legitimacy was
in the equation. In other words, the influence of this variable flows
through legitimacy. Procedural justice was represented by a
‘‘latent’’ variable reflecting indexes of the quality of treatment,
quality of decisionmaking, and a general procedural fairness
index.3
2
Large numbers of items increase the parameters to be estimated, which increases
the chi-square, thereby making it more difficult to fit a model. This model fit well despite
the number of items used.
3
We included items measuring what Tyler and Huo (2002) describe as ‘‘trust’’ in the
motives of the authorities in the two studies reported here as aspects of quality of
interpersonal treatment.
528 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

Figure 1. Study One. Structural Equation Model: Testing the Assumptions of

Procedural Justice-Based Regulation.

Of course, we need to keep in mind that the model tested was

linked to people’s judgments about police fairness, rather than to
actual police behavior itself. We have no way of knowing what the
police are actually doing as they patrol the streets of New York and
respond to calls. In other words, the beginning point of our
analysis is the self-reports of community residentsFpolicing as
they experience it. People’s judgments about police fairness may or
may not reflect objective police behavior and may or may not be
linked to the actual congruity between police behavior and the law.

Method

The Second New York City Sample: Post-September 11, 2001

The second study used to test the assumptions of the process-
based policing model was based on telephone interviews with a
stratified sample of the residents of the City of New York.4 In the
study, 1,653 interviews were conducted during summer 2002 in
both English and Spanish. Appendix B shows the questions used to
operationalize each of the variables in the study.
4
The collection of these data was supported by a grant from the National Institute of
Justice (No. 2001IJCX0029).
 Sunshine & Tyler 529

The response rate of for the survey was 64%, a response rate
typical of telephone questionnaires. However, to correct for
possible biases, we weighted the respondents’ answers. This
weighting took account of the sampling procedure and corrected
for variations away from random sampling. It also corrected for
differences in the proportion of minority group members in the
sample vis-à-vis the proportion in each borough in the city
(according to U.S. Census figures).
In this analysis, respondents of ‘‘other’’ ethnicities (n 5 210)
were excluded, and the study focused on whites, African Amer-
icans, and Hispanics (weighted n 5 1,422). In this weighted sample,
41% of respondents were ages 18–34, 55% were female; 63% had at
least some college education, and 43% had an income of $40,000
per year or less. The ethnic breakdown was 44% white (n 5 628),
28% Hispanic or Latino (n 5 394), and 28% African American
(n 5 400).

Results

The Consequences of Legitimacy

The first question is again whether legitimacy influences public
support for the police. We performed regression analysis using the
indexes of legitimacy, risk, distributive justice, performance
evaluations, and demographic variables to predict compliance with
the law, cooperation with police, and empowerment of law
enforcement authorities. Demographic variables included in the
analysis were ethnicity, education, age, sex, and education. The
purpose of the regression analysis was twofold. First, the results
examined the relative impact each independent variable had on
each dependent variable. Second, regression examined the
independent impact of any significant variable in the equation.
Results indicated that both legitimacy (beta 5 0.14, po0.001)
and risk estimates (beta 5 0.06, po0.01) influenced compliance
(overall R2 5 8%, po0.001). No effect was found for distributive
justice or performance evaluations. We also found that compliance
was influenced by age, education, and gender, with older, better-
educated, and female respondents more likely to comply with the
law. In addition, because the compliance scale was again skewed,
we performed a Tobit analysis again. The results of that analysis
again supported those already noted, with legitimacy shaping
compliance.
Perceptions of police legitimacy (beta 5 0.26, po0.001) and
evaluations of risk (beta 5 0.16, po0.001) predicted citizen
cooperation with the police (overall R2 5 16%, po0.001). Estimates
of performance and distributive justice had no impact on
530 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

cooperation. Age, education, and income also impacted coopera-

tion, with older, higher-education, and higher-income respondents
more likely to cooperate with the police.
Finally, empowerment was predicted by perceptions of
legitimacy (beta 5 0.35, po0.001), distributive justice (beta 5 0.09,
po0.001), risk (beta 5 0.07, po0.01), and neighborhood condi-
tions (beta 5 0.06, po0.05) (overall R2 5 22%, po0.001). Those
higher in education and income were also less likely to support the
empowerment of the police, as were African Americans and older
respondents.

What Determines Legitimacy?

The second question is what determines legitimacy. We
performed a regression analysis using the indexes of procedural
justice, distributive justice, performance evaluations, risk estimates,
and demographic variables to predict legitimacy.
The resulting model accounted for 33% of the variance in
legitimacy. The results indicated that legitimacy is based predomi-
nantly on procedural justice (beta 5 0.35, po0.001), and to a lesser
extent on distributive justice (beta 5 0.21, po0.001) and police
performance, as indexed by assessments of neighborhood condi-
tions (beta 5 .07, po0.01), but not on estimates of risk.
Significant effects were also found regarding education. African
Americans, older respondents, higher-income respondents, and
women were likely to indicate lower levels of legitimacy.

Procedural Justice-Based Policing: A Statistical Model

We again constructed a latent structural equation incorporating
all the variables measured into a single model. It was similar to that
used with the first study data. The model treated police
performance, neighborhood conditions, and fear of crime as three
indicators of overall police performance (using a latent variable
approach).
Figure 2 represents the final model produced using this latent
structure approach. The model fit the data well (CFI 5 0.98,
IFI 5 0.98, RMSEA 5 0.09, chi-square 5 830, df 5 80).5 Thus, this
model represents a stringent test of the assumptions upon which
the process-based model of regulation rests. In the model shown,
all paths were allowed to occur, while Figure 2 shows only the paths
that emerged as significant (po0.001).
5
Large numbers of items increase the parameters to be estimated, which increases
the chi-square, thereby making it more difficult to fit a model. This model fit well despite
the number of items used.
 Sunshine & Tyler 531

Figure 2. Study Two. Structural Equation Model: Testing the Assumptions of

Procedural Justice-Based Regulation.

Procedural fairness, a ‘‘latent variable’’ reflecting quality of

decisionmaking, quality of treatment, and overall assessments
of procedural justice, was the primary driver of perceptions of
legitimacy (beta 5 0.44). Distributive fairness also had an effect on
legitimacy (beta 5 0.22). Finally, confirming the earlier regression
equations, legitimacy had a substantial impact on empowerment
(beta 5 0.34), cooperation (beta 5 0.28), and compliance
(beta 5 0.16). Only one direct effect was found for procedural
justice when legitimacy was in the equation, and that was on
empowerment (beta 5 0.24). In other words, the influence of
procedural justice generally flowed through legitimacy.
Of course, we need to keep in mind that the model tested was
again linked to people’s judgments about police fairness, rather
than to actual police behavior itself. We have no way of knowing
what the police are actually doing as they patrol the streets of New
York and respond to calls. In other words, our analysis is about
policing as community residents experience it.

Ethnic Group Differences: Study Two

To examine the differences among ethnic groups, we divided

respondents into three groups: whites, African Americans, and
Hispanics. We then examined the antecedents of compliance,
532 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

cooperation, and empowerment within each group. Since a more

detailed analysis within each of these three dependent variables
suggested similar ethnic group effects for each variable, we
combined the three measures of cooperation into a single
dependent variable. Table 1 shows a separate analysis within each
ethnic group for that combined dependent variable. The results
shown in Table 1 suggest that legitimacy is the key to cooperation
among all ethnic groups. Within each group, legitimacy was the
primary factor shaping cooperation with the police.
The second question is whether procedural justice is an
antecedent of legitimacy. Again, separate regression analyses within
each ethnic group, shown in Table 2, suggested that procedural
justice is always a key antecedent of legitimacy. This is true
regardless of each respondent’s ethnic group background. In
addition, whites and African Americans were significantly influ-
enced by their distributive justice judgments, while Hispanics were
not. Again, the three ethnic groups were generally similar in the
basis upon which they determined how legitimate they viewed
police authorities as being.
Finally, we can separate procedural justice into three
components: overall evaluations of procedural fairness, evaluat-
ions of the quality of decisionmaking, and evaluations of the
quality of interpersonal treatment. We can then look at the
influence of judgments about decisionmaking and interpersonal
treatment on overall procedural justice judgments. Table 3
shows this analysis. In addition, Table 4 shows a similar analysis
for legitimacy.

Table 1. Cooperation With the Police (compliance, cooperation, empower-

ment): Study Two
Beta Weights All Respondents Whites African Americans Hispanics
nnn nnn nnn
Legitimacy .40 .41 .45 .48nnn
Performance .01 .02 .01 .03
Crime Problem .01 .02 .06 .02
Risk .17nnn .09n .19nnn .23nnn
Distributive Fairness .06n .09n .06 .06
Sex .01 .01 .03 .00
Age .19nnn .17nnn .21nnn .14nn
Income .01 .04 .02 .03
Education .02 .08 .01 .04
Af. Am./White .11nnn F F F
Hisp./White .03 F F F
2
Adj. R 29% 26% 31% 28%
NOTE: The three aspects of cooperation were combined into a single dependent variable after
separate analysis suggested that this overall combined analysis did not obscure distinct ethnic group
effects within the three dependent variables.
n
po.05; nnpo.01; nnnpo.001.
 Sunshine & Tyler 533

Table 2. The Antecedents of Legitimacy: Study Two

Beta Weights All Respondents Whites African Americans Hispanics

Procedural Justice .35nnn .30nnn .37nnn .46nnn

Distributive Fairness .20nnn .26nnn .23nnn .10
Performance .03 .05 .03 .00
Crime Problem .06n .09n .09n .02
Risk .01 .04 .05 .05
Sex .06 .05 .05 .12n
Age .09nn .08n .12n .11n
Income .06n .09n .01 .06
Education .03 .03 .05 .01
Af. Am./White .16nnn F F F
Hisp./White .09nn F F F
2
Adj. R 34% 30% 28% 24%
n nn nnn
po.05; po.01; po.001.

Table 3. The Antecedents of Procedural Justice: Study Two

Beta Weights All Respondents Whites African Americans Hispanics

Quality of Decisionmaking .20nnn .20nnn .29nnn .16nnn

Quality of Treatment .36nnn .37nnn .23nnn .43nnn
Distributive Fairness .05n .05 .06 .02
Performance .15nnn .20nnn .03 .06
Crime Problem .10nnn .06 .10n .10n
Risk .04 .03 .04 .05
Sex .02 .04 .02 .03
Age .03 .03 .05 .06
Income .04 .04 .06 .08
Education .07n .11n .02 .07
Af. Am./White .04 F F F
Hisp./White .00 F F F
2
Adj. R 41% 46% 36% 34%
n nn nnn
po.05; po.01; po.001.

The results of this analysis of the meaning of procedural

fairness suggest that whites are especially sensitive to issues of
interpersonal treatment. Those issues dominated their pro-
cedural justice judgments and were the only factor influencing
their legitimacy judgments. In contrast, minority group members
were more balanced and considered both issuesFquality
of decisionmaking and quality of interpersonal treatmentF
more equally. However, like whites, Hispanics gave considerable
weight to interpersonal treatment when evaluating procedural
justice. In this respect, Hispanics seem intermediate, falling
between whites and African Americans. However, white and
African American assessments of legitimacy were influenced by
distributive justice, while Hispanic assessments were not. Overall,
these findings reinforce those already outlined in pointing to the
importance of process-based judgments in shaping reactions to the
police and to policing activities.
534 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

Table 4. The Antecedents of Legitimacy: Study Two

Beta Weights All Respondents Whites African Americans Hispanics

Quality of Decisionmaking .14nnn .06 .19nn .24nnn

Quality of Treatment .24nnn .28nnn .23nn .27nnn
Distributive Fairness .21nnn .26nnn .22nnn .09
Performance .04 .05 .02 .01
Crime Problem .06n .08n .08 .04
Risk .01 .05 .05 .05
Sex .06n .05 .05 .12n
Age .09nn .07n .11n .10
Income .07nn .08n .02 .07
Education .04 .04 .05 .02
Af. Am./White .11nnn F F F
Hisp./White .04 F F F
2
Adj. R 33% 31% 29% 25%
n nn nnn
po.05; po.01; po.001.

Discussion

The results of this analysis provide support for the underlying

assumptions about psychology upon which procedural justice-
based policing rests. The first assumption is that public evaluations
of police legitimacy impact people’s compliance with law, their
willingness to cooperate with and assist the police, and whether the
public will empower the police. In both studies, no other
independent variable measured had such a sweeping influence
on police/community relations. This broad impact of legitimacy
explains why, in the final models, it was by far the dominant
predictor of orientation toward the police. The other independent
variables only influenced particular aspects of community resi-
dents’ orientation toward police, while legitimacy was important
for each component.
These findings support the argument that legitimacy is a social
value that is distinct from performance evaluations. They show that
such values have an important and distinct influence on people’s
support for the police, suggesting that there is a strong normative
basis of public support for the police that is distinct from police
performance. More generally, it is clear that ethical judgments
about obligation and responsibility are an important element of
public support for the police.
People are not primarily instrumental in their reactions to the
policeFin other words, judging the police in instrumental terms.
Instead, their reactions to the police are linked to their basic social
values. This finding supports the arguments of Weber (1968) about
the normative basis of public reactions to authority. It extends prior
research findings (Tyler 1990) by showing that cooperation and
empowerment, in addition to compliance, are influenced by
 Sunshine & Tyler 535

legitimacy. These findings oppose the notion that if they are

effectively fighting crime the police will inevitably alienate the
public. By focusing on the psychology underlying views about their
legitimacy among members of the public, the police can enhance
their image in the eyes of the public, be objectively more effective
in enforcing the law, and gain greater discretion in performing
their regulatory duties. This suggests the value of focusing on an
understanding of the determinants of legitimacy.
Further, these findings reinforce the argument that over time,
the police can best regulate public behavior by focusing on
engaging the social values, such as legitimacy, that lead to self-
regulation on the part of most of the public, most of the time. If the
public generally view the police as legitimate, much of their
everyday behavior will conform to the law, freeing the police up to
deal with problematic people and situations. Further, the efforts of
the police to manage such problematic people and situations will be
aided by cooperation from the public. Finally, when the police need
discretionary authority, their use of such authority will be
supported by the public. Hence, a procedural justice-based
approach to regulation creates social order by engaging public
cooperation with law and legal authority. Such cooperation is
engaged when people in the communities being policed experi-
ence the police as exercising their authority fairly.
Of course, it is important to recognize that not all possible
instrumental judgments, or even all possible indexes of police
performance, are considered in these studies. An important task
for future research is to develop and examine a broader range of
instrumental issues that might potentially be important to people in
their evaluations of the police. Further, we might consider a
broader set of philosophical issues, such as people’s conceptions of
social contracts, their views of democratic theory, and/or their
responsibility to the state and state authorities when thinking of
alternatives to procedural justice as an antecedent of legitimacy.
Legitimacy may also derive from philosophical or political
perspectives and is not simply a reflection of police behavior. All
of these issues point to directions for future research.
The key assumption upon which procedural justice-based
policing is based is that evaluations of legitimacy are primarily
based on procedural fairness. That assumption is supported by the
findings of these surveys, which identify procedural justice as the
primary antecedent of legitimacy among the samples of New
Yorkers interviewed. In fact, the strength of the dominance of
procedural justice judgments is striking and is clearly the primary
factor shaping legitimacy.
This finding is very important from the perspective of policing,
since the police have more control over how they treat people than
536 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

they do over the crime rate. The incidence of crime will fluctuate
due to factors beyond police control. Procedural fairness, or
treating people with respect and in an unbiased fashion, does not
depend on crime rate fluctuations. Rather, it depends on the
behavior of the police themselves. Thus, by becoming procedurally
sensitive, the police develop a way they are viewed by the public
that is to some degree insulated from societal forces, such as
demographics or economic conditions, which shape crime rates but
are beyond police control. Tyler and Huo (2002) refer to
governance based on procedural justice as process-based regula-
tion and argue that it offers many advantages to the police.
The message that authorities need to acknowledge the basic
dignity and rights of citizens, to account for decisions that affect
them, and to make their decisions in a neutral and objective way is
consistent with the work of Sherman on defiance theory (1993) and
with the reintegrative shaming model of Braithwaite (1989).
Defiance theory argues that without such an acknowledgment of
their dignity and rights, people are likely to feel angry and be
resistant to the police, while models of reintegrative shaming
emphasize the potential for increasing future deference to
authority by the respectful treatment of offenders. Here too, the
message is that people are more accepting of and cooperative with
authorities when they are treated with fairness and respect.

Terrorism and Policing

The two studies reported differ in many ways, including their
method of sampling and some of the questions asked. Study Two
was improved based upon the problems encountered in Study
One. As a result, we need to use caution in comparing the findings
of these two studies. However, they do represent a naturally
occurring quasi-experiment, in that the first survey was conducted
before the World Trade Center attack and the second survey was
conducted after that attack. Comparison of the two results,
therefore, allows us to address the question of whether procedural
concerns are less important when concerns about national security
are higher.
A comparison of Figures 1 and 2 suggests that legitimacy plays
a similarly important role in judgments about the police and police
empowerment both before and following the World Trade Center
attack. In both cases, empowerment flows primarily from legiti-
macy. However, instrumental issues do matter in the second study,
where performance directly shaped empowerment. This may be
because people feel more threatened, or because performance was
better measured in the second study. In the first study, perfor-
mance mattered because it shaped legitimacy, but performance did
 Sunshine & Tyler 537

not directly shape empowerment. Further, in both studies

procedural justice was the key antecedent of legitimacy.
While these findings suggest that the atmosphere of terror and
threat following the World Trade Center attack does not strongly
alter people’s reactions to policing activities, it is important to
emphasize that this study is focused on neighborhood policing
activities. We might find greater shifts if we focused directly on
national-level issues of civil liberties.

Ethnic Group Differences

Tyler and Huo (2002) argue that while the members of
different ethnic groups differ in their views about the legitimacy
of the law, the courts, and the police, the psychological basis of
legitimacy is similar within each group. The findings of Study Two
provide strong support for this argument. Regardless of ethnicity,
people cooperate with the police when they view the police as
legitimate. Further, legitimacy is linked to fairness in the exercise of
authority. This is not to say that the views of the various ethnic
groups are identical. They are not. But the similarities are striking,
and the differences are small.
This finding, based upon general evaluations of the police, is
consistent with Tyler and Huo’s finding in their study of personal
experiences with the police and courts (Tyler & Huo 2002). That
study found that the members of different ethnic groups evaluated
their personal experiences with the police and the courts using a
common psychological model that emphasized fairness of treat-
ment. Hence, on both the personal and the general levels, the
evidence suggests that a general psychological model explains the
reactions of the members of the three major ethnic groups
consideredFwhites, African Americans, and Hispanics. That
model is the procedural justice-based model of policing.

References

Axelrod, Robert (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic.

Beetham, David (1991) The Legitimation of Power. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanites
Press International, Inc.
Blumstein, Albert, & Joel Wallman, eds. (2000) The Crime Drop in America. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press.
Braithwaite, John (1989) Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press.
Brodeur, Jean-Paul (1998) How to Recognize Good Policing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Casper, Jonathan D., Tom R. Tyler, & Bonnie Fisher (1988) ‘‘Procedural Justice in
Felony Cases,’’ 22 Law & Society Rev. 483–507.
Citrin, Jack, & Christopher Muste (1999) ‘‘Trust in Government,’’ in J. P. Robinson, P. R.
Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman, eds., Measures of Political Attitudes. New York: Academic
Press.
538 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

Cole, David (1999) No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System.
New York: W. W. Norton.
Deutsch, Morton (1990) ‘‘Psychological Roots of Moral Exclusion,’’ 46 J. of Social Issues
21–6.
Friedman, Robert R. (1992) Community Policing: Comparative Perspectives and Prospects.
New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Gest, Ted (2000) Crime and Politics: Big Government’s Erratic Campaign for Law and Order.
Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Harcourt, Bernard E. (2001) The Illusion of Order: The False Promise of Broken Windows
Policing. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Huang, Wilson S., & Michael S. Vaughn (1996) ‘‘Support and Confidence: Public Attitudes
Toward the Police,’’ in T. Flanagan & D. Longmire, eds., Americans View Crime and
Justice: A National Public Opinion Survey. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Joreskog, Karl G., & Dag Sorbom (1986) LISREL: Analysis of Linear Structural
Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood. Uppsala, Sweden: University of
Uppsala, Department of Statistics.
Kelling, George L., & Catherine M. Coles (1996) Fixing Broken Windows. New York:
Touchstone.
Kelling, George L., & Mark K. Moore (1988) ‘‘The Evolving Strategy of Policing. Perspectives
on Policing,’’ No. 4, 1–15. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Kelman, Herbert C., & V. Lee Hamilton (1989) Crimes of Obedience. New Haven: Yale
Univ. Press.
Lawler, Edward J., Rebecca Ford, & Mary Blegen (1988) ‘‘Coercive Capability in Conflict:
A Test of Bilateral Versus Conflict Spiral Theory,’’ 51 Social Psychology Q. 93–107.
McArdle, Andrea, & Tanya T. Erzen (2001) Zero Tolerance: Quality of Life and the New Police
Brutality in New York City. New York: New York Univ. Press.
Moore, Mark H. (1992) ‘‘Problem-Solving and Community Policing,’’ in M. Tonry & N.
Morris, eds., Modern Policing: Crime and Justice, A Review of Research, Vol. 15.
Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Nagata, Donna K. (1993) Legacy of Injustice. New York: Plenum.
New York City Police Department (2001) ‘‘New York City Police Department Citywide
Stop and Frisk Data, 1998, 1999, and 2000.’’ http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/pdf/
pap/stopandfrisk_0501.pdf.
Pruitt, Dean (1981) Negotiation Behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Pruitt, Dean, & Jeff Z. Rubin (1986) Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pruitt, Dean, Robert S. Peirce, Neil B. McGillicuddy, Gary L. Welton, & Lynn M. Castrianno
(1993) ‘‘Long-Term Success in Mediation,’’ 17 Law and Human Behavior 313–30.
Reiss, Albert J. Jr. (1992) ‘‘Police Organization in the Twentieth Century,’’ in M. Tonry &
N. Morris, eds., Modern Policing: Crime and Justice, A Review of Research, Vol. 15.
Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbush, & Felton Earls (1997) ‘‘Neighborhoods
and Violent Crime,’’ 277 Science 918–24.
Sarat, Austin (1977) ‘‘Studying American Legal Culture,’’ 11 Law & Society Rev. 427–88.
Sherman, Lawrence W. (1993) ‘‘Defiance, Deterrence, and Irrelevance: A Theory of the
Criminal Sanction,’’ 30 J. of Research in Crime and Delinquency 445–73.
Silverman, Eli B. (1999) NYPD Battles Crime: Innovative Strategies in Policing. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern Univ. Press.
Skogan, Wesley G. (1990) Disorder and Decline. New York: Free Press.
Skogan, Wesley G., & Susan M. Hartnett (1997) Community Policing, Chicago Style. New
York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Skogan, Wesley G., Susan M. Hartnett, Jill DuBois, Jennifer T. Comey, Marianne Kaiser,
& Justine H. Lovig (1999) On the Beat: Police and Community Problem Solving.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
 Sunshine & Tyler 539

Skolnick, Jerome, & James Fyfe (1993) Above the Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force.
New York: Free Press.
Sparks, J. Richard, Anthony Bottoms, & Will Hay (1996) Prisons and the Problem of Order.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Sullivan, John L., James E. Piereson, & Gregory E. Marcus (1982) Political Tolerance and
American Democracy. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Sullivan, Peggy S., Roger G. Dunham, & Geoffrey P. Alpert (1987) ‘‘Attitude Structures
of Different Ethnic and Age Groups Concerning Police,’’ 78 J. of Criminal Law and
Criminology 177–96.
Tyler, Tom R. (1990) Why People Obey the Law. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
FFF (2001a) ‘‘Trust and Law Abidingness: A Proactive Model of Social Regulation,’’
81 Boston University Law Rev. 361–406.
FFF (2001b) ‘‘Public Trust and Confidence in Legal Authorities: What Do Majority
and Minority Group Members Want from the Law and Legal Institutions?,’’ 19
Behavioral Sciences and the Law 215–35.
Tyler, Tom R., & Steven L. Blader (2000) Cooperation in Groups. Philadelphia: Psychology
Press.
Tyler, Tom R., & Yuen J. Huo (2002) Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation With
the Police and Courts. New York: Russell-Sage.
Tyler, Tom R., & E. Allan Lind (1992) ‘‘A Relational Model of Authority in groups,’’ 25
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 115–91.
Tyler, Tom R., Robert J. Boeckmann, Heather J. Smith, & Yuen J. Huo (1997) Social
Justice in a Diverse Society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Weber, Max (1968) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, G. Roth & C.
Wittich, eds. New York: Bedminster Press.
Wilson, James Q., & Joan Petersilia (2002) Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control.
Oakland, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies.
Worden, Robert E. (1995) ‘‘The ‘Causes’ of Police Brutality: Theory and Evidence on
Police Use of Force,’’ in W. A. Geller, & H. Toch, eds., And Justice for All:
Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force. Washington, DC: Police Executive
Research Forum.

Appendix A: Measures, Study One

Legitimacy
Legitimacy is operationalized as the perceived obligation
to obey the directives of a legal authority, trust in the institution
of policing and in individual police officers in one’s neighbor-
hood, and affective feelings toward the police. We asked
respondents to indicate the extent of their agreement to nineteen
items on six-point Likert scales ranging from ‘‘agree strongly’’ to
‘‘disagree strongly.’’ The overall scale had a mean of 3.9 (3.5 was
neutral, with low scores indicating high legitimacy, s.d. 5 0.97,
alpha 5 0.94).
For obligation, we asked respondents to agree/disagree that: (1)
‘‘You should accept the decisions made by police, even if you think
they are wrong,’’ (2) ‘‘Communities work best when people follow
the directives of the police,’’ (3) ‘‘Disobeying the police is seldom
justified,’’ and (4) ‘‘It would be difficult for you to break the law
and keep your self-respect.’’
540 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

For trust in the institution of policing, we asked people to

agree/disagree that (5) ‘‘The police can be trusted to make
decisions that are right for the people in your neighborhood,’’
(6) ‘‘People’s basic rights are well protected by the police in your
neighborhood,’’ (7) ‘‘The police in your neighborhood are
generally honest,’’ (8) ‘‘New York City has one of the best police
forces in the United States,’’ (9) ‘‘I am proud of the work of the
NYPD,’’ (10) ‘‘I am happy to defend the work of the NYPD when
talking to my friends,’’ (11) ‘‘I agree with many of the values that
define what the NYPD stands for,’’ (12) ‘‘I cannot think of another
police force that I respect more than the NYPD,’’ and (13) ‘‘The
work of the NYPD encourages me to feel good about our city.’’
Finally, to measure the emotional component of legitimacy, we
asked respondents to rate the extent of their feelings about the
NYPD on six six-point scales. The feelings included (14) respect,
(15) trust, (16) appreciation, (17) fear, (18) contempt, and (19) anger.

