Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 661–671 | Cite as

Turning the corner on procedural justice theory: exploring reverse causality with an experimental vignette in a longitudinal survey

  • Rick TrinknerEmail author
  • Ryan D. Mays
  • Ellen S. Cohn
  • Karen T. Van Gundy
  • Cesar J. Rebellon



Traditional police procedural justice theory argues that citizen perceptions of fair treatment by police officers increase police legitimacy, which leads to an increased likelihood of legal compliance. Recently, Nagin and Telep (2017) criticized these causal assumptions, arguing that prior literature has not definitively ruled out reverse causality—that is, legitimacy influences perceptions of fairness and/or compliance influences perceptions of both fairness and legitimacy. The goal of the present paper was to explore this critique using experimental and correlational methodologies within a longitudinal framework.


Adolescents completed a vignette-based experiment that manipulated two aspects of officer behavior linked to perceptions of fairness: voice and impartiality. After reading the vignette, participants rated the fairness and legitimacy of the officer within the situation. At three time points prior to the experiment (1, 17, and 31 months), participants completed surveys measuring their global perceptions of police legitimacy and self-reported delinquency. Data were analyzed to assess the extent to which global legitimacy and delinquency predicted responses to the vignette net of experimental manipulations and controls.


Both experimental manipulations led to higher perceptions of situational procedural justice and officer legitimacy. Prior perceptions of police legitimacy did not predict judgments of situational procedural justice; however, in some cases, prior engagement in delinquency was negatively related to situational procedural justice. Prior perceptions of legitimacy were positively associated with situational perceptions of legitimacy regardless of experimental manipulations.


This study showed mixed support for the case of reverse causality among police procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance.


Police Procedural justice Legitimacy Juvenile justice Delinquency Reverse causality 



We would like to thank Tom Tyler and Cody Telep for invaluable feedback they provided on an earlier version of this paper.

Funding information

This study was funded by grants from the National Science Foundation (SES-0550145, SES-1026803, SES-1122888).

Supplementary material

11292_2019_9358_MOESM1_ESM.docx (72 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 71 kb)


  1. Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice: defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(6), 747–758. Scholar
  2. Cohn, E. S., Bucolo, D. O., Rebellon, C. J., & Van Gundy, K. (2010). An integrated model of legal and moral reasoning and rule-violating behavior: the role of legal attitudes. Law and Human Behavior, 34(4), 295–309. Scholar
  3. Gilbert, D., Wakeling, S., & Crandall, V. (2016). Strengthening community–police relationships: training as a tool for change. Oakland: California Partnership for Safe Communities Retrieved from Scholar
  4. Nagin, D. S., & Telep, C. W. (2017). Procedural justice and legal compliance. Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences, 13, 5–28. Scholar
  5. President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final report of the President’s task force on 21 stcentury policing. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
  6. Reisig, M. D., Mays, R. D., & Telep, C. W. (2018). The effects of procedural injustice during police–citizen encounters: a factorial vignette study. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(1), 49–58. Scholar
  7. Rosenbaum, D. P., Schuck, A. M., Costello, S. K., Hawkins, D. F., & Ring, M. K. (2005). Attitudes toward the police: the effects of direct and vicarious experience. Police Quarterly, 8(3), 343–365. Scholar
  8. Rossi, P. H., & Nock, S. L. (1982). Measuring social judgments: the factorial survey approach. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Stöber, J. (2001). The social desirability scale-17 (SDS-17): convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 222–232. Scholar
  10. Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37(3), 513–548. Scholar
  11. Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2000). The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. In D. Duffee et al. (Eds.), Criminal justice 2000 (Vol. 4, pp. 33–83). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  12. Trinkner, R., & Cohn, E. S. (2014). Putting the “social” back in legal socialization: procedural justice, legitimacy, and cynicism in legal and nonlegal authorities. Law and Human Behavior, 38(6), 602–617. Scholar
  13. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law (2nd ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Tyler, T. R. (2017). Procedural justice and policing: a rush to judgment? Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences, 13, 29–53. Scholar
  15. Tyler, T. R., & Jackson, J. (2014). Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(1), 78–95. Scholar
  16. Tyler, T. R., & Trinkner, R. (2018). Why children follow rules: legal socialization and the development of legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Tyler, T. R., Goff, P. A., & MacCoun, R. J. (2015). The impact of psychological science on policing in the United States procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective law enforcement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(3), 75–109. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminology and Criminal JusticeArizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Department of SociologyUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations