Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T07:24:21.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - The Potential Contribution of Subjective Causality to Policing Research

The Case of the Relationship between Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy

from Part III - Innovations in Tools of Evaluation and Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2023

By
Gali Perry ,
Tal Jonathan-Zamir  and
James J. Willis
Edited by
David Weisburd ,
Tal Jonathan-Zamir ,
Gali Perry  and
Badi Hasisi
David Weisburd
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem and George Mason University, Virginia
Tal Jonathan-Zamir
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Gali Perry
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Badi Hasisi
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Get access

Summary

Questions of causality are central to evidence-based policing (EBP), and have been occupying policing scholars in numerous areas. Experiments are considered the “gold standard” for determining causality, but they are not without limitations and are not always feasible. The present chapter explores the potential contribution of “subjective causality” to policing research. Subjective causality is a complementary, qualitative approach to establishing causality, in which relationships are examined and causality is determined through the subjective lens of the individual. Such an explicit approach to causality is uncommon in qualitative research in policing, and could assist in overcoming some of the challenges of the field. In this chapter we demonstrate how subjective causality can contribute to policing by focusing on an area where establishing causality is receiving particular attention: the presumed effect of police-provided procedural justice on police legitimacy. We use in-depth interviews with protestors who participated in “Occupy Israel” demonstrations in 2012 to explore how qualitative data can be used to identify the subjective, causal relationships that individuals make in their own minds between procedural jusice and legitimacy. We also discuss the applicability and potential contribution of this method to policing research more generally.

Keywords

Subjective CausalityQualitative researchPolice LegitimacyProcedural JusticeIn-depth interviewsgroup-level PJProtestMethodologyEvidence-based policing
Type
Chapter
Information
The Future of Evidence-Based Policing , pp. 170 - 190
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abell, P., & Engel, O. (2019). Subjective Causality and Counterfactuals in the Social Sciences: Toward an Ethnographic Causality?. Sociological Methods & Research, 0049124119852373.Google Scholar
Abend, G., Petre, C., & Sauder, M. (2013). Styles of causal thought: An empirical investigation. American Journal of Sociology, 119(3), 602–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angel, C. M., Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Ariel, B., Bennett, S., Inkpen, N., Keane, A. & Richmond, T. S. (2014). Short-term effects of restorative justice conferences on post-traumatic stress symptoms among robbery and burglary victims: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(3), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, B. (2018). “Not all evidence is created equal”: on the importance of matching research questions with research methods in evidence based policing. In Mitchell, R. J. & Huey, L. (Eds.), Evidence Based Policing: An Introduction (pp 63–86). Policy Press.Google Scholar
Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2015). The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(3), 509–535.Google Scholar
Bittner, E. (1967). The police on skid-row: A study of peace keeping. Ardent Media.Google Scholar
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). What constitutes fairness in work settings? A four-component model of procedural justice. Human Resource Management Review, 13(1), 107–126.Google Scholar
Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. The journal of criminal law and criminology, 119–170.Google Scholar
Bradford, B., Hobson, Z., Kyprianides, A., Yesberg, J., Jackson, J., & Posch, K. (2020). Policing the lockdown: compliance, enforcement and procedural justice. COVID-19 Special Papers. UCL. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/104227Google Scholar
Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2014). The effects of hot spots policing on crime: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 31(4), 633–663.Google Scholar
Brown, J., Belur, J., Tompson, L., McDowall, A., Hunter, G., & May, T. (2018). Extending the remit of evidence-based policing. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 20(1), 38–51.Google Scholar
Bunge, M. (2017). Causality and modern science. Routledge.Google Scholar
Gau, J. M. (2014). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A test of measurement and structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 187–205.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, C., Reese, L., & Gallimore, R. (1992). Effects of literacy materials from school on Latino children’s home experiences and early reading achievement. American Journal of Education, 100(4), 497–536.Google Scholar
Goldthorpe, J. H. (2001). Causation, statistics, and sociology. European Sociological Review, 17(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
Hamm, J. A., Trinkner, R., & Carr, J. D. (2017). Fair process, trust, and cooperation: Moving toward an integrated framework of police legitimacy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(9), 1183–1212.Google Scholar
Hedstrom, P. (2005). Dissecting the social: On the principles of analytical sociology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(1), 27–42.Google Scholar
Hinton, M. S. (2006). The state on the streets: police and politics in Argentina and Brazil. Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
Hough, M., Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2013). Legitimacy, trust and compliance: An empirical test of procedural justice theory using the European Social Survey. In Tankebe, J. & Liebling, A. (Eds.), Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: An International Exploration (pp.326–352). Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.Google Scholar
Jackson, J., Tyler, T. R., Bradford, B., Taylor, D., & Shiner, M. (2010). Legitimacy and procedural justice in prisons. Prison Service Journal, 191, 4–10.Google Scholar
Jonathan-Zamir, T., & Harpaz, A. (2014). Police understanding of the foundations of their legitimacy in the eyes of the public: The case of commanding officers in the Israel National Police. British Journal of Criminology, 54(3), 469–489.Google Scholar
Jonathan-Zamir, T., Mastrofski, S. D., & Moyal, S. (2015). Measuring procedural justice in police-citizen encounters. Justice Quarterly, 32(5), 845–871.Google Scholar
Jonathan-Zamir, T., Perry, G., & Weisburd, D. (2020) Illuminating the Concept of Community (Group)-Level Procedural Justice: A Qualitative Analysis of Protestors’ Group-Level Experiences with the Police. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(6), 791–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820983388Google Scholar
Kling, J. R., Liebman, J. B., & Katz, L. F. (2005). “Bullets don’t got no name”: Consequences of fear in the ghetto. In Weisner, T. (Ed.), Discovering successful pathways in children’s development (pp. 243–282). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1974). Causation. The Journal of Philosophy, 70(17), 556–567.Google Scholar
Maguire, E. R., Lowrey, B. V., & Johnson, D. (2017). Evaluating the relative impact of positive and negative encounters with police: A randomized experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(3), 367–391.Google Scholar
Mastrofski, S. D., Jonathan-Zamir, T., Moyal, S., & Willis, J. J. (2016). Predicting procedural justice in police–citizen encounters. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 119–139.Google Scholar
Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.Google Scholar
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). The importance of qualitative research for causal explanation in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(8), 655–661.Google Scholar
Maxwell, J. A. (2019). Evidence for what? How mixed methods expands the evidence for causation in educational research. Qualitative Inquiry.Google Scholar
Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Antrobus, E., & Eggins, E. (2012). Procedural justice, routine encounters and citizen perceptions of police: Main findings from the Queensland Community Engagement Trial (QCET). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(4), 343–367.Google Scholar
Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., & Manning, M. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(3), 245–274.Google Scholar
Mazerolle, L., Eggins, E., Hine, L., & Higginson, A. (this volume). The Role of Randomized Experiments in Developing the Evidence for Evidence-Based Policing. In Weisburd, D., Jonathan, T., Perry, G. & Hasisi, B., (Eds.), The Future of Evidence-Based Policing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Toward a shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 20–30.Google Scholar
Moore, M. H. (1992). Problem-solving and community policing. Crime and Justice, 15, 99–158.Google Scholar
Morse, J. M., Morse, R. M., & Tylko, S. J. (1989). Development of a scale to identify the fall-prone patient. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue Canadienne du Vieillissement, 8(4), 366–377.Google Scholar
Morse, J. M., & Tylko, S. J. (1985). The use of qualitative methods in a study examining patient falls. In annual meeting of the Society for Applied Anthropology, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Morse, J. M., Tylko, S. J., & Dixon, H. A. (1987). Characteristics of the fall-prone patient. The Gerontologist, 27(4), 516–522.Google Scholar
Muir, W. K. (1979). Police: streetcorner politicians. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2012). Understanding cooperation with police in a diverse society. The British Journal of Criminology, 52(1), 181–201.Google Scholar
Murphy, K., Mazerolle, L., & Bennett, S. (2014). Promoting trust in police: Findings from a randomised experimental field trial of procedural justice policing. Policing and Society, 24(4), 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K., Williamson, H., Sargeant, E., & McCarthy, M. (2020). Why people comply with COVID-19 social distancing restrictions: Self-interest or duty?. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 53(4), 477–496.Google Scholar
Nagin, D. S., & Telep, C. W. (2017). Procedural justice and legal compliance. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 5–28.Google Scholar
Nagin, D. S., & Telep, C. W. (2020). Procedural justice and legal compliance: A revisionist perspective. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(3), 761–786.Google Scholar
Neyroud, P. W. (2017). Learning to Field Test in Policing: Using an analysis of completed randomised controlled trials involving the police to develop a grounded theory on the factors contributing to high levels of treatment integrity in Police Field Experiments [Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge]. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.14377Google Scholar
Nix, J. (2017). Police perceptions of their external legitimacy in high and low crime areas of the community. Crime & Delinquency, 63(10), 1250–1278.Google Scholar
Nix, J., Wolfe, S. E., & Campbell, B. A. (2018). Command-level police officers’ perceptions of the “war on cops” and de-policing. Justice Quarterly, 35(1), 33–54.Google Scholar
Nix, J., Wolfe, S. E., Rojek, J., & Kaminski, R. J. (2015). Trust in the police: The influence of procedural justice and perceived collective efficacy. Crime & Delinquency, 61(4), 610–640.Google Scholar
O’Brien, T. C., Tyler, T. R., & Meares, T. L. (2020). Building popular legitimacy with reconciliatory gestures and participation: A community‐level model of authority. Regulation & Governance, 14(4), 821–839.Google Scholar
Oliveira, T. R., Jackson, J., Murphy, K., & Bradford, B. (2020). Are trustworthiness and legitimacy ‘hard to win, easy to lose’? A longitudinal test of the asymmetry thesis of police-citizen contact. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1–43.Google Scholar
Perry, G. (2020). Promoting Protesters’ Compliance: The Effect of General Perceptions of the Police versus Police Actions. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 15(2), 1245–1261.Google Scholar
Perry, G. & Jonathan-Zamir, T. (in progress). Is there a subjective, causal relationship between procedural justice and trust in the police?: A qualitative analysis of protesters’ experiences with police.Google Scholar
Perry, G., Jonathan‐Zamir, T., & Weisburd, D. (2017). The Effect of Paramilitary Protest Policing on Protestors’ Trust in the Police: The Case of the “Occupy Israel” Movement. Law & Society Review, 51(3), 602–634.Google Scholar
Pósch, K. (2020). Prying open the black box of causality: a causal mediation analysis test of procedural justice policing. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1–29.Google Scholar
Sahin, N., Braga, A. A., Apel, R., & Brunson, R. K. (2017). The impact of procedurally-just policing on citizen perceptions of police during traffic stops: The Adana randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 33(4), 701–726.Google Scholar
Sampson, R. J., Winship, C., & Knight, C. (2013). Translating causal claims: Principles and strategies for policy-relevant criminology. Criminology & Public Policy, 12, 587.Google Scholar
Sargeant, E., Antrobus, E., Murphy, K., Bennett, S., & Mazerolle, L. (2016). Social identity and procedural justice in police encounters with the public: Results from a randomised controlled trial. Policing and society, 26(7), 789–803.Google Scholar
Schulhofer, S. J., Tyler, T. R., & Huq, A. Z. (2011). American policing at a crossroads: Unsustainable policies and the procedural justice alternative. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 101, 335.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W. (1998). Evidence-based policing. Police Foundation. www.policefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Sherman-1998-Evidence-Based-Policing.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sherman, L. W. (2013). The rise of evidence-based policing: Targeting, testing, and tracking. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 377–451.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: A randomized, controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12(4), 625–648.Google Scholar
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548.Google Scholar
Regan-Smith, M. G. (1992). The teaching of basic science in medical school: The students’ perspective [Unpublished dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education].Google Scholar
Reisig, M. D., & Lloyd, C. (2009). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and helping the police fight crime: Results from a survey of Jamaican adolescents. Police Quarterly, 12(1), 42–62.Google Scholar
Roach, J., Weir, K., Phillips, P., Gaskell, K., & Walton, M. (2017). Nudging down theft from insecure vehicles. A pilot study. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 19(1), 31–38.Google Scholar
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Henry, G. T. (2019). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Tacq, J. (2011). Causality in qualitative and quantitative research. Quality & Quantity, 45(2), 263–291.Google Scholar
Tankebe, J. (2019). In their own eyes: an empirical examination of police self-legitimacy. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 43(2), 99–116.Google Scholar
Thacher, D. (2004). Police research and the humanities. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 179–191.Google Scholar
Thacher, D. (2019). The Aspiration of Scientific Policing. Law & Social Inquiry, 44(1), 273–297.Google Scholar
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Thibaut, J., Walker, L., LaTour, S., & Houlden, P. (1973). Procedural justice as fairness. Stanford Law Review, 26, 1271.Google Scholar
Trafimow, D. (2014). Considering quantitative and qualitative issues together. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(1), 15–24.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Justice, self-interest, and the legitimacy of legal and political authority. In Mansbridge, J. J. (Ed.), Beyond self-interest (p. 171–179). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 84–99.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (2009). Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: The Benefits of Self-Regulation. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 7(1), 307–360.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. (2017). Procedural justice and policing: A rush to judgment?. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 29–53.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Weiss, C. H. (1997). How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway?. Evaluation Review, 21(4), 501–524.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D. (2000). Randomized experiments in criminal justice policy: Prospects and problems. Crime & Delinquency, 46(2), 181–193.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., & Majmundar, M. (Eds). (2018). Proactive policing: Effects on crime and communities. The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., Majmundar, M.K., Aden, H., Braga, A., Bueermann, J., Cook, P.J., Goff, P.A., Harmon, R.A., Haviland, A., Lum, C., & Manski, C. (2019). Proactive policing: A summary of the report of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Asian Journal of Criminology, 14(2), 145–177.Google Scholar
Weisner, T. S. (Ed.) (2005). Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Willis, J. J., & Mastrofski, S. D. (2018). Improving policing by integrating craft and science: what can patrol officers teach us about good police work?. Policing and Society, 28(1), 27–44.Google Scholar
Willis, J., & Toronjo, H. (this volume). A Way Ahead: Re-Envisioning the Relationship Between Evidence-Based Policing and the Police Craft. In Weisburd, D., Jonathan, T., Perry, G. & Hasisi, B., (Eds.), The Future of Evidence-Based Policing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wolfe, S. E., Nix, J., Kaminski, R., & Rojek, J. (2016). Is the effect of procedural justice on police legitimacy invariant? Testing the generality of procedural justice and competing antecedents of legitimacy. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32(2), 253–282.Google Scholar
Worden, R. E., & McLean, S. J. (2014). Assessing police performance in citizen encounters: police legitimacy and management accountability. Report to the National Institute of Justice. Albany, NY: John F. Finn Institute for Public Safety.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×