Instrumental Judgments
Risk
We defined risk as the perceived likelihood of being caught and
punished for breaking the law. We created an index using three
questions based on a six-point Likert scale. We presented
respondents with six common types of law-breaking behavior
(noted under ‘‘compliance’’) and asked them how likely it was that
[they] would be caught and punished if they broke these laws, how
much the police would care, and how severely [they] would be
punished. We combined these items into a scale of risk
(alpha 5 0.78, mean 5 3.5, s.d. 5 1.3).

Performance in Fighting Crime

We measured performance evaluations by nine questions on a
six-point Likert scale. Items included questions asking (1–5) ‘‘How
effective have the police been at controlling violent crime, gang
violence, drugs, gun violence, and burglary?’’ Other items included
(6) ‘‘How quickly do the police respond when they are called for
help?,’’ (7) ‘‘How quickly do the police respond when people in
your neighborhood call the police for help?,’’ (8) ‘‘Are the police
effective at providing help?,’’ and (9) ‘‘Do the police try to be of
assistance?’’ We combined these items into a performance index
(alpha 5 0.91; mean 5 4.1, s.d. 5 0.99).

Distributive Fairness
We measured distributive fairness by five questions on the
same six-point scale used for procedural justice. Items included
 Sunshine & Tyler 541

(1) ‘‘How often do people receive the outcomes they deserve under
the law when they deal with the police?,’’ (2) ‘‘Are the outcomes
that people receive from the police better than they deserve, worse
than they deserve, or about what they deserve under the law?,’’ (3)
‘‘How often do the police give people in your neighborhood less
help than they give others due to their race?,’’ (4) ‘‘The police do
not provide the same quality of service to people living in all areas
of the city,’’ and (5) ‘‘Minority residents of the city receive a lower
quality of service from the NYPD than do whites.’’ We combined
these items into a scale of distributive fairness (alpha 5 0.76;
mean 5 3.4, s.d. 5 1.04).

Consequences of Legitimacy
Compliance
We assessed compliance by asking respondents to indicate on
six-point Likert scales how often they followed rules about seven
types of behavior: (1) where to park a car legally, (2) how to legally
dispose of trash and litter, (3) not making noise at night, (4) not
speeding or breaking traffic laws, (5) not buying possible stolen
items on the street, (6) not taking inexpensive items from stores or
restaurants without paying, and (7) not using drugs such as
marijuana. We initially combined these items into a compliance
index (alpha 5 0.88). Respondents indicated very high levels of
compliance (mean 5 5.3, s.d. 5 0.94), yielding a highly skewed
distribution (skew 5 2.2, s.e. 5 0.12). In order to remove this
skewness, we collapsed the compliance index into a three-point
scale by trichotomizing the original items (alpha 5 0.85 for the new
scale, mean 5 2.5, s.d. 5 0.56).

Cooperation
We assessed cooperation by ten questions, on six-point scales
similar to previous questions, which asked respondents how likely
they would be to (1) ‘‘Call the police to report a crime occurring
in your neighborhood,’’ (2) ‘‘Call the police to report an accident,’’
(3) ‘‘Help the police to find someone suspected of committing a
crime,’’ (4) ‘‘Call and give the police information to help the police
solve a crime,’’ (5) ‘‘Report dangerous or suspicious activities in
your neighborhood to the police,’’ (6) ‘‘Voluntarily work as a
police-community liaison worker at night or during weekends,’’
(7) ‘‘Spend some of your time helping new police officers by
showing them around your neighborhood,’’ (8) ‘‘Volunteer to
attend a community meeting to discuss crime in your neighbor-
hood,’’ (9) ‘‘Work with others in your neighborhood on neighbor-
hood watch activities designed to lower crime,’’ and (10) ‘‘Be
willing to serve on a neighborhood committee to discuss problems
542 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

in your neighborhood with the police.’’ We combined these items

into a single index (alpha 5 0.87, mean 5 4.38, s.d. 5 0.93).

Empowerment
We assessed empowerment by five questions on a six-point
Likert type scale. Questions asked the extent to which the subject
agreed or disagreed that (1) ‘‘The police should have the right to
stop and question people on the street,’’ (2) ‘‘The police should
have the power to decide which areas of the city should receive the
most police protection,’’ (3) ‘‘Because of their training and
experience, the police are best able to decide how to deal with
crime in your neighborhood,’’ (4) ‘‘The police should have the
power to do whatever they think is needed to fight crime,’’ and (5)
‘‘If we give enough power to the police, they will be able to
effectively control crime.’’ We combined these items into an overall
index (alpha 5 0.83, mean 5 3.26, s.d. 5 1.23).

Antecedents of Legitimacy
Procedural Fairness
We measured procedural fairness using questions reflecting
three aspects of procedural justice. We combined all the items to
create a summary index of procedural fairness (alpha 5 0.98;
mean 5 3.61; s.d. 5 1.18).
In the items, we asked respondents to indicate the frequency
with which the police engaged in behavior consistent with
procedural justice in their neighborhood. Measured on a six-point
Likert-type scale, a range was given from ‘‘almost always’’ to
‘‘almost never.’’
The items included two overall assessments of procedural
justice: (1) ‘‘Make decisions about how to handle problems in fair
ways’’ and (2) ‘‘Treat people fairly.’’ The alpha for this subscale was
0.92.
Respondents also evaluated the fairness of police decisionmak-
ing. The items asked if the police (3) ‘‘Treat everyone in your
neighborhood with dignity and respect,’’ (4) ‘‘Treat everyone in
your community equally,’’ (5) ‘‘Accurately understand and apply
the law,’’ and (6) ‘‘Make their decisions based upon facts, not their
personal biases or opinions.’’ In addition, the index had four items
asking about how fairly the police make decisions. These items
included how fairly the police decide (7) ‘‘Who to stop and question
on the street,’’ (8) ‘‘Who to stop for traffic violations,’’ (9) ‘‘Who to
arrest and take to jail,’’ and (10) ‘‘How much they will help people
with problems.’’ The alpha for this subscale was 0.96.
They also evaluated the quality of treatment people received.
The items asked whether the police (11) ‘‘Clearly explain the
 Sunshine & Tyler 543

reasons for their actions,’’ (12) ‘‘Give honest explanations for their
actions,’’ (13) ‘‘Give people a chance to express their views before
making decisions,’’ (14) ‘‘Consider people’s opinions when decid-
ing what to do,’’ (15) ‘‘Take account of people’s needs and
concerns,’’ (16) ‘‘Treat people with dignity and respect,’’ (17)
‘‘Respect people’s rights,’’ (18) ‘‘Sincerely try to help people with
their problems,’’ (19) ‘‘Try to find the best solutions for people’s
problems,’’ and (20) ‘‘The NYPD treats citizens with courtesy and
respect.’’ The alpha for this subscale was 0.93.

Appendix B: Measures, Study Two

Legitimacy
Legitimacy is operationalized as the perceived obligation to
obey the directives of a legal authority and trust in the institution of
policing and in individual police officers in one’s neighborhood.
We asked respondents to indicate the extent of their agreement to
19 items on Likert scales. In the overall scale, low scores indicated
high legitimacy (alpha 5 0.84, mean 5 2.36, s.d. 5 0.53).
For obligation, we asked respondents to agree/disagree that (1)
‘‘You should accept the decisions made by police, even if you think
they are wrong,’’ (2) ‘‘You should do what the police tell you to do
even when you do not understand the reasons for their decisions,’’
(3) ‘‘You should do what the police tell you to do, even when you
disagree with their decisions,’’ (4) ‘‘You should do what the police
tell you to do even when you do not like the way they treat you,’’ (5)
‘‘There are times when it is ok for you to ignore what the police tell
you (reversed),’’ (6) ‘‘Sometimes you have to bend the law for
things to come out right (reversed),’’ (7) ‘‘The law represents the
values of the people in power, rather than the values of people like
you (reversed),’’ (8) ‘‘People in power use the law to try to control
people like you (reversed),’’ and (9) ‘‘The law does not protect your
interests (reversed).’’
For trust in the institution of policing, we asked people to
agree/disagree that (10) ‘‘Overall, the NYPD is a legitimate
authority and people should obey the decisions that NYPD officers
make,’’ (11) ‘‘I have confidence that the NYPD can do its job well,’’
(12) ‘‘I trust the leaders of the NYPD to make decisions that are
good for everyone in the city,’’ (13) ‘‘People’s basic rights are well
protected by the police,’’ (14) ‘‘The police care about the well-being
of everyone they deal with,’’ (15) ‘‘I am proud of the work of
the NYPD,’’ (16) ‘‘I agree with many of the values that define what
the NYPD stands for,’’ (17) ‘‘The police are often dishonest
(reversed),’’ (18) ‘‘Some of the things the police do embarrass our
city (reversed),’’ and (19) ‘‘There are many things about the NYPD
and its policies that need to be changed (reversed).’’
544 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

Instrumental Judgments
Risk
We defined risk as the perceived likelihood of being caught and
punished for breaking the law. We presented respondents with
seven common types of law-breaking behavior (noted under
‘‘compliance’’) and asked how likely it was that [they] would be
caught and punished if [they] broke these laws. The seven
behaviors were ‘‘parking your car illegally,’’ ‘‘disposing of trash
illegally,’’ ‘‘making too much noise at night,’’ ‘‘breaking traffic laws
or speeding,’’ ‘‘buying stolen items on the street,’’ ‘‘taking
inexpensive items from stores without paying,’’ and ‘‘using drugs
such as marijuana in public places.’’ We combined these items into
a scale of risk (low scores meant high perceived risk; alpha 5 0.87,
mean 5 2.36, s.d. 5 0.95).

Performance in Fighting Crime

We measured performance evaluations in three ways: by asking
how effective the police were, by reports about neighborhood
conditions, and by reports of fear of victimization.
To assess police effectiveness, we asked respondents: (1) ‘‘How
effective are the police in fighting crime in your neighborhood?,’’
(2) ‘‘When people call the police for help, how quickly do they
respond?,’’ and (3) ‘‘How effective are the police at helping people
who ask for help?’’ We combined these items into an overall scale,
with low scores indicating high effectiveness (alpha 5 0.63;
mean 5 2.01; s.d. 5 0.93).
We assessed neighborhood conditions by asking respondents
eight questions, including (1) ‘‘How often do you see garbage in
the streets,’’ (2) ‘‘How often do you see empty beer bottles on
the streets,’’ (3) ‘‘How often do you see graffiti on the walls,’’ (4)
‘‘How often do you see gangs hanging out on the streets,’’ (5)
‘‘How often do you see people buying beer, wine, or liquor on the
street,’’ (6) ‘‘How often do you see people buying or selling drugs
on the street,’’ (7) ‘‘How high is the crime rate in your
neighborhood?,’’ and (8) ‘‘In the past year, has the crime rate
been increasing?’’ We formed an overall scale, with low scores
indicating poor neighborhood conditions (alpha 5 0.81;
mean 5 2.89, s.d. 5 0.70).
We assessed fear of victimization using a four-item scale. Items
included: (1) ‘‘How much do you worry about your home being
burglarized?,’’ (2) ‘‘How much do you worry about being robbed,
assaulted, or mugged on the street?,’’ (3) ‘‘How safe is your
neighborhood during the day?,’’ and (4) ‘‘How safe is your
neighborhood in the evening?’’ We created a single indicator of
fear (alpha 5 0.75; mean 5 3.13, s.d. 5 0.72).
 Sunshine & Tyler 545

Distributive Fairness
We measured distributive fairness by eleven questions. We first
asked respondents whether eight groups received the quality of
service they deserved from the police: people like the respondent,
people in their neighborhood, minorities in their neighborhood,
whites, African Americans, Hispanics, poor people, and wealthy
people. Respondents could indicate that each group received
what they deserved, too much, or too little. Responses for
each group were coded as either fair or unfair (too much or too
little). Respondents were also asked whether (1) ‘‘The police
treat everyone equally regardless of their race,’’ (2) ‘‘The police
provide better services to the wealthy (reversed),’’ and (3)
‘‘They sometimes give minorities less help due to their race
(reversed).’’ We combined these items to form a single scale, with
low scores indicating unfairness (alpha 5 0.67; mean 5 2.37;
s.d. 5 0.66).

Consequences of Legitimacy
Compliance
We assessed compliance by asking respondents to indicate on
six-point Likert scales how often they followed rules about seven
types of behavior: (1) where you can legally park your car, (2) how
to dispose of trash and litter, (3) against making too much noise at
night, (4) against speeding or breaking other traffic laws, (5)
against buying possibly stolen items on the street, (6) against taking
inexpensive items from stores without paying, and (7) against using
drugs such as marijuana in public places. These items formed a
compliance scale (alpha 5 0.80). Respondents indicated very high
levels of compliance, yielding a highly skewed distribution
(skew 5 2.07, s.e. 5 0.07). In order to remove this skewness, we
performed a square root transformation, leading to a less skewed
scale (skew 5 1.55, s.e. 5 0.07, with an alpha of 0.80, mean 5 1.21,
s.d. 5 0.25).

Cooperation
We assessed cooperation by three questions, on scales that
asked respondents how likely they would be to (1) ‘‘Call the police
to report a crime occurring in your neighborhood,’’ (2) ‘‘Help the
police to find someone suspected of committing a crime by
providing them with information,’’ and (3) ‘‘Report dangerous
or suspicious activities in your neighborhood to the police.’’
We combined these items into a single index, with low scores
indicating being helpful to the police (alpha 5 0.68, mean 5 1.43,
s.d. 5 0.60).
546 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy

Empowerment
We assessed empowerment by six questions on a six-point
Likert-type scale. Questions asked the extent to which the subject
agreed or disagreed that (1) ‘‘The police should have the right to
stop and question people on the street,’’ (2) ‘‘The police should
have the power to decide how much police protection each area of
the city receives,’’ (3) ‘‘The police should have the power to decide
which laws are the most important for them to enforce,’’ (4) ‘‘The
police should be able to search people’s homes without having to
get permission from a judge if they think stolen property or drugs
are inside,’’ (5) ‘‘Community residents need to be equal partners
with the police in making decisions about how to fight crime
(reversed),’’ and (6) ‘‘There need to be clear limits on what the
police are allowed to do in fighting crime (reversed).’’ We combined
these items into an overall index in which low scores indicated
empowering the police (alpha 5 0.56, mean 5 3.10, s.d. 5 0.57).

Antecedents of Legitimacy
Procedural Fairness
We measured procedural fairness using questions reflecting
three aspects of procedural justice. We combined all the items to
create a summary index of procedural fairness (alpha 5 0.98;
mean 5 3.61; s.d. 5 1.18).
In the items, we asked respondents to indicate the frequency
with which the police engaged in behavior consistent with
procedural justice in their neighborhood. Three subscales were
used: overall fairness, fairness of decisionmaking, and fairness of
treatment. The total scale had 11 items, and low scores indicated
fairness (alpha 5 0.91, mean 5 2.17, s.d. 5 0.92).
The items for overall assessments of procedural justice were (1)
‘‘Do the police make decisions about how to handle problems in
fair ways?’’ and (2) ‘‘Do the police treat people fairly?’’ Low scores
indicated fairness, and the alpha for this subscale was 0.73
(mean 5 1.98, s.d. 5 1.24).
Respondents also evaluated the fairness of police decisionmak-
ing. The items asked if the police (3) ‘‘Usually accurately under-
stand and apply the law,’’ (4) ‘‘Make their decisions based upon
facts, not their personal biases or opinions,’’ (5) ‘‘Try to get the facts
in a situation before deciding how to act,’’ (6) ‘‘Give honest
explanations for their actions to the people they deal with,’’ and (7)
‘‘Apply the rules consistently to different people.’’ The alpha for
this subscale was 0.84 (mean 5 2.27, s.d. 5 1.02).
They also evaluated the quality of treatment people received.
The items asked whether the police (8) ‘‘Consider the views of the
people involved when deciding what to do,’’ (9) ‘‘Take account of
 Sunshine & Tyler 547

the needs and concerns of the people they deal with,’’ (10) ‘‘Treat
people with dignity and respect,’’ and (11) ‘‘Respect people’s
rights.’’ The alpha for this subscale was 0.82 (mean 5 2.14,
s.d. 5 0.97).
548 The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy